Simple Question About AGW

[bobdroege7]

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

Much warmer than Mercury?

 

[a_unique_person]

You and I are interpreting Dr. Imago's posts differently. From my point of view, he's asking for a falsifiable test of AGW, same as I am. Of course, laboratory tests support the absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. What of it? (IOW, if such had not been demonstrated in the lab, would we even consider CO2 as an agent of AGW? We'd be targetting some other gas, right?)

So you accept that laboratory test support absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. You just want someone to do the same test on a vacuum, to see if the results are different? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that's a complete waste of time.

 

[Slimething]

Much warmer than Mercury?

If you have a point, make it. I have no idea where your question is leading or if it's worth my looking it up.

 

[Slimething]

So you accept that laboratory test support absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. You just want someone to do the same test on a vacuum, to see if the results are different? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that's a complete waste of time.

I agree that testing the properties of any gas in a vacuum would be a waste of time. (Please, please, look up the definition of a vacuum!)

However, the test on a mesocosm with a controllable atmosphere as Dr. Imago suggests would be very elucidating.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm much better than that. Really!

 

[a_unique_person]

I agree that testing the properties of any gas in a vacuum would be a waste of time. (Please, please, look up the definition of a vacuum!)

I said compared to a vacuum.

However, the test on a mesocosm with a controllable atmosphere as Dr. Imago suggests would be very elucidating.

We know it absorbs, we know it re-radiates. I don't know what else you could find out. Measurements are made of the atmosphere, and they confirm the theoretical predictions.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

The Surface Radiation Budget Project.

http://gewex-srb.larc.nasa.gov/

 

[Slimething]

I said compared to a vacuum.

Still argumentum ad adsurdum. We know that already. The reference cell used would have been a vacuum. I could be wrong. As you have the original publications, please post what the reference cell was for the measurements you are citing.

We know it absorbs, we know it re-radiates. I don't know what else you could find out.

Ummm...how it affects climate. How efficient your proposed pathway is. And so on.

Again, I point out to you that there are many, many models that are fully consistent with all underlying science that scientists feel apply but still don't predict what goes on in nature. Let me ask you why you feel the AGW models are an exception? As a case in point, we have biological and molecular models that predict the efficacy and comparative toxicity of candidate pharmaceuticals. Would you take an untested drug?

Measurements are made of the atmosphere, and they confirm the theoretical predictions.

What theoretical precitions are you talking about? Please cite the numerical predictions and their observational confirmation. Pretty pictures are nice, too, but they don't get me all the way there. Post them anyway. They're nice to look at.

 

[Slimething]

The Surface Radiation Budget Project.

http://gewex-srb.larc.nasa.gov/

You need to school yourself on the difference between raw data and what a falsifiable hypothesis is. You can post all the models and raw data you want but until you can prospose a falsifiable hypothesis, all you have is "that's nice, dear".

 

[a_unique_person]

Still argumentum ad adsurdum. We know that already. The reference cell used would have been a vacuum. I could be wrong. As you have the original publications, please post what the reference cell was for the measurements you are citing.



Ummm...how it affects climate. How efficient your proposed pathway is. And so on.

Again, I point out to you that there are many, many models that are fully consistent with all underlying science that scientists feel apply but still don't predict what goes on in nature. Let me ask you why you feel the AGW models are an exception? As a case in point, we have biological and molecular models that predict the efficacy and comparative toxicity of candidate pharmaceuticals. Would you take an untested drug?




What theoretical precitions are you talking about? Please cite the numerical predictions and their observational confirmation. Pretty pictures are nice, too, but they don't get me all the way there. Post them anyway. They're nice to look at.

You're a chemist? Do people ask you to prove all the results you give them from first principles?

 

[a_unique_person]

You need to school yourself on the difference between raw data and what a falsifiable hypothesis is. You can post all the models and raw data you want but until you can prospose a falsifiable hypothesis, all you have is "that's nice, dear".

I don't get it. Once again, we seem to have the case where someone isn't going to accept that AGW is real, until an anonymous person on the internet who is not a scientist can demonstrate it to them . I am not going to be able to do that.

 

[Pixel42]

Just pointing out that Venus is very different than Earth. 90 atm will do a heck of a lot global warming and that's proven physics. If you want to do the calculations of what the Venusian equivalent temperature would be on Earth, you're welcome to do so. Show your work.

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!

Sorry, can I just check what it is you're suggesting here? You're saying that the fact that the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite being twice as far from the Sun is due to its atmospheric pressure, and not to the greenhouse effect?

 

[fsol]

Dr. Imago,
You ask too much. This experiment could very well cost several thousands of dollars, possibly as much as $5000, and the manpower required would be difficult to obtain. Considering the limited budget that global warming research has had over the past 20 years, a complicated experiment you propose may break the bank. This is the same problem the Hockey Team has in updating their proxies after 1980. Besides, the climate models have all verified the CO2 hypothesis so there is no need for experimentation. Please, can't we move on beyond the science?

See, Svensmark conducting an experiment to test his hypothesis on cosmic rays is irrelevant, but a 112 year old untested hypothesis based on 147 year old data is.

CO2 measurements made prior to 1958 are unreliable due to "outdated" instrumentation and methods, but somehow 1861 technology was well suited for 2007 science.

Wow, Beck again? and round and round we go.

The AGW axiom:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032347cb6587dbbca.gif

Is this post intended to be taken seriously? At all?

 

[bobdroege7]

If you have a point, make it. I have no idea where your question is leading or if it's worth my looking it up.

In reference to this post

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

my point is that if venus is much closer to the sun than the earth, therefore the surface temperature should be much warmer, as you argue, and I point out that Venus is warmer than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun than Venus, which leads use to the question: Why is Venus warmer than Mercury which is warmer than Earth?

 

[fsol]

In reference to this post



my point is that if venus is much closer to the sun than the earth, therefore the surface temperature should be much warmer, as you argue, and I point out that Venus is warmer than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun than Venus, which leads use to the question: Why is Venus warmer than Mercury which is warmer than Earth?

It's alright, if Venus atmosphere were at 1 atm it would be at about 8 K that's much colder than Mercury...

 

[bobdroege7]

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!

Uhm,

On what basis so you set N1 = N2?


Such that you can make the statement that PV/T for earth equals PV/T for Venus?

And my introductory chemistry texts are at home.

 

[bobdroege7]

It's alright, if Venus atmosphere were at 1 atm it would be at about 8 K that's much colder than Mercury...

Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.

 

[zeusbheld]

Okay, you've asserted that I posted lists containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but when asked where they are, you duck and dodge.

A reasonable conclusion is that you just made it up.

aside from reasonably concluding that you are an utter hypocrite for expecting *me* to answer *your* questions when you can't be bothered to answer mine, and apart from your lying about the content of science papers, you manipulative twisting of what i say and your smugly pissy attitude why on Earth do you expect to convince anyone that *you* are even capable of a reasonable conclusion? if you are, your track record doesn't reflect that. "Great Global Warming Swindle" is tinfoil hat conspiracy documentary complete with spooky music. and this surely requires readers wear a tinfoil hat.

again, the point being, it's not *my* job to go through *your* crappy list and filter out the tinfoil hat stuff. *you* should have alreaqdy done that, if you had any commitment to critical thinking whatsoever. *you* obviously haven't--your list has credible skeptic sites, political hacks, tinfoil hatters, and even AGW advocates all mixed up with no differentiation whatsoever between them, and you pass off this ◊◊◊◊ sandwich as a list of credible, science-based skeptic sites. are you lazy, or just incapable of telling the difference?

i asked for science, *you* give me that garbage. sorry for not basing my skepticism on the same loony BS you are promoting. are you sure you're not sent by Al Gore to make skeptics look like idiots?

 

[zeusbheld]

These are so different in scale as to not be equivalent in principle, IMO. White superiority was a cultural norm, not a scientific one. Phrenology never influenced government policy (well hopefully not, anyway) or diplomacy.

eugenics did.

On the other hand, AGW has been been a growing concern for decades, across the scientific world and even into the political, diplomatic and industrial world. Nothing like the Bali Conference has ever resulted from a scientific theory.

but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time. the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.

It's my opinion that we've had the long-run and the AGW consensus is going stronger than ever. Someone once said "Outdated ideas aren't abandoned, it's just that those who teach them die off". When you look at sceptical scientific papers I suggest you check out the age of the lead author.

fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.

When I claim my "Told you so!", can I use you as a reference ?

sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."

 

[zeusbheld]

Or he could get out more and observe the experiment going on all around us. It's freely available, after all. You don't even need an internet connection.

which could be construed to demonstrate GW (although my experience as a non-gardener is... weather changes often)... but NOT rigorously... and i fail to see how 'getting out more' will put the A in AGW.

 

[zeusbheld]

Likely because the science isn't.... settled.

my God i hate agreeing with you, but i do, here.