• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
lomiller said:
True but even without atmospheric interference most of the Suns energy output is in or near the visible spectrum. A lot of near visible UV gets chopped out but there isn’t a major absorption band on the IR side until you hit one for water at ~900nm.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed, you can further refine this understanding with the fact that visible light is generally considered 400-700nm, and insolation is primarily short wave radiation: 350 to 3000 nm, and 50% of this energy is in the visible portion (400-700nm) of the spectrum. (I have some questions about r-j's reference to 50% of the insolation in the IR spectrum)

picture.php


Courtesy - http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/ideas/Insolation.html#solarspectrum
 
Last edited:
Mikemcc said:
The energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is entirely due to changes in the bonds (vibrational, torsional and tensional) - these produce signature responses that are mapped out with the data held in the HITRANS database. The changes in the bonds affect the molecules momentum and this can be transferredby intermolecular transmission. But CO2 molecules have an indentical chance of being hit by the faster O2 and N2 molecules, effectively the translational energy interactions are balanced. CO2 re-radiating photons in random directions is the dominant transaction for radiating energy.
Click to expand...

Quite so!
 
Belz... said:
Why do you keep repeating that ? The sun's power output is not constant but it is not a variable star. You've been explained that already, several times. So why don't you learn ?
Click to expand...

Again, the existence of a solar cycle, confirms stellar variability. Our star is a variable star, it simply does not currently vary sufficiently to be a primary climate forcing agent. IOW, it is a variable star, but this has nothing to do with the current climate change episode.
 
Trakar said:
It does cause a slight increase in vibrational energy within the bonds of the molecule (flexure of the bonding angles and/or stretching of the bond), this state is unstable and generally results in a re-emission of IR energy allowing the molecule to drop back to its more stable configuration within a generally short period of time. It is the temporary retention of the energy in the excited state that makes the subsequent emission directionally random.
Click to expand...

And if the notional IR photon that causes this excited state was heading "spaceward" then its directionally random re-emission tends to conserve energy within the Earthly system?
 
aleCcowaN said:
Are you telling that somewhere someone is saying that our Sun is a G2V star because it is supposed to be variable? It'd be epistemological hedonism reaching new frontiers.
Click to expand...

Actually that was my mistake, related to the manner in which variable stars are named in clusters. Long story and completely unrelated to climate issues. That said, our Sun is a variable star, however it is not a factor in modern episode of climate change

UNDERSTANDING SPACE WEATHER: THE SUN AS A VARIABLE STAR - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00179.1

Solar Dynamics Observatory: The 'Variable Sun' Mission - http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/

Our sun: living with a variable star - http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/cosmicguide/sun.html

Types of Variable Stars: Cepheid, Pulsating and Cataclysmic - http://www.space.com/15396-variable-stars.html

The Sun as a Variable Star - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969A&A.....3..236A

As the Sun continues to evolve, it will likely eventually become a Mira type variable Red Giant.
 
GlennB said:
And if the notional IR photon that causes this excited state was heading "spaceward" then its directionally random re-emission tends to conserve energy within the Earthly system?
Click to expand...

Well, depending upon how far above the Earth's surface the IR photon is absorbed, we could calculate the odds of the emission being captured by the Earth's surface, other ghgs in the atmosphere, or escaping from the atmosphere.
(IIRC, the mean free path of an IR photon in the Earth's troposphere is measurable in meters.)

It generally works out that about half of the absorbed photons are re-emitted "upward" and about half are re-emitted "downward." This leads to a gradual increase in energy retained within the system (aka "warming").
 
Trakar said:
It generally works out that about half of the absorbed photons are re-emitted "upward" and about half are re-emitted "downward." This leads to a gradual increase in energy retained within the system (aka "warming").
Click to expand...

Makes sense, even at an intuitive level.... 50/50 kind of thing. Thanks.
 
Trakar said:
Again, the existence of a solar cycle, confirms stellar variability. Our star is a variable star, it simply does not currently vary sufficiently to be a primary climate forcing agent. IOW, it is a variable star, but this has nothing to do with the current climate change episode.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that make ALL stars variable ? I was under the impression that the term "variable star" refered to a particularily variable iteration.
 
Belz you are correct in terms of classification....Sol is not a variable.

In terms of reality - all stars have small variations but the main aspect is not total output ( ours varies very little 0.1% but rather electromagnetic storms, CMEs etc....sort space weather versus Sol's "climate". :D
 
Belz... said:
Doesn't that make ALL stars variable ? I was under the impression that the term "variable star" refered to a particularily variable iteration.
Click to expand...

In modern understandings, almost all stars are variable (which became a major classification issue 40-50 years ago), at least during certain stages of their evolution. This doesn't leave the adjective meaningless, merely predominant and nuanced/degreed. Important to this thread's topic, our system's star does not currently vary in insolation sufficiently (by a couple orders of magnitude) to play a significant role in the modern climate change episode.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Only 13% of scientist agree with global warming

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

Also someone tell Obama that global warming is not a fact
Click to expand...


Its funny that "American thinker" say
No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front
Click to expand...


Well yes people might well say that.


http://mikejdesouza.wordpress.com/2...d-university-of-calgary-climate-skeptic-fund/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

It's worth saying as well that "friends of science" have form for this.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/05/2...e-you-about-cook-s-97-percent-consensus-study

As they wouldn't tell people what methodology they used in coming up with their results it's safe to say that it's a load of rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Iamme said:
40 years will suit me fine! Lol
Selfish, yes.
.

Yesterday i told someone my great uncle if he could come back to life would be flummoxed to try to figure out say LED tvs. He used to be (tube type) tv repairman.
.

My point is, if only we could live on Earth forever, to see and maybe contribute to all the future changes.
But then to have the sun do everyone in. Even being on Mars wont help.
It be neat to live to see the day if man ever makes it to another star system.
If man doesnt kill himself off, our future existance would require we DO make it to another star system.
.
But, first things first. We could conceivably wind up starting WW3 over the global warming issue if say some countries dont cooperate over certain global warming treaties! Then instead of CO and other byproducts in the air, we`d have radiation in the air instead.
.
I`m always thinking ahead...usually negatively.
Click to expand...

Maybe by then, we'll have figured out how to build a Dyson sphere, encompassing the sun all the way out to Pluto (yes, I'm sentimental), and can capture all the Red Giant energy and put it to good use.
 
As they wouldn't tell people what methodology they used in coming up with their results it's safe to say that it's a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...

F of S ( that whole thing is very old news ) was thrown out of the University where they were pretending to be a science body.

•••

Meanwhle we seemed to have upped our bombing campaign on the worlds ocean to 12 Hiroshimas a day :D

Climate change is slowly but steadily cooking the world’s oceans
By Gwynn Guilford @sinoceros February 4, 2014
Click to expand...

http://qz.com/173647/climate-change-is-slowly-but-steadily-cooking-the-worlds-oceans/

I wonder where that measurement meme started as I've been using it for a good while now afer I got one of the math types to d te calculation for Greenland ice melt
How many thermal equivalents to melt 200 CU km...bit of a shocker that answer was.

snip
Roughly speaking, from about 1980 to 2000, the ocean gained around 50 zettajoules (ZJ, or 1021 joules) of heat. But from 2000 to 2013, it added another 150 ZJs of heat. Of course, even if you knew what a zettajoule is, it’s hard to envision what this means. Science Skeptic, a blog on climate change, offers this useful analogy: Over the last half-dozen or so decades, the ocean’s been storing the heat energy equivalent of about two Hiroshima bombs per second. Worryingly, that rate’s picking up, with around four bombs per second stored in the last 16 years.
+
In 2013, however, the ocean gained the heat equivalent to about 12 bombs per second, says Science Skeptic.
Click to expand...
:boggled:
 
Businessmen create group to look at business impacts of climate change

Risky Business - http://riskybusiness.org/

Michael Bloomberg - “The best science tells us that extreme weather events may become more frequent. To better protect our whole country we need a national risk assessment that will accurately assess the costs of these events.”

Hank Paulson - “Every day across America, families and businesses take out insurance policies to protect themselves against adverse risks. As a nation, why aren't we taking this approach toward the catastrophic risks of climate change?”

Tom Steyer - “If the business of the United States is business, we need to frame climate change in economic language; we need to set the business context.”

The Risky Business initiative includes two core components:

An independent assessment of the economic risk of climate change in the United States, drawing on the best available scientific information, econometric research and modeling efforts. The results, to be released in the summer of 2014, will detail risks by region of the country and sector of the economy.

An engagement effort will target the communities most at risk from a changing climate, and begin the process of helping leaders from these communities prepare a measured response to the risks they face. The engagement will be led by a risk committee composed of top national and regional leaders from across the American economic and political spectrum.
 
Global Temperature Update Through 2013

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140121_Temperature2013.pdf

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2013 was +0.6°C (~1.1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, thus the seventh warmest year in the GISS analysis. The rate of global warming is slower in the past decade than in the prior three decades. Slower growth of net climate forcings and cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean both contribute to the slower warming rate, with the latter probably the more important effect. The tropical Pacific cooling is probably unforced variability, at least in large part. The trend toward an increased frequency of extreme hot summer anomalies over land areas has continued despite the Pacific Ocean cooling. The “bell curves” for observed temperature anomalies show that, because of larger unforced variability in winter, it is more difficult in winter than in summer to recognize the effect of global warming on the occurrence of extreme warm or cold seasons. It appears that there is substantial likelihood of an El Niño beginning in 2014, and as a result a probable record global temperature in 2014 or 2015.
Click to expand...

There is much work to done, which should have been being rapidly accelerating over the last decade rather than the stagnation we have seen over much of the last decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom