Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[nvidiot]

Is there a point DOC? Most climate scientists suggest snow storms can either get more severe or more frequent in some parts of the world.

But it's not called "local climate weirdness", it's called "global warming". Do you think that because it rains in Vancouver that it means the world is getting more rain?

 

[DOC]

Did you forget to post your opinion? Without one, the op is nothing more than spam.

I'm not an expert in this field, I'm hoping to learn something by the comments.

 

[uk_dave]

I'm not an expert in this field, I'm hoping to learn something by the comments.

Well, you've received some comments. Are you wiser now?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I'm not an expert in this field, I'm hoping to learn something by the comments.

How about some questions then?

 

[Cuddles]

Is global warming occurring because CO2 (carbon dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide) and CH (methane) reflect radiation? This is a simple yes or no question.

No*.

All molecules absorb different amounts of light at different wavelengths. Since the Sun is much hotter than the Earth, the majority of the radiation it emits is at shorter wavelengths. It turns out that CO₂ absorbs long wavelengths more than short ones**. This means that the radiation from the Sun passes through the atmosphere relatively unhindered, while the longer wavelength infrared radiation from the Earth is absorbed more. When this absorbed energy is later re-radiated, it is radiated in all directions, so half of it is emitted back towards the Earth rather than out into space which is where it was heading to start with. This results in a lower rate of heat transfer away from the Earth and therefore a higher equilibrium temperature.

Seriously, if you want to argue about global warming you should at least learn the most basic principles involved first.

You are, however, correct that this is not actually how a greenhouse works. The greenhouse effect was named because the outcome - lower heat transfer away from the system - is the same as in a greenhouse, even though the actual mechanism is different. Interestingly, in my experience this doesn't generally lead to confusion about how the greenhouse effect works, instead it misleads people about how actual greenhouses work. Of course, technically the greenhouse effect will be at work in greenhouses as well, since no material has identical absorption at all wavelengths, it's just that the effect is insignificant relative to other mechanisms.

Also, methane is not CH.

* OK, technically yes they do. Everything, other than a perfect black body, reflects radiation. However, reflection is not relevant to the greenhouse effect, which is what the question here is about.

** Of course, this is a bit of a simplification. Absorption curves are not simple linear trends. The important point is that radiation from the Sun is absorbed less than that from the Earth, the details are not important for a general discussion such as this.

 

[DC]

why are people so fixated on Al Gore? to me it is like a huge fat red herring.
Al gore is a politician, not a scientists. Listen to the science, not to politicians that hijack AGW one way or the other.

 

[Furcifer]

And you find this of any relevence to this exchange, how?

If you understood the Milankovitch you'd know how significant this is.

Finding out that the baseline solar irradiance is 3 thousandths lower than tradtionally accredited simply means that there is a larger impact by other factors to retain as large of an energy residual as has been being empirically measured over the last several decades. How do you feel that this is reflected or explained in the reference above?

Now it's 3 thousandths? Are you sure? Before you claimed it was 3 thousandths of a percent. How did you arrive at that figure? You keep jumping around and not matter what figure you cite you deny its significance. So when does it become significant in your opinion? I'd say a value of 3/4 of the latent heat is significant.

 

[Pixel42]

First of all, if CO2 has that kind of reflective property, wouldn't it also reflect light back out into space? I have failed to read anyone's response to that here. Maybe it is posted but I have not read it.

Several people answered this. I did in post #1401, for example.

There's obviously no reason for anyone to take the time to patiently answer your questions, which are so basic as to indicate a frankly astonishing ignorance of the first principles of the thread topic, if you are not going to bother to read those answers. This will be the last time I do so.

I looked it up.

You need to look up a lot more. For example, the fact that "greenhouse effect" is well known to be a bit of a misnomer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (my bold)

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.

 

[Java Man]

Personally I think that believing in AGW is a win win scenario. Regardless of it being true or not.

Most of the argument against AGW and it's CO2 (fossil fuel) source is fueled by the fossil fuel industry's agenda and of course our own "comfort zone" ideology.

But fossil fuels and the main perceived source of CO2 and thus AGW is going to run out. So in the long run the planet is safe(as fossil fuel emissions come to an inevitable end), but not necessarily us in the short term.

I think that believing in AGW has real short term benefits to us humans regardless of it being true or not. Lets look at it this way. If we believe in AGW move away from fossil fuels and stop pouring so much CO2 into the atmosphere and AGW turns out to be true then hurray we saved the planet.

If we believe in AGW and it turns out that GW is not caused by humans, but we still moved away from fossil fuels we win. Because we will still have to deal with the consequences of global warming with ever escalating fuel costs. That will put a huge burden on our economy as climate changes. If its hotter it will take more energy to cool us. If its colder (as is today in the midwest) then it will take more energy to warm us. If its drier it will take more energy to bring water from further away or deeper. So we still win.

If global warming as a whole turns out to be a hoax. We still win as fossil fuel prices will continue to rise. So why not cut down on CO2 emissions as soon as possible? Its a win win scenario to do so.

 

[lomiller]

Am I the first one to actually look up and see how a greenhouse really works?

Shouldn’t you find out how the greenhouse effect works before saying something like this?

We are assuming that, based on what we were taught by people who really did not know]

You are the only one doing this. Furthermore you have already received at least a half dozen correct explanations for how the greenhouse effect works and ignored them.

and based on how Al Gore is using the word, a greenhouse works by letting sunlight in while not letting the same sunlight out. This, is how "greenhouse gasses" work.

He said no such thing. He correctly explained that the greenhouse effect works by letting energy in the form of visible light in and not letting energy in the form of long wave IR out. I and others have already explained the greenhouse effect to you. You do yourself no favours by inventing your own fictional version of the greenhouse effect to argue against.

According to the description of a greenhouse by the Global Warming folks, one is led to believe that an actual greenhouse works by having some sort of special glass -- like a one way mirror -- that lets light enter but the inside is more reflective and so the light is reflected around inside the greenhouse.

I’m not sure what you find puzzling. Things that react only with specific frequencies of EM waves are commonplace.

Ah but it is not true. I looked it up. A greenhouse works by allowing solar radiation pass through the windows while it prevent convection heat loss from wind and result is higher temperature in greenhouse.

Funny you should go look this up after you have already had it explained to you multiple times that a greenhouse is only a loose analogy for the trapping of energy, it has nothing to do with how greenhouse gasses actually work.

 

[lomiller]

Is global warming occurring because CO2 (carbon dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide) and CH (methane) reflect radiation? This is a simple yes or no question.

No it’s simply a stupid question. You have already been told multiple times *reflection* has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect so the answer is no, just as it was the last time you tried to claim reflection was the basis of the greenhouse effect.

 

[lomiller]

Snow shovel, warm clothing, and sled manufacturers rejoice, Global Warming causes excessive snow and sometimes colder winters -- at least according to Al Gore.

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html

He’s correct. Warmer temperatures means more evaporation, and this increased evaporation eventually turns into rain or snow.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-detailed-look-at-galactic-cosmic-rays.html

I'm really puzzled by this in your source. Figure 3, this figure:

shows from 1850 to 1970 (or thereabouts), cosmic ray flux seemed to match the rise and fall of temperatures rather well. Too well to just be coincidence. How can that be? Regardless of what match is claimed or not claimed for cosmic rays to temperatures the last 40 years (and there has been a lot of questions about temperature data during that time, by the way), why would cosmic ray flux match temperature variations the 120 years before that? Because both my source and your source seem to agree on that.

In fact, your figure appears to suggest that the figure I posted earlier from my source, this one:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/cosmic-ray/cosmic-rays-precipitation-andel.gif

is correct, in which case, GCR flux seems to match inferred (from Carbon 14 at least) temperature anomalies back to the year 1000 AD. Remarkable, given that you're trying to tell us that cosmic rays have no impact on temperatures. Obviously temperatures shouldn't have any impact on cosmic rays. Agreed?

Here's another source claiming to have found a strong correlation between GCR/solar variability and temperatures (inferred from ice cores in Siberia):

http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/cosmic_ray_temp_siberia_Page_09.jpg

Again, the match … at least until very recently … seems too good to simply ignore. Perhaps you can explain what's suddenly different?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
And you find this of any relevence to this exchange, how?

If you understood the Milankovitch you'd know how significant this is.

answer the question posed.

You made the thesis - now defend the argument.

 

[macdoc]

Again, the match … at least until very recently … seems too good to simply ignore. Perhaps you can explain what's suddenly different?

Correlation is not causation...look hard enough you can find the match you WANT - just ask any numerologist.

FIRST there has to be a mechanism and there is not that is anywhere close to the magnitude required.
This is old and stale approach that is recycled ad nauseum just to try and avoid the responsibility of our actions in regard to C02.

If you are truly interested in the science and not for the purpose of dodging the reality of AGW - then there is lots here by climate scientists

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...GIMP:66AA55;FORID:11;&searchdatabase=site#916

I think you don't quite understand the scale of energies engaged in bringing global temps up a degree....

 

[BenBurch]

Is global warming occurring because CO2 (carbon dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide) and CH (methane) reflect radiation? This is a simple yes or no question.

Of course not. You'd have to be ignorant of science to think so.

But "greenhouse effect" does not imply reflection. You'd also have to be ignorant of the origins of the temp to think so.

 

[Trakar]

...Again, the match … at least until very recently … seems too good to simply ignore. Perhaps you can explain what's suddenly different?

Direct, precision measurements both on the surface and in orbit, instead of proxy estimations based upon imprecise understandings. And of course, temporary correlation, is not evidence of causation. Sunspots and stock market.

 

[Trakar]

80 percent of light is not absorbed into the ocean, like he said. Since the ice reflects 80 percent of light, in Al Gore's mind, this should work the other way. But it doesn't.

http://www.slideshare.net/ProfSimonHaslett/sea-ice-and-clouds-albedo-and-climate-change
...High albedo surfaces are light-coloured, such as snow, ice, bare sand, and clouds, and reflect up to 80% of solar radiation back out into space, whereas low albedo surfaces are dark-coloured, such as oceans and forests, and absorb up to 95% of incoming solar radiation...

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~louisab/sedpage/basics.html .. The measure of a surface’s reflectivity is known as its albedo. Darker surfaces tend to have lower albedos since they absorb many wavelengths of light, while lighter surfaces reflect most light. As a result, snow and ice have very high albedos, meaning that snow and ice covered areas absorb far less sunlight than their uncovered counterparts. High latitude ocean albedo is typically near 10%, while snow or ice covered albedo at the same latitude can reach as high as 60% (Hartmann 1994)...

He might love numbers but he gets the math all wrong.

Apparently he gets the math better than you do.

Here is another example. During his movie he says that he has been to "well over one thousand cities and towns" giving his little global warming lecture. But there are only 365 days in a year and he had been doing this for less than 3 years during Bush's first term as president and it would have to take him at least a day to travel to the next stop and at least a day to set things up and at least a day to break down the set and load things up.

This has absolutely nothing to do with global warming calculations, but even here your common sense recollections fail you,...again.

"An Inconvenient Truth" was released in the middle of 2006 (May).
Former Vice President Gore, began presenting global warming lectures and talks back in the early eighties while he was still a senator from Tennessee. He began this shortly after instituting the first senate hearings on the topic back in 1981. In 1992 when his book "Earth in the Balance" reached the best seller list, he revamped and increased his lecture circuit to take advantage of the popularity of his book and bring the issue of climate to more individuals' attention. After the 2000 campaign, he added new slides and began a serious push to bring the issue of climate change to more people's attention both here in America and throughout the world. Over the 25 years or so that he has given the constantly updated and revised speech, 1000 cities (roughly 40/year) doesn't sound like much of an exageration.

Here is another example. Al Gore was on the Today's show with Leno explaining geothermal energy. During the broadcast he talked about how the magma under the Earth's crust is "millions of degrees". That is funny because, the last I heard, even the surface of the sun is not millions of degrees.

Leno did the "Tonight Show" - http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/al-gore/1212838

This clip doesn't talk about geothermal energy however, if you have a specific reference, however, I'd be happy to see your supporting evidence. Of course, this isn't in the movie, so I'm not sure why you feel it is relevent. Oh, and BTW the core of the Earth is actually hotter than the surface of the Sun.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=geothermal_home-basics

...Geothermal energy is generated in the Earth's core. Temperatures hotter than the sun's surface are continuously produced inside the Earth by the slow decay of radioactive particles, a process that happens in all rocks...

http://www.space.com/54-earth-history-composition-and-atmosphere.html

Earth gets warmer toward its core. At the bottom of the continental crust, temperatures reach about 1,800 degrees F (1,000 degrees C), increasing about 3 degrees F per mile (1 degrees C per kilometer) below the crust. Geologists think the temperature of Earth's outer core is about 6,700 to 7,800 degrees F (3,700 to 4,300 degrees C), and the inner core may reach 12,600 degrees F (7,000 degrees C), hotter than the surface of the sun. Only the enormous pressures found at the super-hot inner core keep it solid.

If he actually stated "millions of degrees" then he was incorrect, but this is on a comedy talk show, not from his film, and we was correct in the basic statement that geithermal energy arises from conditions in the core which heat it to temperatures higher than those on the surface of the sun.

If the leader of the Global Warming movement is a guy who makes so many flaws with math and science that I cringe, how can I get onboard? Why isn't a real scientist out front making the case for Global Warming?

Al Gore isn't even a leader of the US global warming "movement" yet alone the leader of any international movement. He is just an activist who is using his personal spotlight to bring attention to a cause he feels strongly about. Real Scientists are at the forefront of climate change issues, Look to Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, or any of about 30-40 other leaders in the field who are out front in their advocacy and explanation of the science.

 

[Trakar]

Get used to us it!

It's not supposed to go back to the way it was. Climate changes all the time and we know that. Be thankful we aren't heading into an ice age because a lot of people would die, a lot more than from warming that's for sure.

Our species has weathered ice ages, it has never faced the type of warming that is now in the process of taking hold. What leads you to believe that warming is less dangerous and harmful than cooling?

 

[Trakar]

Is global warming occurring because CO2 (carbon dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide) and CH (methane) reflect radiation? This is a simple yes or no question.

NO

neither Global warming, nor "greenhouse effect" have anything to do with "reflection."