- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Increased CO2 levels produced no negative effects on GW-signed by 31,847 scientists
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:20 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:20 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I hypothesize, yes. Yes there will be a temperature increase as a function of the energy output of the source, the number of N2 molecules per unit volume (density/pressure) and the heat capacity of the molecule.
Assuming our light is emitting just the spectrum of wavelengths the earth's surface emits, it'll pass right through and not change the temperature. The energy just enters and leaves.
Take the example of the two cities at the same elevation and lat, but different water vapor concentrations.
Assume 20C for this, to keep the numbers easy.
Saturation mixing ratio is 14.956 g H2O/kg air.
We'll do it for 50% of this too, which is 7.478.
The heat capacity change between the two for our hypothetical 1 kg parcel of air is (very) roughly .007 kJ/kg*K. Yet there's a big difference in eventual nighttime temperature based on humidity. The water vapor absorbs and re-emits the energy. The O2 and N2 does not.
quote:
My point here is that you expect me to believe that N2 and O2 act like a vacuum when under radiative heat transfer
It does, but I get how this can be a hang-up.
An IR satellite image picks up the IR radiation coming off the land, water, and clouds. If O2/N2 were absorbing and re-emitting, you wouldn't be able to tell the land from the water for the blanket of the atmosphere.
Or consider IR spectroscopy. Certain chemical bonds absorb certain frequencies of IR radiation. O-H bonds, C-O bonds, C-C bonds, ect. It can't pick up O-O bonds or N-N bonds though, because they don't absorb in the spectrum.
0
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Overheating for lack of IR protection
UV protection really. I get your point though.
quote:
Likewise it is very difficult to fold the entire terrestrial temperature equation into the GHG box when nocturnal heat retention along with altitude effects are considered.
It is not that difficult, since the overall is an energy balance of what comes in from the sun vs what exits into space. Of course, the exact sensitivity to increased CO2 concentrations to temperature increases isn't settled yet.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:31 pm to texridder
quote:
Your comments?
The planet is cooling right now. If anything we are headed for an ice age in 10,000 years. This "overabundance" of CO2 may be trapping more heat(no non government funded study has found this) but the earth will adjust like it has for 4.5 billion years. Humans are so stupid for thinking that they are so important that they can have an effect on something so complex as earths atmosphere.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:40 pm to GumboPot
quote:Sounds good, but does not correlate at all.
Milankovitch Cycles.
Accounting for holocene variances, the cycles would have to be repetitive q0.110Ma. We know of nothing orbitally approaching that.
Seems to me it's down to solar cycles or volcanoes and cow-farts.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:01 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Seems to me it's down to solar cycles or volcanoes and cow-farts.
The likely culprit is solar cycles. Only if we had a dimmer.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:51 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:
Humans are so stupid for thinking that they are so important that they can have an effect on something so complex as earths atmosphere.
I hear this a lot, especially on this board, and its absurd. We have nuclear bombs. A LOT of them. If we set them all off at once this planet would be uninhabitable to higher life forms for quite some time.
Humans certainly CAN effect the Earth's atmosphere....the relevant question is whether our CO2 emissions are doing so.
I don't have the answer to that question, but its ridiculous to just brush the question itself off as an impossibility.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:58 pm to Dday63
quote:
I hear this a lot, especially on this board, and its absurd. We have nuclear bombs. A LOT of them. If we set them all off at once this planet would be uninhabitable to higher life forms for quite some time.
Dude, you're nitpicking, I was referring to human CO2 emissions but go on.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:17 pm to Duke
quote:Oh certainly. But we are talking heat. Without protection of the lower 60miles of atmosphere, we'd boil in daylight, literally. Temps would significantly exceed 212°F.
UV protection
quote:Right.
It is not that difficult, since the overall is an energy balance of what comes in from the sun vs what exits into space.
That is a slightly different element of the discussion though.
But it is an element accounting for importance of solar variance. E.g., whereas radiative forcing is not unidirectional, solar radiation obviously is. In terms of energy balance (heat balance in warming terms), GHGs radiation pattern is one of partial heat retention, i.e. a portion of terrestrial radiated energy redirected back to earth.
As a corollary, I'm not fond of reference to GHGs or "greenhouse" analogies, e.g., taking the "greenhouse" analogy to its logical extreme, thicker glass does not make for a warmer greenhouse. Clearly, in comparisons of Mars vs Earth vs Venus, the "greenhouse" analogy begins to separate from radiative forcing.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:21 pm to djmicrobe
The 6 down voters are GW NPC sheep.
This post was edited on 3/20/19 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:23 pm to BamaAtl
Snopes?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:26 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Snopes?
You have a link to where they list all of their "scientist" signers and their credentials / CVs?
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:We do.
The likely culprit is solar cycles. Only if we had a dimmer.
It's water vapor (that's "Clouds" ... for BamaAtl).
Ironically of course, H2O is far and away our most significant GHA. It is almost like Earth as an animate influenced inanimate strives for its own homeostasis. Of course, that is not a happenstance fact. Were it not for planetary stability in the face of extraterrestrial variance, we'd not exist.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:35 pm to Chuker
Wow...so. much. failure.
Go watch a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." (it's on youtube)
I know, it was produced by that great Conservative media consortium, The BBC....
You'll find more than 10 scientist had to sue the UN to get their names taken off the IPCC report because the conclusions were inaccurate. They sued to have their name taken off the report, one of which was the lead scientist.
Go watch a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle." (it's on youtube)
I know, it was produced by that great Conservative media consortium, The BBC....
You'll find more than 10 scientist had to sue the UN to get their names taken off the IPCC report because the conclusions were inaccurate. They sued to have their name taken off the report, one of which was the lead scientist.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 4:53 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But we are talking heat. Without protection of the lower 60miles of atmosphere, we'd boil in daylight, literally.
The shortwave (UV) is the big inbound player. Ozone layer the important layer in our defense.
Minor points though, we're both on the same page with this.
quote:
But it is an element accounting for importance of solar variance. E.g., whereas radiative forcing is not unidirectional, solar radiation obviously is. In terms of energy balance (heat balance in warming terms), GHGs radiation pattern is one of partial heat retention, i.e. a portion of terrestrial radiated energy redirected back to earth.
Right, I'm just highlighting the keeping more energy in leads to warmer temps.
Solar variance is a thing that is considered in any serious climate science work on climate change. Don't want anyone to think I discount that.
quote:
I'm not fond of reference to GHGs or "greenhouse" analogies, e.g., taking the "greenhouse" analogy to its logical extreme, thicker glass does not make for a warmer greenhouse. Clearly, in comparisons of Mars vs Earth vs Venus, the "greenhouse" analogy begins to separate from radiative forcing.
I know what you mean. It's why I " " greenhouse as much as I can remember to.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 10:25 pm to Dday63
quote:
the relevant question is whether our CO2 emissions are doing so.
I don't have the answer to that question, but its ridiculous to just brush the question itself off as an impossibility.
Human emissions of CO2 does not equal ONE VOLCANIC ERUPTION. Multiple nukes (100 or more depending on size) could = one volcanic eruption.
Human CO2 emissions are too minute to make a difference in temperature; however, total solar irradiance from the sun does make a difference. This is 3rd grade science class.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 10:34 pm to Muleriderhog
quote:
Dude, you're nitpicking, I was referring to human CO2 emissions but go on.
Sure you were...but instead of making a relevant statement about it you just claimed humans we stupid to think we were "so important" that we could have an impact. We CAN have an impact if we really try...I just don't know whether we are having an impact without trying.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 12:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Why don't you post the bullshite source for this gibberish.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is SF6. So is CH4. Of course H2O is far and away the most significant GHA. Right?
The funny thing about water vapor is, the more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more albedo effect. The more albedo, the less solar transmission and relative atmospheric radiative forcing. The less terrestrial exposure and relative atmospheric radiative forcing, the cooler the planet.
It's almost as if it is a multifactorial equation assessed with unifactorial modeling, isn't it though?
Posted on 3/21/19 at 7:46 am to djmicrobe
quote:
Human emissions of CO2 does not equal ONE VOLCANIC ERUPTION. Multiple nukes (100 or more depending on size) could = one volcanic eruption
Really? That's amazing, and just scuttled the whole GW argument! You should probably send your studies to the UN!!
Or, maybe you could actually research this stupid rumor, and find out you are wrong. Volcanoes add hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually....human's add tens of billions.
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 10:36 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 10:29 pm to Dday63
quote:
Really? That's amazing, and just scuttled the whole GW argument! You should probably send your studies to the UN!!
Or, maybe you could actually research this stupid rumor, and find out you are wrong. Volcanoes add hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere annually....human's add tens of billions.
You apparently misunderstood my statement: Human emissions of CO2 does not equal ONE VOLCANIC ERUPTION. Multiple nukes (100 or more depending on size) could = one volcanic eruption.
I did not compare CO2 emissions from a volcano to CO2 emissions from a volcano. I do not expect liberals to understand simple topics. The eruption of Mt Pinatubo affected the temperature of the planet for a few years and its emissions filtered out certain colors of the sun. The volcanic emissions reduced the temperature on the planet, and man was unable to impact this change in temperature.
LINK
quote:
Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C). The eruptions have dramatically changed the face of central Luzon, home to about 3 million people.
LINK
quote:
The eruption, which produced an ash cloud that forced the decision to close Clark Air Base, pumped millions of tons of gases includng hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, to a height of between 12 and 18 miles.
Within about a month, chemical reactions had changed most of the material into an airborne aerosol of tiny droplets of highly corrosive sulfuric acid.
Until the end of August, Pinatubo's acid droplets circled the Earth in a broad belt on either side of the equator that reached only as far north as southern Texas and Florida.
But in recent weeks "the northern edge of the aerosol cloud has been starting to break up into pieces, which move into the Northern Hemisphere," Dr. Krueger said. "Several of those pieces have come by, producing colorful sunsets or sunrises."
So far, Pinatubo's sunsets have come intermittently and unpredictably. But all that should change sometime after today, the autumnal equinox, when the atmospheric winds begin pumping air toward the arctic.
"Probably by late fall, the sunsets will be visible just about every night throughout the Northern Hemisphere," weather permitting, Dr. Krueger said.
Pinatubo's colorful palette is created by sunlight filtering through the sulfuric acid cloud, he said.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News