Page 50 of 161 FirstFirst ... 4046474849505152535460100150 ... LastLast
Results 1,226 to 1,250 of 4001
  1. #1226
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    The best part is the author of the CERN study himself says you can't conclude anything because of his experiment. Apparently that hasn't stopped people like Darrin from doing just that.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  2. #1227
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I'll tell you what. Your challenge is to actually read said article and tell me what might be wrong with A) the model and B) the assumptions.

    Are there any gross errors or assumptions which would lead one to erroneous results with this? If so what are they? What parameters could be improved?

    In other words, don't hide behind the empirical > model bush. I want you to think. I know it's painful, but try.
    My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.

    I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.

    The simplified model I presented is a simpler version than the one in the PDF I linked. Other studies use percentages.

    Why is it so difficult to address the multiplier of 1.0018 from 1750 to modern times across the model? The sun accounts for well over 99.99% of the earth's atmospheric heat. The geothermal and tidal forces are almost meaningless. Any field I ever looked at, feedback changes with the supplied source. The sun is the source and the greenhouse gasses supply positive feedback.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  3. #1228
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    The best part is the author of the CERN study himself says you can't conclude anything because of his experiment. Apparently that hasn't stopped people like Darrin from doing just that.
    But the stupidity is among those AGW proponents who claim the science is settled.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  4. #1229
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I'll tell you what. Your challenge is to actually read said article and tell me what might be wrong with A) the model and B) the assumptions.

    Are there any gross errors or assumptions which would lead one to erroneous results with this? If so what are they? What parameters could be improved?

    In other words, don't hide behind the empirical > model bush. I want you to think. I know it's painful, but try.

    Sorry, I was just bering an ass. If I had a link to their paper, I might be able to answer those questions. I just think, in general, there is too much computer modeling being offered up as experimentation. IMHO, there has to be some form of measurement to count as an experiment.

    While searching that website you linked, I stumbled upon this (another computer model).


    Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting

    A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth's warming climate, there is no "tipping point," or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.

    In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears. (it's always the polar bears -- lol)

    In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.

    However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model's carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned.

    "We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times," said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

    "All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter."

    Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Ins ute of Technology and UW.

    In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).

    In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.

    Then the model's carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today's levels. Bitz noted that the team's carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.

    "It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It's just an exercise, but it's a useful one to explore the physics of the system."

    While the lack of a "tipping point" could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.

    "Climate change doesn't have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous," Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.

    "The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm," she said. "We don't have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging."

    DarrinS is offline

  5. #1230
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Man, what kind of "crazed" denier, pseudoscience website is that?

    Climate researchers: Russian heat wave was natural
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-...n-natural.html

    If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer: study
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-...n-natural.html
    DarrinS is offline

  6. #1231
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Don't know about the website but that is an ap article that agrees with agw. Did you read it? Do you agree with it?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  7. #1232
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Don't know about the website but that is an ap article that agrees with agw. Did you read it? Do you agree with it?

    Every living creature on earth affects climate to some degree.

    What I disagree with is catastrophic warming caused primarily by CO2 (see Gore's movie). This is what I'm a "denier" of.
    DarrinS is offline

  8. #1233
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Catastrophic is a subjective term. How many degrees do you think the planet will warm over the next century? What kind of an effect will that have on the planet and humans as a whole? What percentage of that is caused by GHG? How much of an economic and human impact will this have? What time of an environmental and ecological impact will that have?

    Catastrophic is a word that doesn't address any of those questions.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  9. #1234
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Catastrophic is a subjective term. How many degrees do you think the planet will warm over the next century? What kind of an effect will that have on the planet and humans as a whole? What percentage of that is caused by GHG? How much of an economic and human impact will this have? What time of an environmental and ecological impact will that have?

    Catastrophic is a word that doesn't address any of those questions.
    Answers:

    1 degree +- 2

    Not much.

    Don't know, nor does anyone else.

    Not much.

    More plants?
    DarrinS is offline

  10. #1235
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    Sorry, I was just bering an ass. If I had a link to their paper, I might be able to answer those questions. I just think, in general, there is too much computer modeling being offered up as experimentation. IMHO, there has to be some form of measurement to count as an experiment.

    While searching that website you linked, I stumbled upon this (another computer model).
    The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC, and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating.
    Does this sound like an objective, unbiased view of the science presented Darrin?
    You keep ignoring this question. Why is that?

    Since you have not displayed the intellectual honesty to actually answer the question, we can only assume the answer is not one that supports your argument:

    No, the article you linked was not an objective, unbiased view of the science presented.

    Do you not want to admit that you only get your information on the topic from websites biased against the theory of AGW/AGCC?

    If all you are looking for is validation of pre-existing beliefs, you have, yet again, proven the argument in the OP.

    Dogmatics tend to be unable to answer honest, fair questions plainly. This is one of *THE* hallmarks of pseudoscience.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-01-2011 at 07:27 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #1236
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    al gore's "carbon causes global warming" theory is about as real as manbearpig. the mother er wants you to pay him a carbon tax.
    DING DING DING DING.

    You didn't read the OP did you? Welcome to the scoreboard.

    The entire OP essentially states:
    "Although there is genuine scientific debate surrounding the overall theory of global warming, there is a large amount of pseudoscience, bad science, and general illogical thinking within the part of the population that doubts the theory."

    I have then gone on to make my case by pointing out, as clearly as possible, as many instances of exactly that within the thread.

    You have scored your first illogical statement, adding to the evidence in support of my assertion. The global warming "denialism" movement shares much in common with creationists and 9-11 conspiracy theorists.

    This is what is what is known as a strawman logical fallacy, in which the real position of someone is distorted (Al Gore thinks that a carbon tax is a good idea) to something else (Al Gore "wants you to pay him a carbon tax"), in order to "defeat" a position by mocking it.

    It could also be argued that this was a simple ad hominem fallacy.

    Here is a list, perhaps you could clarify which logical fallacy you were shooting for:
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 09-01-2011 at 07:12 AM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #1237
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    How many degrees do you think the planet will warm over the next century?
    Answers:

    1 degree +- 2
    We will certainly have a good answer within the next 20 years to begin to see if you are right about that.

    If the global warming theory is as weak as you and others assert it to be, some motivated scientist will get around to finding the evidence against it.

    The IPCC for its part:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

    Projects that the most likely affect of all the GHG we are emitting will have the most likely ulative effect of adding about 1.35F within the next twenty years.

    Since we are living in the test tube, we will get to see whose guess works out.

    Science aside, we will be far better off economically concentrating on low CO2 intensive sources of power anyway, so I think the argument over the science is almost irrelevant at this point, but if it makes you happy to quibble over the "evil greedy scientists making things up to line their pockets", be my guest to keep at the ad hominem. It makes my point.
    RandomGuy is offline

  13. #1238
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,681
    The sun accounts for well over 99.99% of the earth's atmospheric heat. The geothermal and tidal forces are almost meaningless.
    Find any climate scientist who says otherwise.

    The AGW theory says this rather explicitly actually. The only way you differ with them is how much of that heat is retained.

    Why do you bring this up if everybody agrees on it?
    RandomGuy is offline

  14. #1239
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    You keep ignoring this question. Why is that?

    Since you have not displayed the intellectual honesty to actually answer the question, we can only assume the answer is not one that supports your argument:

    I don't need to answer a question about "bias", especially considering the dumbass le of this thread. I honestly don't even know what the phrase "climate change denial" means. It is not a black and white issue. If you read a lot of research on this topic (which I have), you end up discovering that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs about (1) what is causing the warming (2) whether the 20th century warming (hasn't been any 21st century warming) is "unprecedented" based on historical data, (3) the magnitude of effects on the environment and whether those effects are mostly positive or negative, and (4) what actions, if any, are needed to ameliorate those effects (if applicable).




    No, the article you linked was not an objective, unbiased view of the science presented.
    And if YOU'RE being honest, you would know that I didn't post the link -- only quoted it from WC.
    DarrinS is offline

  15. #1240
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Sorry, I was just bering an ass. If I had a link to their paper, I might be able to answer those questions. I just think, in general, there is too much computer modeling being offered up as experimentation. IMHO, there has to be some form of measurement to count as an experiment.
    You're absolutely correct. They're a start point to test a hypothesis though.....which is why I linked a computer model to get the ball rolling for you.

    What this should do Darrin is get your gears cranking/thinking in terms of what variables can and cannot be controlled, and what parameters are or are not relevant to the matter, etc.

    If you're honest (and if the model parameters are as well) then it should elucidate what can and cannot fly empirically. This is why I ask you to read it and think it out. You do need a bit of knowledge here, but not much. Many time, common sense will steer you in the right direction.

    In English: these models will allow you to better discern what experimental studies are horse and which ones aren't.

    Again, they aren't proof but they do hone one's conceptual understanding of the subject.

    While searching that website you linked, I stumbled upon this (another computer model).
    Now you're doing some work. Good. Let's see what they have to say.....

    Model shows polar ice caps can recover from warmer climate-induced melting

    A growing body of recent research indicates that, in Earth's warming climate, there is no "tipping point," or threshold warm temperature, beyond which polar sea ice cannot recover if temperatures come back down. New University of Washington research indicates that even if Earth warmed enough to melt all polar sea ice, the ice could recover if the planet cooled again.In recent years scientists have closely monitored the shrinking area of the Arctic covered by sea ice in warmer summer months, a development that has created new shipping lanes but also raised concerns about humans living in the region and the survival of species such as polar bears. (it's always the polar bears -- lol)

    In the new research, scientists used one of two computer-generated global climate models that accurately reflect the rate of sea-ice loss under current climate conditions, a model so sensitive to warming that it projects the complete loss of September Arctic sea ice by the middle of this century.

    However, the model takes several more centuries of warming to completely lose winter sea ice, and doing so required carbon dioxide levels to be gradually raised to a level nearly nine times greater than today. When the model's carbon dioxide levels then were gradually reduced, temperatures slowly came down and the sea ice eventually returned."We expected the sea ice to be completely gone in winter at four times the current level of carbon dioxide but we had to raise it by more than eight times," said Cecilia Bitz, a UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences.

    "All that carbon dioxide made a very, very warm planet. It was about 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it is now, which caused the Arctic to be completely free of sea ice in winter."

    Bitz and members of her research group are co-authors of a paper about the research that is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters. The lead author is Kyle Armour, a UW graduate student in physics, and other co-authors are Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth and Kelly McCusker, UW graduate students in atmospheric sciences, and Ian Eisenman, a postdoctoral researcher from the California Ins ute of Technology and UW.

    In the model, the scientists raised atmospheric carbon dioxide 1 percent each year, which resulted in doubling the levels of the greenhouse gas about every 70 years. The model began with an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 355 parts per million (in July the actual figure stood at 392 ppm).

    In that scenario, it took about 230 years to reach temperatures at which the Earth was free of sea ice during winter. At that point, atmospheric carbon dioxide was greater than 3,100 parts per million.

    Then the model's carbon dioxide level was reduced at a rate of 1 percent a year until, eventually, temperatures retreated to closer to today's levels. Bitz noted that the team's carbon dioxide-reduction scenario would require more than just a reduction in emissions that could be achieved by placing limits on the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide would have to be drawn out of the atmosphere, either naturally or mechanically.

    "It is really hard to turn carbon dioxide down in reality like we did in the model. It's just an exercise, but it's a useful one to explore the physics of the system."

    While the lack of a "tipping point" could be considered good news, she said, the increasing greenhouse gases leave plenty of room for concern.

    "Climate change doesn't have to exhibit exotic phenomena to be dangerous," Bitz said, adding that while sea ice loss can have some positive effects, it is proving harmful to species such as polar bears that live on the ice and to some people who have been forced to relocate entire villages.

    "The sea ice cover will continue to shrink so long as the Earth continues to warm," she said. "We don't have to hypothesize dramatic phenomena such as tipping points for this situation to become challenging."
    An interesting article. So now you should ask yourself a few things about the colored passages. Heck maybe even change a few things about the model in your mind to see if they jive with observations (green):

    Red - How much does it need to cool in order for a recovery to take place? What does "close to todays levels" mean? What is close? Is it valid?

    Green - We know that the oceans are a large carbon sink. What effect (if any) does increased CO2 this have on A) it's pH and B) overall thermal diffusivity? Understand that as oceanic pH shifts to being more acidic, the chemical balance pushes towards carbonic acid and dissovled CO2. This is analogous to being metabolically acidotic (look up solubility pump). I bring this up because I'm curoius to know how you would reconcile that with this article below:

    Conclusions

    The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.

    At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

    The water vapor is five times more efficient on intercepting quantum/waves than the carbon dioxide. Therefore, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works like a coolant of the atmospheric water vapor.

    By considering also that the carbon dioxide has by far a lower total emissivity than the water vapor I conclude that the carbon dioxide has not an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.

    The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.
    You and WC are pushing this agenda so lets discuss a bit:

    How about in water? Is the Thomson cross section still relevant here? Was it appropriate to begin with? What do you think Darrin? Does this model take into account the possibility that CO2 is a coolant? I think you can answer that.

    If not, what if it did? What sort of effect would that have on the model then? The would the caps ever melt? Would they begin progressing?

    Is that consistent with that's being reported today? What would that say about the models validity then?

    Just some things to consider. For my part, I don't claim to know the finer points of how those models work. I'm simply telling you how my thought processes would work here.

    PS - There are other points in this article which you could dissect as well.
    Agloco is offline

  16. #1241
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Answers:

    1 degree +- 2
    3 degrees is a pretty damn big increase.

    Not much.

    Don't know, nor does anyone else.

    Not much.

    More plants?
    What empirical observations do you base these hypothesis off of? As for contribution of GHG, you're just flat out wrong here. Obviously there's a level of precision that we lack here but that doesn't make your answer anything short of wrong.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  17. #1242
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    The idea that you'd need to see an incredible increase in global temp to rid the arctic of sea ice completely through the annual cycle should be pretty damn obvious, to be perfectly honest. We have a large area of ice even in the summer at the moment so of course there is even more in the Winter.

    Now, that being said, that actually brings me to the current state of the sea ice. We're going to at least set the 2nd lowest extent behind 2007 and there is at least a decent chance that we will actually set a level below 2007. There has been some dramatic days of melt this season and this week has seen some of the most dramatic late season melt ever seen.



    While specific causes for melt can be attributed to various large scale climate patterns not directly related to AGW the magnitude of the melt and decreasing annual winter levels are a definite indicator of more energy being in the system.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #1243
    Troll
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Post Count
    383
    Just when you think it can't get any dumber. A conservative face opens their mouth.

    Are you guys really trying to say that the double of C02 gas in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has no effect? These strawman arguments are meaningless.

    Is the greenhouse effect and Co2 as a greenhouse gas, just a theory too?
    Borat Sagyidev is offline

  19. #1244
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    I haven't really had the opportunity to pull apart one of these articles yet but I finally got a moment to look at this one. It seems that this requires a bit of explanation. I'll try to keep it as simple as possible:

    The results obtained by experimentation coincide with the results obtained by applying astrophysics formulas. Therefore, both methodologies are reliable to calculate the total emissivity/absorptivity of any gas of any planetary atmosphere.
    Agree, mostly. We need to be clear on the mechanisms involved, and more importantly where they occur. The author assumes a perfectly elastic scattering situation and uses Thomson cross sections in his analysis (twice):

    http://www.biocab.org/Temperature_of_Venus.pdf

    Is that a valid asumption? Stay tuned......

    At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.
    Ok. What this tells me as a physicist is that EM waves escape a CO2 environment more readily than they do a water vapor environment. Nothing more, nothing less. As I implied above, one cannot infer a relationship to energy loss. Why? See my next point.

    The low thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide makes of it to be an inefficient substance to adjust its temperature to the temperature of its surroundings. Consequently, the carbon dioxide can never reach the thermal equilibrium with respect to the remainder molecules of the air.
    Here the author implies that CO2 acts much as a reflector does, simply "bouncing" EM waves off of itself if you will. That is correct. However, here we need some deeper (well not so deep, just more....) physics though.

    If anyone has taken optics (or even astrophysics), they might remember an "obscure" but important law which states that scatter and optical depth are functions of a photons wavelength. Look up optical depth before continuing........

    So we know that CO2 emits radiation at or longer than the wavelength of incident photons. This is a continuous process for which, as I stated above, the proportion of absorbed radiation is constantly changing. One would need a time/energy/direction integrated function to adequately describe this.

    Now we must look at the defiition of elastic scattering:

    In this process, the kinetic energy of the incident particles is conserved, only their direction of propagation is modified (by interaction with other particles and/or a potential).
    What does that mean for the wavelength? By describing the photoelectric effect and through DeBroglies work we know that energy is inversely related to wavelength. Basic stuff right? So if CO2 emits wavelengths longer than those which are incident, where did the kinetic energy go?

    By definition we no longer have perfectly elastic conditions (it's now inelastic), and the validity of using such assumptions must be called into question.


    What I did here: Call into question the use of a perfectly elastic situation. The cross sections are based on this assumption. They may in fact be drastically different.

    What I did NOT do here is:

    1) Debunk the hypothesis that CO2 could be cooling the atmosphere. There are other papers which suggest this as well, and they use different methodologies to arrive at said conclusion. I'll leave that proof to one of you folks, I just dont have that sort of time.

    2) Quantify the contribution of the "missing energy" to atmospheric warming. It may well be negligible. Again, I dont have the time but can offer a suggestion:

    What you would need to do is compute the total energy emitted by a volume element for a difference in wavelengths choosing a consistent cutoff for emission coefficients. Since we have a situation known as Raman scattering and I believe this to be a more appropriate assumption upon which to base a cross section. So one could perform this calculation for Thomson scattering, then again for Raman scattering. The difference should give you your "missing energy" as Raman accounts for inelastic processes.

    Note: Here I neglect the contribution of Compton and Brilouin Scattering. Compton involves interaction with outer orbital electrons specifically.....too specific to be significant IMO (dunno though, check for yourselves). Brilouin Scatter however might be significant as it is dependent on temperature gradients, the concept of which lies at the heart of this debate.

    If anything, I'd look at the potential contribution of Brilouin scatter to the energy pie.

    So that leaves us with the question of "where" the missing energy goes. Thermal energy? Perhaps, but as the author notes CO2 has a low thermal diffusivity. The fraction is small here.

    Perhaps it's taken up by water vapor lower in the atmosphere is it's "bounced" off of CO2?

    Even if this is so, the author makes a case for CO2 being a coolant and a driver for warming all at once. Not a warmer through the absorption of thermal energy mind you, but a warmer through it's reflecive properties. The random orientation of CO2 molecules will mean that reflection is mostly isotropic (even in all directions) regardless of the polarity emission coefficients of the reflected waves.

    Is it the primary driver of heating though? <shrug> There are many more factors at play here. It's a multivariate issue.....where do certain evaporative/condensation effects take place? They affect heat transfer as well, etc.

    Hopefully this explanation does not oversimplify things.

    DISCLAIMER: I'm on my third glass of Grand Marnier. Apologies for any omissions.
    Agloco is offline

  20. #1245
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479


    http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm

    I'm not too sure that energy is missing.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  21. #1246
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Ya. It's obviously there and causing heating of one sort or another. The author missed out on a chance to account for it an quantify it in his paper though.
    Agloco is offline

  22. #1247
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Whats puzzling to me is the argument that water vapor has stronger greenhouse properties than CO2 so therefor CO2 isn't causing warming. Water vapor is indeed a stronger green house gas but its presence in the atmosphere is directly related to the temp. 80 degree air will hold a certain amount of water vapor and then no more. CO2 concentrations, however, can be ever increased.

    There's a reason WV is the primary feedback mechanism.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  23. #1248
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,479
    Ya. It's obviously there and causing heating of one sort or another. The author missed out on a chance to account for it an quantify it in his paper though.
    Quantified!

    http://sites.google.com/site/coelhom...attredirects=0
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #1249
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.
    Then do so. I've asked the same of Darrin as well.

    I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.
    Neither do I, but sometimes there's an element of practicality that one is confronted with. That is definiely the case when attempting to quantify processes on a global scale no?

    By no means are models gospel truth WC, we know this. But you shouldn't dismiss them out of hand either.......especially before you've considered it's merits (see your first comment above).

    My point is by using their model, I can show an error in their assumptions.

    I don't like relying on models for complex systems. If the AGW crowd would actually address the simpler heat sources and account for them, I might give them more respect than I do.
    What about the more complex stuff?

    The simplified model I presented is a simpler version than the one in the PDF I linked. Other studies use percentages.

    Why is it so difficult to address the multiplier of 1.0018 from 1750 to modern times across the model? The sun accounts for well over 99.99% of the earth's atmospheric heat. The geothermal and tidal forces are almost meaningless. Any field I ever looked at, feedback changes with the supplied source. The sun is the source and the greenhouse gasses supply positive feedback.
    Have you contacted a climatologist in one of those AGW papers to find out? They're usually just an E-Mail away. I'd be interested in what feedback you get from them. My guess? It will be something along the lines of what I told you above.
    Agloco is offline

  25. #1250
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Whats puzzling to me is the argument that water vapor has stronger greenhouse properties than CO2 so therefor CO2 isn't causing warming. Water vapor is indeed a stronger green house gas but its presence in the atmosphere is directly related to the temp. 80 degree air will hold a certain amount of water vapor and then no more. CO2 concentrations, however, can be ever increased.

    There's a reason WV is the primary feedback mechanism.
    The argument the the author makes is that because CO2 has a low thermal diffusivity (that is, it comes into equilibrium very slowly with an altered thermal environment), that it must serve as a net coolant given that it also has a much lower emissivity than water vapor.

    Where he disconnects is in the thought that there is a stable relationship bewteen emissivity, mean free path length of photons and energy deposition in CO2. There isn't since emissivity/absorption is necesarily a function of the wavelength of the incident photon, which is ever changing based on inelastic (in this case Raman) scattering.

    There is, by definition a change in energy which means there's "missing energy" somewhere. That's what the paper you linked addresses.
    Agloco is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •