AGW: atmospheric physics

[IlarMeilyr]

GLobal cooling is the threat.

But if it ain't man made global cooling, then they don't care.

 

[westwall]

PolarBear, keep all of your stalking me on the one thread that you've already trashed, the "Human Footprint" thread. You don't get to trash this thread too. I will not engage it here, you are breaking forum rules by spamming it, and I will report you for spamming if you keep it up. I've already reported Westwall for negging me twice in 6 hours. If you children can't behave, you're going to get a timeout.

Now Westwall, why do you think not talking about neutrinos is a problem? Energy-wise, they're an insignificant part of solar output, and since they don't interact with matter, they have zilch to do with the second law, thermodynamics or global warming. It appeared to be just a "gotcha" you tried to pull to distract people from how bizarre your version of the second law is.

You see, if your version of the second law requires that all thermodynamics and stellar physics over the past 50 years be declared null and void, then it's a good bet that your version of the second law is maybe just not quite right.

But heck, maybe it's true. Maybe the best and brightest minds of humanity are all wrong, and only a few bitter right-wing-fringe cranks know the real truth. Hey, it could happen. Really.

Go away stinky sock. Re-invent yourself as a famous rock star or something amusing. You're an epic failure in this role....epic.

 

[westwall]

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.

Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That has zero empirical evidence to support your assertion. Try again fraud boy.

 

[Saigon]

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.

Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.


Westwall -

Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.

 

[Saigon]

GLobal cooling is the threat.

But if it ain't man made global cooling, then they don't care.

I look forward to seeing you present a case to back up your claim.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.

Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.


Westwall -

Please do not spam the thread with childish abuse. Either address the topic with relevant points, or leave the topic for others.

Yet more sock yapping I see. So tell me mr. "Finnish journalist" on American time.. Since when does correlation equal causation?

 

[westwall]

GLobal cooling is the threat.

But if it ain't man made global cooling, then they don't care.

I look forward to seeing you present a case to back up your claim.

We look forward to you leaving....

 

[gslack]

I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.

Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?

Why with a new CO2 infinite heat machine you could solve the energy problems overnight.. Go build one please... Yes you know how to harness this miraculous energy doubling effect known to exist in CO2, please make one.... What? You don't know how?

I'll help you.. First get a big glass tank we can put some CO2 in. Then place a mirror so the sun will reflect the light back through the tank. When it does it will heat the CO2. Then set up a 2nd mirror to reflect the same light back to the other mirror. The continuous light going back and forth through the CO2 gas will make it get hotter and hotter, you could place a tank of water in it and make steamtoturn a turbine or anything really...

Okay I gave you a start, now go!!

 

[IanC]

I find it amazing that all of these self proclaimed geniuses, numan, and socks, and trolling blunder and socks, and now this new sock, not one of them understand the concepts they are supporting here.

Let me see if I can simplify this for the mentally impaired geniuses... If you believe in the current theory of AGW, then you are also believing in perfect machines... Why don't you geniuses go and use these new concepts you are embracing to do something useful?

Why with a new CO2 infinite heat machine you could solve the energy problems overnight.. Go build one please... Yes you know how to harness this miraculous energy doubling effect known to exist in CO2, please make one.... What? You don't know how?

I'll help you.. First get a big glass tank we can put some CO2 in. Then place a mirror so the sun will reflect the light back through the tank. When it does it will heat the CO2. Then set up a 2nd mirror to reflect the same light back to the other mirror. The continuous light going back and forth through the CO2 gas will make it get hotter and hotter, you could place a tank of water in it and make steamtoturn a turbine or anything really...

Okay I gave you a start, now go!!

you should let people who can think do the commenting. are you really as clueless as the gibberish you write down?

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

the other significant point is that solar radiation is shortwave and highly ordered. the IR radiation both from the surface and the atmosphere is disordered and incapable of doing work because there is no appreciable temperature differential.

 

[IanC]

someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.

how could you tell the difference between a reflected, naturally emitted or simply transversed photon? any form would be measured as radiation from the Sun, therefore it has 'added' to the Sun's total energy, even if it is a totally insignificant portion.

Good morning to you.
B.t.w. My driveway got snowed under again today, so I`m waiting for the snowplow yet again and while I do,... I`ll respond.
Interesting question.
I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.
The only thing I did do was when the first dual channel AA, a Jarell Ash 800 came out was tuning one monochromator to the absorption line and the other to the emission line with multi element hollow cathodes while aspirating K, Na or Ca solutions.
On the absorption bands you got next to no absorption from the source unless you add an ionization suppressing agent.
Then you can measure absorption but on the 2.nd channel which was tuned to one of the emission lines of that element you can indeed see an increase in emission.
I have no way of telling if these additional photons made it straight through the sample path and came directly from the hollow cathode source or if they were first absorbed at the emission band an re-emitted along with the rest of the photons that were emitted by the hot enough atoms in the sample path.
It`s hard to to, because for absorption you turn the burner head so it`s aligned with the light path and for emission you turn it 90 degrees to get more light....no matter which way I played around with it the results were the same, but I doubt it that the photons from the cathode lamp "heated up" speak excited the electrons at the emission band frequency any more than they were already pumped up with the air-acetylene flame.
Was that short enough for you, by your standards...
Hey you are not that critical about the lengths of of the texts you quote in this forum. I always read the entire thing. You should see how long a single chapter is in the ASTM (forensic analysis) regulations how to do a spectral analysis for on element so that it can be accepted in a court of law

I again commend you to for brevity and only making a few points. it is much more readable.

even if all the outbound radiation from the earth was directed at the Sun I doubt that it would be detectable within measurement errors. and I do not think that any outside radiation goes through the Sun, I only put it up as one of the three possibilities.

a few years ago a new type of filament enclosure was experimented with. it used a carbon fiber grid that stopped emission of IR. the bulb used less energy to heat up to and maintain the necessary temperature to emit the required amount of visible light because of the reduced amount of waste heat produced (the majority of energy used in common incandescents).

 

[IanC]

radiative photons (think light), once created to shed energy from an excited bit of matter, exist until they interact with another bit of matter.

An electron is energy... as I understand, the smallest discrete bit of energy possible of electromagnetic radiation. Energy can't move from cool to warm or low energy to high energy. It remains to be proven whether or not a photon exists till it interacts with another bit of matter. For that matter, it remains to be proven wheither photons exist at all. You make a lot of statements as if they were fact, when in truth, they are not.

you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.

well, good luck with that.

 

[IanC]

LOL, numan the self proclaimed genius, and his ward the boy wonder mammooth, both seem to believe in two- way energy flow. And by extrapolation believe in perfect machines and unlimited energy gain from a finite source..

Why don't you guys put these theories in action and end the planets energy problems?

We should be able to power the planet with the backradiation from the atmosphere alone since climate science claims that it is more than twice the amount of energy coming in from the sun. Strange that you can't measure that enormous amount of backradiation at ambient temperature but have no problem measuring the lesser amount coming in from the sun. My bet is that you can't measure it because it isn't there.

SSDD- I realize that you cannot really back away from some of you more strident claims because you would lose too much face, but how do you just ignore the heatsink and insulating properties of the surface and the atmosphere which moderate the daytime heating and nighttime cooling? how do you ignore the other laws of thermodynamics? like conservation of energy, or heat flow being proportional to temperature differential? you really dont seem to have followed your statements out to their absurd conclusions.

 

[SSDD]

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

Bullshit. There is no proof whatsoever to back up that ridiculous assertion.

Really? Here are what real scientists are presenting.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You keep posting that bit of religious dogma....I have read it, and read the information at its links...Where in all that do you believe there is proof that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming? To date, there doesn't exist even the smallest bit of actual (as oppsed to the output of computer models) proof that our CO2 has any effect at all on the global climate and now that the earth has gone 15 years with no warming in spite of increased atmospheric CO2 which climate science is at a loss to explain, the possibility that man made CO2 is driving the climate is even more remote than the bullshit hypothesis claimed in the beginnning.

 

[SSDD]

That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...

Rocks always posts that bit of "information" every time someone asks for proof that CO2 is causing the global temperature to rise. I have read it all...and read the material that it links to..not, admittedly the matierial that the links link to, but I can find nothing in there that even approaches the level of empirical proof that CO2 is in any way a control knob for the cliamte.

Every time he posts it, I ask him to point out the proof that he claims is in there...he never does. Did you find it? Where is it...or are you just posting it because you think rocks has a clue?

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature.

I am sure that you don't know it, but professor (edit) Woods proved that bit of 19th century pseudoscience wrong shortly after it was presented to the royal society. He did the experiment with a greenhouse made of rock salt panes rather than glass. Rock salt is opaque to IR. He found that the greenhouse heated up to exactly the same degree that the glass greenhouse did proving that it was the blocking of convection and conduction that caused the greenhouse to warm, not gasses in the atmosphere.

The notion that the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect was extrapolated from a failed greenhouse experiment..not any direct observation or experimentation.

 

[SSDD]

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start.

No it isn't...it isn't anything like a reasonable place to start. First it assumes that the earth is a flat disk that doesn't rotate...then it assumes that the sun is 1/4 as bright as it actually is and we receive that weak twilight 24 hours a day. What is reasonable about a model that doesn't even begin to look in the direction of reality...much less approach it?

Postma modeled a 3D earth (as opposed to the flat earth that warmers and luke warmers believe in) that rotated and received normal levels of sunlight and found that a greenhouse effect was not necessary to explain the temperature of the earth.

 

[SSDD]

you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.

We can't describe the physical mechanism of gravity either but that doesn't change the fact.

I am only taking the law at its word....it is you guys who are making claims that the law says aren't possible. If the second law doesn't mean what it says, why does it say it? Why not change the wording to allow two way gross energy flows which, by the way, aren't taught in the physics classes leading to the hard science degree of physics?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- I realize that you cannot really back away from some of you more strident claims because you would lose too much face, but how do you just ignore the heatsink and insulating properties of the surface and the atmosphere which moderate the daytime heating and nighttime cooling? how do you ignore the other laws of thermodynamics? like conservation of energy, or heat flow being proportional to temperature differential? you really dont seem to have followed your statements out to their absurd conclusions.

First, I haven't made any "strident" claims. I have more or less only repated the second law of thermodynamics over and over in the face of the claims of the warmers and luke warmers. If strident claims have been made, then it is the second law making them.

The properties of the amtosphere can be described and predicted by the ideal gas laws. The greenhouse effect is a fabricated construct invented to balance trenberth's idiotic energy budget.

Do you think the ideal gas laws ignore the other laws of thermodynamics? By using them, you eliminate the stupidity of the greenhouse effect and get down to hard, observable, repeatable science rather than some half assed hypothesis which is still waiting for the first bit of empirical evidence after all these years and billions upon billions of dollars being spent.

 

[IanC]

That's an interesting article for those open-minded enough to read it...

Rocks always posts that bit of "information" every time someone asks for proof that CO2 is causing the global temperature to rise. I have read it all...and read the material that it links to..not, admittedly the matierial that the links link to, but I can find nothing in there that even approaches the level of empirical proof that CO2 is in any way a control knob for the cliamte.

Every time he posts it, I ask him to point out the proof that he claims is in there...he never does. Did you find it? Where is it...or are you just posting it because you think rocks has a clue?

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature.

I am sure that you don't know it, but professor Roberts proved that bit of 19th century pseudoscience wrong shortly after it was presented to the royal society. He did the experiment with a greenhouse made of rock salt panes rather than glass. Rock salt is opaque to IR. He found that the greenhouse heated up to exactly the same degree that the glass greenhouse did proving that it was the blocking of convection and conduction that caused the greenhouse to warm, not gasses in the atmosphere.

The notion that the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect was extrapolated from a failed greenhouse experiment..not any direct observation or experimentation.

I must admit I used to ask Old Rocks the exact location in his favourite links for the answers to specific questions but he never did respond. and I couldnt find them either.

 

[IanC]

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start.

No it isn't...it isn't anything like a reasonable place to start. First it assumes that the earth is a flat disk that doesn't rotate...then it assumes that the sun is 1/4 as bright as it actually is and we receive that weak twilight 24 hours a day. What is reasonable about a model that doesn't even begin to look in the direction of reality...much less approach it?

Postma modeled a 3D earth (as opposed to the flat earth that warmers and luke warmers believe in) that rotated and received normal levels of sunlight and found that a greenhouse effect was not necessary to explain the temperature of the earth.

sounds like an excellent topic for a thread.

 

[IanC]

you have taken a law built from statistical probabilities and given it God-like powers to forbid certain interactions, which it doesnt have, and no physical mechanisms to explain these mystical powers, and yet you casually dismiss photons and the massive amounts of experimental evidence that we have on them, and use to run just about all of our technology.

We can't describe the physical mechanism of gravity either but that doesn't change the fact.

I am only taking the law at its word....it is you guys who are making claims that the law says aren't possible. If the second law doesn't mean what it says, why does it say it? Why not change the wording to allow two way gross energy flows which, by the way, aren't taught in the physics classes leading to the hard science degree of physics?

we can describe gravity to a very fine degree even if we cannot find the mechanism by which the force is transfered. curvature of space seems ad hoc to me.

were is the description of this mechanism that forbids emission of radiation, and under which circumstances does it take effect?