Scut Farkus
Best
there have been zero repeatable experiments on the issue.
the measures all different in every study.
you're just "keeping hope alive" for alarmist eco-fascism.
Science from the other side of Climate Change
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
the measures all different in every study.
you're just "keeping hope alive" for alarmist eco-fascism.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Alarmist eco-fascism? Interesting, considering I've never talked about any changes that we should implement due to climate change. In fact, without countries like China and India on board, nothing we are going to do is going to make a difference.
But, please, don't let reality slow you down...
ROFL
I'm the one posting facts, that you can't deny.
You want everyone to forget the idiocy your church has spread.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
It could, but it would not because the atmosphere itself emits thermal (blackbody, although that is the ideal case) radiation.
Therefore even with IR transparency the top of the atmosphere would still be a radiation surface.
If you've ever seen glass blowing you may have noticed that the glass can warm and cool such that the thermal radiation enters and leaves the visible spectrum.
At just the right point you can simultaneously see through the glass and see that the glass volume is glowing red. That would be the circumstance of an IR transparent atmosphere.
The atmosphere would still emit thermal radiation towards the planet in IR and towards space in IR. It still has an insulating effect because of this as it still moves the effective radiant surface of the planet high in the atmosphere.
Another way to look at it is this: Some of the energy at the surface will be absorbed into the atmosphere by conduction. When that happens it won't be available to be emitted into space by the surface. The warm atmosphere can hold onto that energy for a while, climb through convection, and then emit half of the energy back at the planet and half into space.
Insulation is anything that slows the movement of energy away from a system and that is precisely what I just described without involving the atmosphere absorbing any IR.
Doing a blackbody calculation on the surface and saying that is what it would be without an IR opaque atmosphere is discarding it.
IR opacity would certainly increase the insulative effect but it is not the sole cause (as I just described).
An IR transparent atmosphere would cause a surface temperature between Delta -30C (assuming that's right) and actual depending on its properties, mostly area density * specific heat.
You would need a full survey just as you would need a full survey of dug up carbon sources.
The closer the isotope ratios are between the average of those dug up and burned and those in the deep ocean the more precise and complete the survey would need to be.
Furthermore porous and carbon interactive geology is saturated below the waterline through the world and especially in the deep ocean the error bars on such things would be very large. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_sediment
Calcium bicarbonate is no doubt in some sort of equilibrium in this carbonate ooze and this reaction can release the carbon dioxide without an enormous input of energy:
Calcium bicarbonate - Wikipedia
In other words the world's ocean floors are covered in an unknown depth of what is basically a carbon dioxide sponge that could due to small changes in temperature and pH release or absorb carbon dioxide that had been trapped for 100 years or 100 million years.
Depending on the age and mixture with others it could be easily distinguished (by isotope) from a particular oil field or it could be nearly identical. There is no guarantee of homogeneous mixing on either side of the equation.
That is gobbledegook.
I described multiple phenomenon that could only be described by differential equations. It's all simultaneously "feedback" and "forcing" if you insisted on using those words (which I would not recommend).
Nonsense.
Photons don't care how long the molecule they hit has been floating around. This claim is completely divorced from any relevant measurement.
Concentration distribution time and space <- matters
Radiation profile <- matters
If "sticking around" is supposed to refer to concentration distribution then water vapor sticks around a hell of a lot more than carbon dioxide does. If it refers to average time for a molecule to traverse the cycle that doesn't matter at all.
No excuses remember? If you understand it then you explain it. That way I don't do a ton of work analyzing a prewritten article and then you go "who knows I didn't write it".
I have no idea how "climate sensitivity" is defined, but correlation is certainly not causation when there exist known relationships which allow warmer temperatures to cause increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.Wrong. Climate sensitivity studies (which also include DIRECT MEASUREMENT METHODS) show that CO2 is a very important greenhouse gas.
Here's a graph of relative climate sensitivities of greenhouse gases etc.:
This is an ensemble study which also explains HOW the estimates are made. You can find it here: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo337
That's setting aside all the questionable leaps that I have often observed in reconstructing deep time records of such things.
Yes, it would move the radiant surface up, proportional to the increase in concentration. Since carbon dioxide is a trace gas blocking only a portion of the relevant wavelengths doubling the concentration produces a minuscule shift. Add to that the fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than other gasses, even water, carbon dioxide concentrations would be at their very lowest in the upper atmosphere relative to other gasses.
Perhaps measured in centimeters.
That does not follow. A reduced density doesn't mean "less efficient", if the density is low it merely exposes free paths for lower layers of the atmosphere.
The reason the effective radiative surface would move up is because of the chance that an IR photon pointed towards space would strike a greenhouse gas molecule and the power would be redirected downward.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
All of the atmosphere absorbs infrared. There is no substance that is transparent to all infrared.
Why does this matter in any way?
Why?
No, this is not the case. Clouds absorb solar energy just as the lithosphere does. It's just that any solar energy that is absorbed by clouds is not available to be abosrbed by the lithosphere or hydrosphere, and any solar energy not absorbed by clouds will be absorbed by the lithosphere or the hydrosphere.
You have that backwards. The density and thermal changes are governed by the convection, not the other way around as you have described.
IR is emitted to space from the entirety of the hydrosphere, the lithosphere and the atmosphere, all taken as a whole. Energy does not need to rise up through the atmosphere via convection to escape into space.
Scut Farkus
Best
wtf is this all about goddamit!!!1
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Have you looked into rigging yet? What is the relationship between constructing the pyramids, bronze, and moving a battery?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
To: sborenstein@ap.org, sethborenstein@gmail.co, cubdadreporter@yahoo.com, borenbears@aol.com,
sborenstein@nyu.edu, sethborenstein@nyu.edu, sethb@nyu.edu, seth.borenstein@nyu.edu
212-621-1849
202-776-9400
Subject: Was there ever a Followup?
Seth, I was reading a 2008 article you wrote about the Arctic having reached the tipping point and the Arctic ice being gone by the summer of 2018. Obviously that didn't happen, and I was wondering if there was a followup/correction to that article that lays out an updated timeline.
Have a great day. - Isaac
Scut Farkus
Best
no.
you focus on the fraudish intellectual undergirding.
silo-ing, specialization, plausible deniability......
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It's a religious dogma moreso than a view of anything real.
They focus on the earth since the publishing of the Communist Manifesto. Everything ultimately references back to Karl Marx, the Industrial Revolution and "human activity" (which really means "industrial activity" and "capitalism").
Note: notice how "capitalism" and "human activity" could be used interchangeably and are the cause of the planet's woes.
While this book is a good read, it won't offer any insights into the totally undefined, unfalsifiable religious doctrine of a "global climate." Only warmizombies know what they imagine that to be, but one thing is certain, no one has ever unambiguously defined the "global climate" in any way that doesn't violate physics, math or logic.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Well, that's certainly one aspect of your Climate Doom religion.
No, you simply insist that others believe as you have been ordered to believe, so that more people will become easily maleable, like you have become, to your thought-masters.
I have great news! Your religious worship remains unaffected by any other countries being "on board."
ZenMode
Well-known member
Daylight63
Verified User
Yes but it gets pushed higher and higher with more and more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to regions where re-emission is less efficient.
I don't believe that glass is IR transparent. Normally. I don't know when it is red hot. What i assume you are actually seeing is the IR emissions from the hot surface of the glass....not THROUGH the glass per se. But I could be mistaken. If you can find a reference to explain this please pass it along.
I don't believe I understand what you are saying here. Conduction is the TRANSFER of energy....moving it around. So I don't see how "conduction" would be a manner of "absorption of energy".
Given that the heat is just IR photons and we KNOW that diatomic molecules like O2 and N2 have almost no IR absorption, the greenhouse gases have to do the heavy lifting.
This doesn't really make much sense. Air conducts very poorly.
Actually what is happening is that the IR photons are being absorbed and re-emitted over and over between greenhouse gas molecules.
I'm not entirely certain where you are getting your information about how the greenhouse effect works. I'm going to recommend a link from UC Irivine that nicely lays out the role of IR-active molecules in the atmosphere and how energy is moved around the atmosphere:
But the atmosphere is NOT IR opaque and the reason it has any IR opacity is due to those molecules which can absorb IR. Which is NOT most of the atmosphere. It requires greenhouse gases.
Why? And why are you talking about "digging" now when we were talking about measuring dissolved CO2 in sea water?
OK, now we're going to have get a little deeper into isotope fractionation. Isotope fractionation is commonly used in the earth sciences to determine the source of things or how elements are moved around a given cycle. There's probably about a thousand articles you could dig up right now on this very topic. It has been measured and it has been analyzed and it is way beyond what we are able to discuss here. I've actually had an isotope geochemistry class but I don't feel confident enough to talk at length about this, but I guarantee you it is COMPLEX. Moreso than whatever cartoon view might feel right.
Then on top of that you not only have fractionation at the ocean surface absorption of the CO2, you also have the fractionation that occurs during its travel through the water column. There are large number of competing reactions related to how CO2 is dealt with in the water column. Then some is absorbed to be fixed by things like reefs etc. which further complexifies the process.
At this point we are primarily interested in the dissolved CO2 per your conversation. For some reason you seem to be focusing on fixed carbon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_sediment
I believe you are attempting to touch on the more complex overall action of CO2 in general. There are a couple of differentt anions like CO3=, HCO3- that you are getting into. Here's a nice cartoon to summarize the reactions happening in the ocean column with regards to CO2:
The good folks at Yale University can explain it to you VERY simply:
"...water vapor is not the cause of this warming. This is a critical, if subtle, distinction between the role of greenhouse gases as either forcings or feedbacks. In this case, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. This rising average temperature increases evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Those, in turn, result in additional warming." (HERE)
But if you don't like Yale, perhaps you would like the National Academy of Sciences to explain it: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1605/chapter/16#103
No one was talking about any individual molecule, but rather the overall amount of those molecules.
I explained it to you but you clearly are not familiar with the difference between the hydrologic cycle and the carbon cycle. Water follows the hydrologic cycle and CO2 follows the carbon cycle.
The time it takes to remove an EXCESS of H2O in the atmosphere is relatively short. You and I call this RAIN or SNOW. And it literally happens all the time every day. ADDITIONAL CARBON from the atmosphere has to be fixed in other ways (by absorption and fixing in shells of animals etc. for instance, or being fixed by trees through photosynthesis).
But, again, you don't have to believe me. There are many resources available to you:
MIT can explain it to you here: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere
How about the EPA: "Atmospheric CO2 is part of the global carbon cycle, and therefore its fate is a complex function of geochemical and biological processes. Some of the excess carbon dioxide will be absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments." (HERE)
(END OF PART 1, PART 2 FOLLOWS)
Daylight63
Verified User
PART 2....
We are talking about excess addition of a gas. Add extra water to the atmosphere and it comes back out quickly as rain (that's WHY it rains). Add extra CO2 and it requires the role of trees and rocks and shell-forming animals like corals and clams.
These two processes DO NOT take the same amount of time.
Again, you don't have to believe me, but you will find NOTHING that says any different .
I only provide these to allow you to read for yourself. I have explained almost all of these points in my posts.
Perhaps this would be good to know. It is pretty much the basic information one needs to know to discuss the topic with any real knowledge of the topic.
Whenever I hear people say "Correlation is not causation" I have to laugh a bit. Sure, it's true, BUT causation WILL result in strong correlation. This is just a dodge for you to wave away the math you don't particularly like.
What SPECIFIC correlation are you in doubt of?
We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause warming. The goal here is to find how much warming is caused by increasing CO2.
But if you don't even know what CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is then you really don't know enough about the topic to speak in any way authoritatively about it.
You seem to be making large claims without EVEN A SHRED of supporting evidence. I know you don't have any that can support your version f the science (much of your science is grossly flawed and primarily uninformed cartoon versions), so I am not surprised. But perhaps you could try actually reading what the SCIENTISTS say rather than what you seem to be trying to cobble together without reliance on understanding how the basics work first.
"When the CO2 increases, the infrared radiation that escapes toward space is emitted by the atmosphere at a higher altitude. As most of the radiation is emitted by the troposphere, higher altitude means lower emission temperature, a lower value of the Planck function, a lower value of the radiation emitted toward space, and therefore a higher value of the greenhouse effect (Hansen et al. 1981; Pierrehumbert 2010; Archer 2011; Benestad 2017). For a doubling of the CO2 concentration, the average value of the change in emission height is about 150 m, assuming that the radiative forcing of about ≈4 W m−2 can be translated into a change in blackbody temperature emission, and then into a change in emission height assuming a temperature vertical gradient of ≈6.5 K km−1 (Held and Soden 2000)." (SOURCE)
We are talking about excess addition of a gas. Add extra water to the atmosphere and it comes back out quickly as rain (that's WHY it rains). Add extra CO2 and it requires the role of trees and rocks and shell-forming animals like corals and clams.
These two processes DO NOT take the same amount of time.
Again, you don't have to believe me, but you will find NOTHING that says any different .
I only provide these to allow you to read for yourself. I have explained almost all of these points in my posts.
Perhaps this would be good to know. It is pretty much the basic information one needs to know to discuss the topic with any real knowledge of the topic.
Whenever I hear people say "Correlation is not causation" I have to laugh a bit. Sure, it's true, BUT causation WILL result in strong correlation. This is just a dodge for you to wave away the math you don't particularly like.
What SPECIFIC correlation are you in doubt of?
We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause warming. The goal here is to find how much warming is caused by increasing CO2.
But if you don't even know what CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is then you really don't know enough about the topic to speak in any way authoritatively about it.
You seem to be making large claims without EVEN A SHRED of supporting evidence. I know you don't have any that can support your version f the science (much of your science is grossly flawed and primarily uninformed cartoon versions), so I am not surprised. But perhaps you could try actually reading what the SCIENTISTS say rather than what you seem to be trying to cobble together without reliance on understanding how the basics work first.
"When the CO2 increases, the infrared radiation that escapes toward space is emitted by the atmosphere at a higher altitude. As most of the radiation is emitted by the troposphere, higher altitude means lower emission temperature, a lower value of the Planck function, a lower value of the radiation emitted toward space, and therefore a higher value of the greenhouse effect (Hansen et al. 1981; Pierrehumbert 2010; Archer 2011; Benestad 2017). For a doubling of the CO2 concentration, the average value of the change in emission height is about 150 m, assuming that the radiative forcing of about ≈4 W m−2 can be translated into a change in blackbody temperature emission, and then into a change in emission height assuming a temperature vertical gradient of ≈6.5 K km−1 (Held and Soden 2000)." (SOURCE)
Daylight63
Verified User
LOL. What about those of us with doctorates in the relevant science?
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Credentialism?
Risible, especially since you cannot validate such a claim.
Can you?
Daylight63
Verified User
I have yet to meet anyone on JPP who appears to understand the science even at a basic level. So it's hilarious to hear yet another non-scientist talk about how the side that believes the science doesn't know it. LOLOL.
I just wrote two lengthy posts loaded with external citations. Look above, moron. I doubt you'd be able to follow any of it, but just so ya know.
Vide supra. (Google it)
Scut Farkus
Best
that your random measurements mean something meaningful.