The President's Commision on Global Warming - Page 7 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

no you dont. there are more than 2 greenhouse gasses. please do the exercise so we can talk about it. until you recognize ghe overall relationship of all the gasses...you are ignoring the entire system.

Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, right?

2%-3% near the surface and ~0.004% up high for water vapor(?), 0.036% CO2, 0.00017%, 0.00003%, and 0.000004%, respectively

I don't know enough about heat capacity to make much sense of the numbers, so I will just say that I believe water vapor and methane are about on par with one another, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide have about half the capacity of the former two, and ozone I think is somewhere in between.

Now, how does this capacity relate to the amount of infrared radiation they absorb? Also, why is it not ok to assume that if water were the only greenhouse gas, that since the water cycle is so fast, and that since it has both positive (increased heat capacity) and negative (increased albedo when clouds form, etc.) feedback, shouldn't temperature variations correct very quickly, relatively speaking?






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

quote:

How is this determined?

What?

How has it been determined that O2 levels do not support an organic rebalancing of CO2 levels? If we know that CO2 was high in the past, and we are pretty certain that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2 (though not causation), then where did the excess CO2 go? Did the oceans re-absorb it even though temperatures were high? Did the sun dim? Did god do it?






Back to top
CptBengal
USA Fan
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
37512 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


you really have no,idea what specific heat capacity is? good god man, just look at the units. how are you having this discussion with such a fundamentql gap in knowledge?





Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

you really have no,idea what specific heat capacity is? good god man, just look at the units.

Did I say I have no idea? I said I don't know enough. By that I mean I know that it is a measure of the amount of heat required to change the temperature of a substance. What I don't know is how those numbers relate to a substance's ability to absorb heat via radiation/conduction/convection. If specific heat capacity of water vapor is 2, and CO2 is 1, is water vapor able to "hold" twice as much heat as an equal amount of CO2? Will water vapor also absorb heat twice as fast? And does the manner of heat transfer matter? Is it possible to radiate a specific wavelength through the atmosphere that will for the most part pass through water vapor without heating it, but that will heat CO2? Will you ever answer any of my questions? I just don't know.

quote:

how are you having this discussion with such a fundamentql gap in knowledge?

I am having this discussion to try to figure out your point, which you don't seem too keen on ever getting around to.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
50468 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

where did the excess CO2 go? Did the oceans re-absorb it even though temperatures were high?
I'm not sure what you're asking.

Obviously with a CO2 equilibrium of roughly 93% ocean vs 2% atmosphere content at given current temperature, the bulk of generated CO2 returns to the ocean.



Terrestrial systems also mitigate increase of atmospheric CO2, sequestering thru carbon into vegetation and soils. The estimated amount of carbon in soil is about 1500 Pg. There is another ~550Pg of carbon in living vegetation, leaving about 750Pg in the atmosphere. So, even relatively small changes in soil carbon content have a significant impact on the global carbon balance. Carbon sequestration by soils occurs primarily through plants. Plants convert CO2 into tissue through photosynthesis. Upon their death, plant tissues decompose, primarily by soil microorganisms, and the carbon in the plant material is eventually released back into the atmosphere as CO2. However some of the carbon is retained as organic humus, and can persist in soils for thousands of years.

quote:

Did the sun dim?
Dim?



As an aside, though you'd never know it in reviewing the work of warmists like Phil Jones, fossil fuels even at the current AlGore-Knee-trembling levels are a relatively small contributor to overall biosphere CO2 production.







Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I'm not sure what you're asking.

I was asking what was the cause of temperature rises in the distant past, and also what caused the correction. That's why I asked if the sun dimmed. As in, if the energy input is pretty constant, what is it that caused periods of high (and low, for that matter) temperatures over the course of the past several thousand years?

What, besides changes in the composition of the atmosphere, would cause the earth to retain more heat? The sun is the only heat input, right? And the only way for that heat to be released is to radiate it back out, right?

I have never in all my life seen people so strongly evade simple questions. I would simply like to establish some common ground, instead of continuing this circle of evasion you guys are putting on.

Is the composition of the atmosphere the main factor that determines average global temperatures? Right now, I don't care how each gas got there. I also don't care which gas has how much effect on keeping us warm. Can you please, for the love of god, just admit that the atmosphere is responsible for what radiation gets in, and what radiation gets out?






Back to top
CptBengal
USA Fan
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
37512 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I don't care how each gas got there. I also don't care which gas has how much effect on keeping us warm.


so you dont actually care to debate the topic.

quote:

an you please, for the love of god, just admit that the atmosphere is responsible for what radiation gets in, and what radiation gets out?


So you are using that cheap debate trick I alluded to earlier. And you also lied too....I'm done with you.






Back to top
Pectus
New Orleans Saints Fan
Internet
Member since Apr 2010
44418 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


Hey guys. Found this and wanted to comment on it.

I wouldn't mind kicking up discussion on it more.

The big point is this, Earth will continue to have recurring Ice Ages until Antarctica moves out of a polar position and there is a Circumequatorial current able to propagate.

Other than that, I don't think we can delay an Ice Age. What's interesting about all the past Ice Ages is there is a short temp spike followed by a dip into the Ice Age. That's probably due to a significant increase in evaporation, which drives ice accumulation on continental glaciers (Greenland/Antarctica) cooling the Earth.


ETA - Oops. I had this thread open on my comp for about 36 hrs, and I knew it wasn't on the PoliBoards front page. Seems like it took off. I'll try and keep up next time.



This post was edited on 2/12 at 6:35 pm


Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

so you dont actually care to debate the topic.

You are twisting my words. I didn't care for the sake of the question, in hopes that I could get a straight answer. Apparently not.
quote:

So you are using that cheap debate trick I alluded to earlier. And you also lied too....I'm done with you.

What did I lie about? And why won't anybody answer that one, simple question?






Back to top
Pectus
New Orleans Saints Fan
Internet
Member since Apr 2010
44418 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:


Some simple questions and observations:

1) Has the Earth been hotter than it is now?

2) Has the sea levels been a lot higher than they are Now?

3) If the answer to question 1 or 2 is "yes" then when and how often?

4) Is the Earth 'perfect" right now? If man had the ability should we "lock" in today's climate and thus keep things exactly like they are?



1) Yes. A lot hotter. Life thrived, including corals.

2) Yes. A lot higher. Life thrived, including corals.

3) Why? Increased CO2, lack of continental ice sheets because of continents not being in polar regions. Circumequatorial ocean currents.

4) Not perfect. There's no perfect with Earth's climate with the past or the future. It is what it is.






Back to top
Pectus
New Orleans Saints Fan
Internet
Member since Apr 2010
44418 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

And why won't anybody answer that one, simple question?



I can't find it. Can you post it again?






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:


I can't find it. Can you post it again?
quote:


Is the composition of the atmosphere the main factor that determines average global temperatures?






Back to top
Pectus
New Orleans Saints Fan
Internet
Member since Apr 2010
44418 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Is the composition of the atmosphere the main factor that determines average global temperatures?


Technically it's insolation, the atmosphere trapping some solar radiation is a side effect.

I would say average global temperature is the relationship of

a) Ice volume
b) Ocean circulation
c) Ocean composition
d) Atmospheric composition
e) Cyclical Cosmic Effects (Milankovitch effects)

And in that order, in this period in Earth's history at least.

I can elaborate on any of these if you would like me to.






Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
50468 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

The big point is this, Earth will continue to have recurring Ice Ages until Antarctica moves out of a polar position and there is a Circumequatorial current able to propagate.










Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
9074 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming




As for this image, it represents the contribution to atmospheric CO2, not the current levels, correct? So I'm going to do some back of the envelope math.

Best I can tell, the total CO2 emitted per year is around 800 billion tons. The human contribution, according to your chart, would be around 25 billion tons. Small, sure.

I didn't figure it myself, but I found a calculation of the total CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and it seems to be around 3 trillion tons. Assuming CO2 concentration would remain relatively stable without humans contributing, that means natural processes would remove all but the 25 billion per year. Let's be optimistic and say the environment removes half of what we put in, as well.

That extra 12 billion tons is 0.4% of the 3 trillion already there, which corresponds to a 1.44ppm increase per year on 360ppm currently there. That sounds pretty close to what has been measured over the past 100 years, no? If you posted that chart to show how little "damage" we do, it doesn't seem to be a good argument.

I understand that your main argument is that the correlation between historic temperatures and CO2 does not imply causation, though, and I understand that completely. But has a major temperature change ever happened without a corresponding change in CO2? Has a change in CO2 ever happened without a corresponding change in temperature? IF we are unnaturally raising CO2, how can you say with certainty that the temperature won't continue to rise with it?






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22095 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Have I not been saying all along that the sun heats the earth to the point where the heat radiated from the earth is in equilibrium with the amount it receives from the sun?
No. You claimed that radiation from the atmosphere was equal in all directions. That simply isn't true. Your second misconception is assuming that "equilibirum" means static and stable. It means neither. A bathtub with a hole leaking as fast is the faucet is filling it is at equilibrium, but it isn't static.

Your mistake is taking the evangelists' bait of claiming a stable atmosphere can only happen with a stable composition. That simply is not true. Dynamic systems can have wide ranges of stability. Think about it... if you let go of the steering wheel of your car, does it immediately veer off the road? Of course not, it has stability.

As does the atmoshpere. Weather creates HUGE perturbations. None of which (on their own) cause huge swings of climate. That is a massive amount of stability. No climate modeling evangelist would ever attempt to reconcile that stability in his models. Otherwise, they'd never converge on a solution.

quote:

If earth had no atmosphere, it would be pretty cold, would it not?
Yea? So?

quote:

The gases in the atmosphere warm the surface.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Gases in the atmosphere ARE NOT A SOURCE OF HEAT. PERIOD.



This post was edited on 2/12 at 9:17 pm


Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22095 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I am disappointed. I went to sleep last night hoping to wake up to a wealth of knowledge. I should have known, though, since even after my asking several times neither of you has even attempted to explain the process by which our atmosphere helps to warm the earth. Instead, you keep reverting to this condescending "I know thermodynamics and you don't" bull shite. You could know everything there is to know, but it doesn't do much good if you can't communicate it to anyone.
Hey jackass. Some of us have jobs. It isn't like the library doesn't have thermo books in it. It isn't anyone else's job to teach you. The knowledge base is out there for you to learn. Notice how I keep asking you questions? Go find the answer to them. They are the questions that when answered will tell you why AGW is a pittiful theory.






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22095 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

While I work on the visual effects, you check out the wavelengths that water vapor do not absorb, and instead allow a great deal of the infrared spectrum to radiate unimpeded into space. And then compare that to the spectrum that CO2 absorbs, and see how much of the water vapor "window" it closes. After that we can argue over the concentrations required of each to have a given effect on the temperature.
yeah. None of that increases the Cp of CO2.






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22095 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

The concentrations of all gases are kept relatively stable through natural cycles, right?
No. CO2 has varied wildly over the climatic record. As has nitrogen, SO4, and many other constituents. When did this balance you speak of occur?



This post was edited on 2/12 at 8:56 pm


Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
22095 posts
 Online 

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I don't know enough about heat capacity to make much sense of the numbers, so I will just say that I believe water vapor and methane are about on par with one another,
Really? You believe the Cp of a liquid-vapor phase is the same as a single phase gas?

Look, with all do respect, you seem like a well intentioned person. And one capable of learning. But the above is... pretty basic to understanding how the climate works. I'm not saying that to be insulting or condescending. Just to demonstrate to you that you're arguing from faith, not science. Now go get the knowledge. You seem smart enough to grasp it. You just haven't been exposed to it.

quote:

Now, how does this capacity relate to the amount of infrared radiation they absorb? Also, why is it not ok to assume that if water were the only greenhouse gas, that since the water cycle is so fast, and that since it has both positive (increased heat capacity) and negative (increased albedo when clouds form, etc.) feedback, shouldn't temperature variations correct very quickly, relatively speaking?
You're getting closer. Now account for the heat of formation and vaporization along with the difference of radiation potential at the surface compared to the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere.



This post was edited on 2/12 at 9:20 pm


Back to top


Back to top




//