Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,001
#2,001
Sandvol said:
I wouldn't call it a robust body of evidence. I think a lot of it is crap. Also, they're not even sure how the whole process of energy absorption with green house gases even works and if they really understand the mechanism.

Oh, wait, I forgot Bill Nye covered a box with some plastic wrap.
Click to expand...

GHG mechanism is well understood. Go read any book on atmospheric physics
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,002
#2,002
BartW said:
GHG mechanism is well understood. Go read any book on atmospheric physics
Click to expand...

I think the mechanism has been postulated but never really satisfactorily proven from a thermodynamics view point. I mean you have radiant energy absorbed and re-emitted by green house gases. But, the CO2 is such a small percentage of green house gases. How can it have such a big effect? Also, isn't there a limit to how much energy green house gases can absorb? And, if the CO2 isn't there to absorb the light energy wouldn't it be absorbed by something else? And, what effect does oceans and other large bodies of water play? I think there are a lot of unanswered questions.
 
#2,003
#2,003
zreeves said:
could be larry taylor who bart just mentioned. i have heard his name but never met him. planetary people are crazy though because they have to know so much about geology, physics and chemistry.
Click to expand...

Most of my research was actually in planetary science. Moersch was my advisor - he's got a swanky bar with a moon rock and a mars rock embedded in two pillars in his basment. My geology major was planetary heavy and in physics I did the astronomy concentration. Fascinating stuff but it doesn't pay and I have no desire to stay in academia.

Interestingly we learned quite a bit about the greenhouse effect studying Venus. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect while Mars has precisely the opposite.
 
#2,004
#2,004
BartW said:
Most of my research was actually in planetary science. Moersch was my advisor - he's got a swanky bar with a moon rock and a mars rock embedded in two pillars in his basment. My geology major was planetary heavy and in physics I did the astronomy concentration. Fascinating stuff but it doesn't pay and I have no desire to stay in academia.

Interestingly we learned quite a bit about the greenhouse effect studying Venus. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect while Mars has precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

moersch mcsween and one more guy who i cant remember taught me planetary. moersch was super smart and he was talking about how much fun he had controlling the mars rovers which was pretty cool too.

ive heard people make that comparison before. venus is such a weird planet, given its similar size to earth, but sulfur heavy atmosphere and lack of plate tectonics
 
#2,005
#2,005
BartW said:
Most of my research was actually in planetary science. Moersch was my advisor - he's got a swanky bar with a moon rock and a mars rock embedded in two pillars in his basment. My geology major was planetary heavy and in physics I did the astronomy concentration. Fascinating stuff but it doesn't pay and I have no desire to stay in academia.

Interestingly we learned quite a bit about the greenhouse effect studying Venus. Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect while Mars has precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

I heard there are some great babes on Venus.
 
#2,006
#2,006
Sandvol said:
I think the mechanism has been postulated but never really satisfactorily proven from a thermodynamics view point. I mean you have radiant energy absorbed and re-emitted by green house gases. But, the CO2 is such a small percentage of green house gases. How can it have such a big effect? Also, isn't there a limit to how much energy green house gases can absorb? And, if the CO2 isn't there to absorb the light energy wouldn't it be absorbed by something else? And, what effect does oceans and other large bodies of water play? I think there are a lot of unanswered questions.
Click to expand...

CO2 is transparent to visible wavelength radiation but opaque to infrared radiation. Visible wavelength light from the sun is absorbed by the ground then re-radiated as IR waves. CO2 absorbs this IR radiation (preferentially from on direction - below) and re-radiates it another direction (unpreferentially). Overall this increases the amount of radiation and thus heat bouncing around in our atmosphere.

If the CO2 wasn't there the radiation would continue into space. Atoms and molecules can only absorb specific quanta of energy. I assure you this is well understood but I can point you to the relevant literature if you like.

The role oceans play in short-term climate variation (El Nino, La Nina, ENSO, PDO, etc.) is a subject of continued study and debate, I'll give you that. But regardless we're building up heat in the earth system via the greenhouse effect and it is quantifiable.
 
#2,007
#2,007
BartW said:
LOL your third link is actually debunking the BS in your other links. Read before you post. And don't believe what loony far right thinktanks like the Heartland Institute put out. You can get on the ISI Web of Knowledge and look for yourself. There is an overwhelming consensus.
Click to expand...

Just like I have said. Because it disagrees with what you think, it's garbage. I was making a point. There is so much contradictory information out there. Just because you claim things doesn't mean they are true. Keep reaching for straws.
 
#2,008
#2,008
BigOrangeTrain said:
Just like I have said. Because it disagrees with what you think, it's garbage. I was making a point. There is so much contradictory information out there. Just because you claim things doesn't mean they are true. Keep reaching for straws.
Click to expand...

Peer-reviewed scientific work is more credible than the pseudoscientific denialism put out by industry-funded far right thinktanks. Fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#2,009
#2,009
BartW said:
CO2 is transparent to visible wavelength radiation but opaque to infrared radiation. Visible wavelength light from the sun is absorbed by the ground then re-radiated as IR waves. CO2 absorbs this IR radiation (preferentially from on direction - below) and re-radiates it another direction (unpreferentially). Overall this increases the amount of radiation and thus heat bouncing around in our atmosphere.

If the CO2 wasn't there the radiation would continue into space. Atoms and molecules can only absorb specific quanta of energy. I assure you this is well understood but I can point you to the relevant literature if you like.

The role oceans play in short-term climate variation (El Nino, La Nina, ENSO, PDO, etc.) is a subject of continued study and debate, I'll give you that. But regardless we're building up heat in the earth system via the greenhouse effect and it is quantifiable.
Click to expand...

How is infrared radiated from the Earth? By what mechanism? Are you talking water molecules? Also, isn't water vapor at a much higher concentration in the atmosphere than CO2?
 
#2,010
#2,010
BartW said:
Peer-reviewed scientific work is more credible than the pseudoscientific denialism put out by industry-funded far right thinktanks. Fact.
Click to expand...


Translation:


The bought and paid for guys on my side are better than the bought and paid for guys on the other side. My truth.
 
#2,011
#2,011
Sandvol said:
How is infrared radiated from the Earth? By what mechanism? Are you talking water molecules? Also, isn't water vapor at a much higher concentration in the atmosphere than CO2?
Click to expand...

Everything emits radiation. At room temperature it is mostly IR. You are currently emitting IR radiation. Google black-body radiation.

Water vapor concentration varies over time and space (i.e. clouds, rain etc.) but I believe on average its concentration is ~3%. The water cycle and carbon cycle are very different though. Water vapor in the atmosphere must be in equilibrium with water in the liquid state. If there's too much water vapor in the atmosphere, it rains. CO2 has no such reservoir. H2O has a short residence time in the atmosphere, on the order of days, while CO2 takes many years to leave the atmosphere.
 
#2,013
#2,013
BartW said:
Peer-reviewed scientific work is more credible than the pseudoscientific denialism put out by industry-funded far right thinktanks. Fact.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it the far left think tanks who wanted us to sign the Kyoto Treaty? That would have been a rational act.
 
#2,017
#2,017
BartW said:
Everything emits radiation. At room temperature it is mostly IR. You are currently emitting IR radiation. Google black-body radiation.

Water vapor concentration varies over time and space (i.e. clouds, rain etc.) but I believe on average its concentration is ~3%. The water cycle and carbon cycle are very different though. Water vapor in the atmosphere must be in equilibrium with water in the liquid state. If there's too much water vapor in the atmosphere, it rains. CO2 has no such reservoir. H2O has a short residence time in the atmosphere, on the order of days, while CO2 takes many years to leave the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

OK, but isn't there a lot more water vapor? 3% is approximately 10,000ppm isn't it? And, if it is in equilibrium wouldn't its absorption and reemission of energy be in equilibrium? Whereas CO2 is only 400ppm.
 
#2,018
#2,018
orangeslice13 said:
I love science.
Just not when you start with results and seek data to verify it.
Click to expand...

When it was first proposed AGW was not a "sure thing". Scientists only slowly began accepting it as the body of evidence grew. Scientists are far more skeptical than you, as shown by your false equivalency between real peer reviewed scientific research and obvious pseudoscientific BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,019
#2,019
BartW said:
When it was first proposed AGW was not a "sure thing". Scientists only slowly began accepting it as the body of evidence grew. Scientists are far more skeptical than you, as shown by your false equivalency between real peer reviewed scientific research and obvious pseudoscientific BS.
Click to expand...

What is the pseudoscientific BS? I just think climate scientists are getting way ahead of themselves. The Earth is pretty complex. No way they have it figured out.
 
#2,020
#2,020
BartW said:
When it was first proposed AGW was not a "sure thing". Scientists only slowly began accepting it as the body of evidence grew. Scientists are far more skeptical than you, as shown by your false equivalency between real peer reviewed scientific research and obvious pseudoscientific BS.
Click to expand...

The deck is stacked in climate change science. It is not like any other feild.
 
#2,021
#2,021
Then the climate scientists forget themselves and get caught up in all the politics and see more funding and don't realize how the politicians are using them.

Gore is the worst thing that could have happened to climate science. We're supposed to sign the Kyoto Treaty based on his recommendation?
 
#2,022
#2,022
Sandvol said:
OK, but isn't there a lot more water vapor? 3% is approximately 10,000ppm isn't it? And, if it is in equilibrium wouldn't its absorption and reemission of energy be in equilibrium? Whereas CO2 is only 400ppm.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is more water vapor. Greenhouse gases are the reason we don't all freeze to death. Earth would be a cold inhospitable rock without them. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases will increase the temperature (which, in turn, causes the H2O equilibrium to shift towards the gaseous phase, adding more greenhouse gases -- that is, it's a positive feedback)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,023
#2,023
BartW said:
Yes, there is more water vapor. Greenhouse gases are the reason we don't all freeze to death. Earth would be a cold inhospitable rock without them. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases will increase the temperature (which, in turn, causes the H2O equilibrium to shift towards the gaseous phase, adding more greenhouse gases -- that is, it's a positive feedback)
Click to expand...

So, total green house gas has gone from 10,300ppm to 10,400 ppm and the earth's temperature has risen 1C?
 
#2,024
#2,024
orangeslice13 said:
The deck is stacked in climate change science. It is not like any other feild.
Click to expand...

Global warming denialism isn't the only form of pseudoscientific BS. Every environmental/health movement that undercuts industry profits has been met with the same smear campaigns. From "smoking doesn't cause cancer" to "CFCs don't destroy ozone" to "SO2 doesn't cause acid rain" to "DDT is harmless", every science denialism campaign has the same mantra.

Biologists have it just as bad. Evolution is obvious but people reject it on religious/political grounds.

Btw climate change science isn't one independent field. It's interdisciplinary. The problem has been attacked from many angles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,025
#2,025
Sandvol said:
So, total green house gas has gone from 10,300ppm to 10,400 ppm and the earth's temperature has risen 1C?
Click to expand...

Those aren't the only two greenhouse gases but yeah. Keep in mind if there were no greenhouse gases we'd be way way below zero. Space is a cold place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top