Global warming

[PogoPedant]

I have not seen much math from your direction.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response.

But to point and say "See! She doesn't know, therefore evidence!" is less good.

 

[bobdroege7]

Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion. So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder. That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

You need to learn about the variation of temperature with altitude. Do not assume that at higher elevations the temperature is colder, it is not so. And you don't make sense talking about a single molecules temperature, pressure or expansion.

you are just not making sense

 

[bobdroege7]

A deafening silence.

But on www.climateaudit.org, plenipotentiary suggests a solution in line with the general concepts of anthropogenic causation.

Posted on 09/18/2007 12:28:41 AM PDT by plenipotentiary

Q I still haven’t had explained to me how the seasonal variations in CO2 concentration create the seasons.


A Well, first of all you have to forget all that stuff about the spinning Earth being tilted at an angle of twenty-something degrees to the ecliptic, and cooling during its Northern winters, warming during its summers. Forget about the Sun. Or better still, think of the Earth as being flat.


Think instead about CO2 in the atmosphere. During summer, when plant photosynthesis is maximum, plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and reduce its levels, and thus reduce global warming, resulting in a subsequent cold winter. During winter, when plant photosynthesis is at a minimum, CO2 levels tend to rise, resulting in global warming - and the subsequent warm summer.


See. Quite easy to explain.


You’ll probably want to know about anthropogenic seasonal variation too. That is, how humans manage to create the seasons. And this happens because, during winter, humans tend to light fires to keep warm, and these fires generate CO2, which causes global warming, and results in warm summers. During these warm summers, humans stop burning fires, and the excess CO2 is absorbed by plants, reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and bringing global cooling, and the subsequent winter.


The result, as I’m sure you’ll see, is that the seasonal cycle of spring-summer-autumn-winter is entirely created by human activity, and if humans would simply stop burning fires in winter, this seasonal variation would vanish, and terrestrial surface temperatures would remain more or less constant.


Convinced? I’m sure you are. If you want to save the world from the endless cycle of the destruction of the creation, all you have to do is to not turn on your heating system when temperatures fall 10 or 20 degrees C below zero. It would also help if you stayed outside, and didn’t wear any clothes, or ate anything. You know by now that it makes no sense to do stupid things like that, right?
​

And you posted this, why?

I mean, what is the point of plentipotiary's vapid post.

Does his not making any sense support your not making any sense?

 

[mhaze]

You need to learn about the variation of temperature with altitude. Do not assume that at higher elevations the temperature is colder, it is not so. And you don't make sense talking about a single molecules temperature, pressure or expansion.

you are just not making sense

I'm quite aware of temperature gradients, lapse rates, humidity vs. altitude, etc. What does not make sense?

 

[mhaze]

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that because the air is thinner in the upper atmosphere, that more heat is radiated away from the planet because heat that radiates down towards the planet is more likely to encounter more molecules in the denser air and thus be re-directed upwards again?

Also, if IR is detected in the night sky, it's evidence that heat is being radiated away from the planet?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

More or less. If you read IR with a meter pointed up, you are reading the cumulative IR from all of the atmosphere above your position. That in turn is comprised of emissions from water vapor, CO2, and the supposed "all important" additional bit of CO2 from man made sources.

This has been discussed in great detail hundreds of places and rapidly gets quite technical. Here are some comments from DocMartyn in a discussion at www.climateaudit.org which explore ways to actual prove or disprove the theory we are discussing -

DocMartyn says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm

...if CO2 has the ability to reflect IR back to the ground level then it can easily be measure.

The temperature profile of the south pole has been studied since the 50’s. I looked at the RATE at which the pole cools in the winter. One would expect GHG to slow the rate of cooling, if CO2 were a powerful GHG. Alas, the pole appears to be cooling more rapidly now than it did 40 years ago, although the changes are quite small. I suspect that this would also be the case in dusk til dawn temperature change in sand deserts. The Arizona crater would be a good site. in this one we could raise the CO2 to 800ppm with ease and have a look at the change in the day and night time absolute temperatures.

Finally, finally, they never do actual expirements. I have never seen anyone shine a pulsing signal(tuneable)-laser into space through the atmosphere and measure the amount of light absorbed and light reflected back to Earth. Using ground stations, aircraft and satallites it would be relitivly easy to workout what was happening to the light and where it was going. These people don’t do this sort of thing, either because they dont have a background in expirements or they are worried about the answers.

​

Which leads right back to....
Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[a_unique_person]

What planet do these guys life on? He's a conspiracy theorist and all. CO2 is not a 'powerful' GHG. It just happens that if you increase the concentration, it will increase the temperature by a degree or so, by itself, and the feedback mechanisms will take care of the rest, as is being observed.

You don't need to shoot a laser into space, you just need to do it in a lab to observe the effect. I don't even think a laser would be the right frequency, it's long wavelength radiation, not short, that is doing the heat transfer.

Why is he afraid to just read up on the existing literature that explains all this? Is he worried about the answer?

 

[Megalodon]

What planet do these guys life on?

A planet where the scientists have immediate access to the funding necessary for such an experiment... I mean, stations, aircraft and satellite to measure a pulse of a laser. This... gentleman doesn't even take into account the sheer dimension that such laser should have to allow measurments after reflection and scatter.

If birds are in the way, dinner is served...

 

[Mycroft]

A planet where the scientists have immediate access to the funding necessary for such an experiment... I mean, stations, aircraft and satellite to measure a pulse of a laser. This... gentleman doesn't even take into account the sheer dimension that such laser should have to allow measurments after reflection and scatter.

If birds are in the way, dinner is served...

I don't know about immediate access, but for an issue that important, if such an experiment would shed light then wouldn't it make sense for someone to make the resources available?

 

[Megalodon]

I don't know about immediate access, but for an issue that important, if such an experiment would shed light then wouldn't it make sense for someone to make the resources available?

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.

 

[mhaze]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.

Ever point a ten watt laser up into the sky?

 

[CapelDodger]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

What I'm sensing is another "Publish The Code" strategem. Until it's done, the evidence isn't good enough. If it were done, well, drop the subject. Move on to something else.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

That strikes me as an informed opinion, not just a guess. That migrating goose is definitely cooked.

 

[CapelDodger]

On the subject of funding, didn't NASA recently ditch plans for some Earth-observation satellites because the Bush-Cheney focus is on Mars? For its oil, apparently .

 

[CapelDodger]

More or less. If you read IR with a meter pointed up, you are reading the cumulative IR from all of the atmosphere above your position. That in turn is comprised of emissions from water vapor, CO2, and the supposed "all important" additional bit of CO2 from man made sources.

It includes the one-third extra CO2 and the extra water-vapour that results from the warming effect that one-third extra CO2. Water-vapour is a feedback. Since water-vapour is the dominant factor in the greenhouse effect, that's the all-important addition, don't you think? (Forget clouds and stuff, let's postulate clear skies here.)

This has been discussed in great detail hundreds of places and rapidly gets quite technical.

I can't help thinking - and saying - it becomes a comforting hum to you at that point.

Here are some comments from DocMartyn in a discussion at www.climateaudit.org which explore ways to actual prove or disprove the theory we are discussing -

Events are really putting the onus on disproof, don't you think? The situation is evolving just as predicted by AGW decades ago, with increasing precision as time has passed. Ice-retreat has been a surprise, but in rate, not sign. As with all inevitable retreats, the timetable is the focus of discussion while events dictate.

DocMartyn

says:


February 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 pm

...if CO2 has the ability to reflect IR back to the ground level then it can easily be measure.​

At which point he demonstrates his pig-ignorance. CO2 does not reflect infra-red. AGW is not based on that erroneous concept in any manner or form. No molecule reflects anything. Reflection is an electromagnetic phaenomenon that manifests in vastly larger systems. Clouds, for instance, or a mirror.

All that follows is just as worthless because it's derived - rather amateurishly, in my opinion - from nonsense.

 

[CapelDodger]

I am supposed to respond to a 16 year old who provides the phrase "I don't see how" as evidence, with science and equations?

Yes, it's come to that. Whether that's more desperate than Inhofe summoning Crichton is debatable; the Republicans would have had to hold the Senate for us to know that Inhofe wouldn't have summoned this insightful adolescent. And even then it would depend on how cute she is. (Not how hot, obviously .)

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

Scientists? Well then.

Instead of reading the IPCC, the summary documents of which were written by non scientists and reviewed, changed and approved by governments before printing, one would want the scientists independent assessment.

Well... at least if you thought a 16 year old kid might get it wrong...

(hint: of course she got it right, why else would I have linked...)

This page provides information on the Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) of the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR4), recently published by the Fraser Institute. The ISPM is not a critique of or a response to the IPCC Report. It is a detailed summary, written on the premise that a great deal of good, balanced science is presented in the IPCC report and it should be widely disseminated and carefully read. The ISPM includes some 300 direct citations to the IPCC report and provides detailed chapter locations so that readers can look up the IPCC sections for themselves.

In producing this Summary we have worked independently of the IPCC, using the Second Order Draft of the IPCC report, as circulated after revisions were made in response to the first expert review period in the winter and spring of 2006. Section references will be checked against the final IPCC version, to be released in May 2007. If, in preparing the final draft of the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC substantially rewrites the Assessment text, such that the key summary materials presented herein need to be re-worded, we will do so and publish an Appendix to that effect.
​

It's starts off with a basic lie

The ISPM was prepared by experts who are fully qualified and experienced in their
fields, but who are not themselves IPCC chapter authors, nor are they authors of the
IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

Yet look at the retired scientists on the report? Kininmonth is a good example. He has no idea what the state of the science is, he has never worked in it.

 

[a_unique_person]

All that follows is just as worthless because it's derived - rather amateurishly, in my opinion - from nonsense.

Which is the basic problem, as I said earlier. There is an endless stream of amateurs who can prove that AGW is false, just as they can square the circle. Do they all deserve creedence?

 

[bobdroege7]

I'm quite aware of temperature gradients, lapse rates, humidity vs. altitude, etc. What does not make sense?

That reply doesn't make any sense either, so I'll break down the post I said made no sense.

Hmmm.... let's see. A CO2 or water molecule gets excited by being hit, bangs around a bit more...that's gas expansion.

A single molecule cannot expand

So we're talking a gas working against gravity, the atmosphere moving up a bit.... where it is colder.

An increase in altitude does not necessarily indicate a decrease in temperature.

That uses up the kinetic energy of the gas heated by radiation from the earth doesn't it? Is some energy left over to re radiate downward? Is there a lot of it? How much?

A bit hard to move energy from a colder place to a hotter place, isn't it?

Ooops.

Again, confusing the properties of a single molecule with the properties of a large number of molecules, just like the 16 year old with her vapid football analogy. I don't get women and football analogies.

Also when CO2 absorbs the infared photon, the increase in energy goes to the stretching and vibrational modes of the molecule, not the velocity which corresponds to the temperature. Only when that molecule collides with another molecule can that vibrational energy be transferred into heat or the velocity of another molecule.

Looks like Kristine Byrnes, the high school student, does make sense.

So AUP, what do you say we go through her table of contents one chapter at a time? Might be lots of good rubbish there.

You might learn a thing or two.

Na, the girl makes little sense.

 

[a_unique_person]

Let's consider this scenario. A 16 year old girl writes to the head of the WSJ and tells him how he should run his business better.

 

[Diamond]

It includes the one-third extra CO2 and the extra water-vapour that results from the warming effect that one-third extra CO2. Water-vapour is a feedback. Since water-vapour is the dominant factor in the greenhouse effect, that's the all-important addition, don't you think? (Forget clouds and stuff, let's postulate clear skies here.)

It's all important only because CapelDodgy thinks its all important. Water vapour is a feedback because Capeldodgy is fixated by MAN-MADE carbon dioxide. The atmosphere has positive feedbacks because CapelDodgy says they do, not because they exist.

And no, we can't forget clouds and stuff because they are critical factors in a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK system which dominates the Earth's climate. We also can't forget the Sun, unless of course you're really determined.

But if there was warming die to an enhanced greenhouse effect, then there would be other observations which would be obvious, such as a large warming of the upper troposphere above the tropics - something that isn't observed.

We still haven't heard the Capeldodgy explanation for how increasing the partial pressure of a trace gas like carbon dioxide can cause warming because its never happened in the past, and it cannot happen according to quantum physics.

But then, since when has ignorance of physics ever stopped Capeldodgy before?

 

[a_unique_person]

It's all important only because CapelDodgy thinks its all important. Water vapour is a feedback because Capeldodgy is fixated by MAN-MADE carbon dioxide. The atmosphere has positive feedbacks because CapelDodgy says they do, not because they exist.

No, I would presume CD has been reading the various reports of the IPCC and other sources. He doesn't just think it, he has read the science on the matter.

Have you actually read any of the reports?