Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[westwall]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

Yes, lets' talk about what warms the Earth. Is it the atmosphere? Welllll, no...it doesn't seem to be the atmosphere that can warm the planet. In fact nothing propagates through air very well other than light.

Any home builder will tell you that "dead air" is the best insulator you can get. So, it's definitely not the atmosphere that warms the Earth.

How about the ground? Does that do it? Welllll, let's see. In the daytime it is certainly warm...but hey...wait a minute. If I'm in the desert it gets real warm in the day, but colder than hell at night! What gives? Hmm....Maybe it isn't the rocks that are retaining the heat.

So...what does that leave? Oh yeah! It leaves the oceans! And sure enough, land that is next to an ocean has a more stable temperature range. Amazing! OK. We now know that it is the oceans that heat the Earth. Cool. Now, how do the oceans themselves get warmed? Hmm. There is UV radiation, and there is IR radiation. How deep does the light have to penetrate to actually warm up the oceans?

Turns out...you have to punch that light really, really deep. Over 100 meters in point of fact. So...how deep can UV light penetrate into the oceans? Well, at 200 meters there is no longer enough energy from the Sun for photosynthesis to occur. However, in the deep ocean, away from coastal debris the sunlight can penetrate up to 850 meters deep to at least make it possible to see. Beyond 850 meters it is inky black.

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

Shedding Light on Light in the Ocean Oceanus Magazine

 

[kflaux]

Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.

Yes, because that was the general trend predicted by our knowledge of e.g. the Milankovich cycles and the like. Very, very gradual cooling, but not likely to affect humans for thousands of years.

That was before human-produced greenhouse gases, and to a lesser extent land-use practices, overwhelmed the gradual cooling trend. Jim Hansen has said that a single CFC factory, located anywhere on earth, would have been enough to counter the cooling trend.

You AGW deniers are going to be more and more lonely in future. Kinda like the few nutcases who still think smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer.

 

[jc456]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

Crick, correct, I don't believe there is back radiation that comes out of the nice cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Does it radiate, sure, I have no doubt, me I just haven't seen any evidence that backradiation will warm the surface. If you have that evidence, feel free to show it to me.

A solar oven will heat things if you point it at the Sun, cool thing if you point it towards open sky, and is intermediate if you point it towards a cloud. The difference is how much back radiation it is getting. Without an atmosphere it would get much hotter or much cooler. The temperature of the object at the focal point is the equilibrium of energy in minus energy out. Even a cooler atmosphere gives back more radiation than just space. Cool things can reduce energy loss. Depending on how you define 'warming', cool things can warm hotter things as long as there is a heat source moving energy through the system.

Ian, I'm no science major, however, the problem I have to your analogy involves what the cloud actually does. Clouds actually keep the temperatures under them cooler, that is fact. We do know that the sun's rays do penetrate the cloud, so if back radiation were happening, then wouldn't the surface be warmer under that cloud? I mean it is cooler in the cloud above and therefore should slow the warming down at the surface according to your post. So I have a conundrum with what you wrote.

Also, as pointed out by Westwall, in a desert at night it is cold, no retention of heat so the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface after the sun is gone.

 

[mamooth]

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

Conservation of energy always holds. Penetration depth is not the relevant point. The point is it does penetrate, hence it does get absorbed, hence the energy goes into the oceans.

I'll expand. This profile shows a typical temperature profile of the ocean during the day. Note the log scale on the vertical axis.

The water warms below the surface skin, due to the visible light being absorbed. The warmer water rises. Air temps are almost always lower than ocean temps, so the water then loses heat at the surface.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

 

[jc456]

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

Conservation of energy always holds. Penetration depth is not the relevant point. The point is it does penetrate, hence it does get absorbed, hence the energy goes into the oceans.

I'll expand. This profile shows a typical temperature profile of the ocean during the day. Note the log scale on the vertical axis.

The water warms below the surface skin, due to the visible light being absorbed. The warmer water rises. Air temps are almost always lower than ocean temps, so the water then loses heat at the surface.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

hahahahahhahaha, wow dude/ dudette now that's hilarious.

 

[mamooth]

jc, deliberately trashing threads is still against board rules, even in Zone 3. So stop it.

 

[westwall]

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

Conservation of energy always holds. Penetration depth is not the relevant point. The point is it does penetrate, hence it does get absorbed, hence the energy goes into the oceans.

I'll expand. This profile shows a typical temperature profile of the ocean during the day. Note the log scale on the vertical axis.

The water warms below the surface skin, due to the visible light being absorbed. The warmer water rises. Air temps are almost always lower than ocean temps, so the water then loses heat at the surface.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor. IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.

 

[westwall]

Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.

Yes, because that was the general trend predicted by our knowledge of e.g. the Milankovich cycles and the like. Very, very gradual cooling, but not likely to affect humans for thousands of years.

That was before human-produced greenhouse gases, and to a lesser extent land-use practices, overwhelmed the gradual cooling trend. Jim Hansen has said that a single CFC factory, located anywhere on earth, would have been enough to counter the cooling trend.

You AGW deniers are going to be more and more lonely in future. Kinda like the few nutcases who still think smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer.

So....how do you explain when the global temps have been both warmer (much warmer in point of fact) and colder, both when CO2 levels were high and low?

 

[mamooth]

Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor. IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.

Now that you're declaring conservation of energy can be violated whenever it's convenient for you, you place yourself in the same outright kook category as Billy.

 

[IanC]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

Crick, correct, I don't believe there is back radiation that comes out of the nice cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Does it radiate, sure, I have no doubt, me I just haven't seen any evidence that backradiation will warm the surface. If you have that evidence, feel free to show it to me.

A solar oven will heat things if you point it at the Sun, cool thing if you point it towards open sky, and is intermediate if you point it towards a cloud. The difference is how much back radiation it is getting. Without an atmosphere it would get much hotter or much cooler. The temperature of the object at the focal point is the equilibrium of energy in minus energy out. Even a cooler atmosphere gives back more radiation than just space. Cool things can reduce energy loss. Depending on how you define 'warming', cool things can warm hotter things as long as there is a heat source moving energy through the system.

Ian, I'm no science major, however, the problem I have to your analogy involves what the cloud actually does. Clouds actually keep the temperatures under them cooler, that is fact. We do know that the sun's rays do penetrate the cloud, so if back radiation were happening, then wouldn't the surface be warmer under that cloud? I mean it is cooler in the cloud above and therefore should slow the warming down at the surface according to your post. So I have a conundrum with what you wrote.

Also, as pointed out by Westwall, in a desert at night it is cold, no retention of heat so the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface after the sun is gone.

Fair enough question. Clouds act like a boundary, water droplets act like a mirror for many wavelengths including much of IR. The total between reflected and radiated (at a higher adiabatic temp) is what makes the input from a cloud higher than clear sky right out to space.

 

[IanC]

Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.

Yes, because that was the general trend predicted by our knowledge of e.g. the Milankovich cycles and the like. Very, very gradual cooling, but not likely to affect humans for thousands of years.

That was before human-produced greenhouse gases, and to a lesser extent land-use practices, overwhelmed the gradual cooling trend. Jim Hansen has said that a single CFC factory, located anywhere on earth, would have been enough to counter the cooling trend.

You AGW deniers are going to be more and more lonely in future. Kinda like the few nutcases who still think smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer.

Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.

 

[kflaux]

Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.

I see. Apologies then.

IAC here is Hansen's statement:
But shouldn’t Earth now, or at some point, be headed into the next ice age? No. Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct. Orbital conditions now are, indeed, conducive (albeit weakly6 ) to initiation of ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere But only a small amount of human-made GHGs are needed to overwhelm any natural tendency toward cooling. The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling. Even after fossil fuel use ceases and its effect is drained from the system an ice age could be averted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced in a single CFC factory. It is a trivial task for humanity to avert an ice age.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf

As for the "exaggerations and predictions of doom", well, until four or five years ago, that was my thinking as well.

The two things though that you need to consider very carefully are:

1) Inertia...which is to say, the enormous time-lag between our actions today, and the climate consequences, which will typically only appear decades in the future.

More importantly though,

2) Tipping points. Regional features, such as the melting Arctic sea ice, or dessication and ultimate destruction of the Amazon rain forest, or the melting and release of methane clathrates in the permafrost in e.g. Siberia, that are thought to start irreversible processes.

Which is to say, the planetary system, taken as a whole, is highly nonlinear. As the paleoclimate record tells us. Climate stability is actually quite rare.

For both of the above reasons, we will NOT be able to simply make a few adjustments when we finally eventually decide that AGW might perhaps become a bit of a problem.

 

[westwall]

Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor. IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.

Now that you're declaring conservation of energy can be violated whenever it's convenient for you, you place yourself in the same outright kook category as Billy.

Where exactly have I claimed that? Really, admiral. We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude. At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.

 

[westwall]

Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.

I see. Apologies then.

IAC here is Hansen's statement:
But shouldn’t Earth now, or at some point, be headed into the next ice age? No. Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct. Orbital conditions now are, indeed, conducive (albeit weakly6 ) to initiation of ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere But only a small amount of human-made GHGs are needed to overwhelm any natural tendency toward cooling. The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling. Even after fossil fuel use ceases and its effect is drained from the system an ice age could be averted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced in a single CFC factory. It is a trivial task for humanity to avert an ice age.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf

As for the "exaggerations and predictions of doom", well, until four or five years ago, that was my thinking as well.

The two things though that you need to consider very carefully are:

1) Inertia...which is to say, the enormous time-lag between our actions today, and the climate consequences, which will typically only appear decades in the future.

More importantly though,

2) Tipping points. Regional features, such as the melting Arctic sea ice, or dessication and ultimate destruction of the Amazon rain forest, or the melting and release of methane clathrates in the permafrost in e.g. Siberia, that are thought to start irreversible processes.

Which is to say, the planetary system, taken as a whole, is highly nonlinear. As the paleoclimate record tells us. Climate stability is actually quite rare.

For both of the above reasons, we will NOT be able to simply make a few adjustments when we finally eventually decide that AGW might perhaps become a bit of a problem.

Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible. Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it. Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So... how far does IR light penetrate? You know..the wavelength that is claimed to be responsible for all that man made global warming? Microns. Yep....less than a millimeter deep. In other words...the very thing they claim is responsible for warming the oceans, physically can't. It is impossible.

Conservation of energy always holds. Penetration depth is not the relevant point. The point is it does penetrate, hence it does get absorbed, hence the energy goes into the oceans.

I'll expand. This profile shows a typical temperature profile of the ocean during the day. Note the log scale on the vertical axis.

The water warms below the surface skin, due to the visible light being absorbed. The warmer water rises. Air temps are almost always lower than ocean temps, so the water then loses heat at the surface.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

Penetration is ABSOLUTELY the controlling factor. IR can not, and never will contribute to the warming of the oceans.

Mantooth doesn't have a clue about what wave length will penetrate the ocean to what depth.. IT thinks it all can. It is a moron..

 

[IanC]

Are you confusing me with someone else? I agree with the basic mechanism of CO2 theory, I just don't agree with the exaggerations and predictions of doom.

I see. Apologies then.

IAC here is Hansen's statement:
But shouldn’t Earth now, or at some point, be headed into the next ice age? No. Another ice age will not occur, unless humans go extinct. Orbital conditions now are, indeed, conducive (albeit weakly6 ) to initiation of ice sheet growth in the Northern Hemisphere But only a small amount of human-made GHGs are needed to overwhelm any natural tendency toward cooling. The long lifetime of human-made CO2 perturbations assures that no human generation that we can imagine will need to be concerned about global cooling. Even after fossil fuel use ceases and its effect is drained from the system an ice age could be averted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) produced in a single CFC factory. It is a trivial task for humanity to avert an ice age.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/hansen.pdf

As for the "exaggerations and predictions of doom", well, until four or five years ago, that was my thinking as well.

The two things though that you need to consider very carefully are:

1) Inertia...which is to say, the enormous time-lag between our actions today, and the climate consequences, which will typically only appear decades in the future.

More importantly though,

2) Tipping points. Regional features, such as the melting Arctic sea ice, or dessication and ultimate destruction of the Amazon rain forest, or the melting and release of methane clathrates in the permafrost in e.g. Siberia, that are thought to start irreversible processes.

Which is to say, the planetary system, taken as a whole, is highly nonlinear. As the paleoclimate record tells us. Climate stability is actually quite rare.

For both of the above reasons, we will NOT be able to simply make a few adjustments when we finally eventually decide that AGW might perhaps become a bit of a problem.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now. Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.

I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.

 

[mamooth]

Where exactly have I claimed that? Really, admiral. We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude. At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.

You've told us the longwave IR penetrates into the ocean. Yet you also say the energy of it is _not_ absorbed by the ocean.

So where does the energy go? You and your conspiracy pal Billy won't tell us. Apparently, you think the energy just vanishes into a mystery dimension.

That means you're both happily violating conservation of energy, just because it's convenient for your conspiracy theory. And that explains why the whole planet considers your science to be a joke.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where exactly have I claimed that? Really, admiral. We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude. At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.

You've told us the longwave IR penetrates into the ocean. Yet you also say the energy of it is _not_ absorbed by the ocean.

So where does the energy go? You and your conspiracy pal Billy won't tell us. Apparently, you think the energy just vanishes into a mystery dimension.

That means you're both happily violating conservation of energy, just because it's convenient for your conspiracy theory. And that explains why the whole planet considers your science to be a joke.

IR is 15 micron or larger which does not penetrate the oceans at all. it is why CO2 can not affect the ocean temps. But poor little hair ball has no clue about the real science of it..

 

[westwall]

Where exactly have I claimed that? Really, admiral. We know you really don't know what you're talking about, but c'mon dude. At least try and make an effort to post something at least semi factual.

You've told us the longwave IR penetrates into the ocean. Yet you also say the energy of it is _not_ absorbed by the ocean.

So where does the energy go? You and your conspiracy pal Billy won't tell us. Apparently, you think the energy just vanishes into a mystery dimension.

That means you're both happily violating conservation of energy, just because it's convenient for your conspiracy theory. And that explains why the whole planet considers your science to be a joke.

No. I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean. If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?

 

[kflaux]

Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible. Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it. Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.

Usually, yes, you are quite correct.

However, that "usually" is the usually of the Holocene, which as you are aware, only goes back 11,000 years or so.

One of the more frightening things climate scientists have discovered in the past decade or two is that climate can change quite suddenly. Look up the "Younger Dryas" period, and how it ended.

Many climate scientists now think the Younger Dryas ended in a decade or less. Some think it ended in just two or three years. That's two or three years over which the climate changed by something like 10 deg F on average.

As Wally Broecker and others have stated often enough, it is very stupid to assume that because our climate has been benign for centuries, it will continue to be benign when we poke it with such a sharp stick so persistently.