Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,051
#2,051
Wouldn't changes in atmospheric pressure cause temperature changes which would cause a change in the partial pressure of gases like CO2 which would cause CO2 to fluctuate? Maybe it is CO2 that follows temperature and not the other way around?
 
#2,052
#2,052
Sandvol said:
Was it Clinton who signed it? I'm not quite sure I understand that. How our treaty process works is 2/3 vote from Senate to approve and then President ratifies. That hasn't been done. I don't think you'd ever get a 2/3 vote from Senate on Kyoto Treaty.
Click to expand...

We signed it but did not ratify it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#2,053
#2,053
Sandvol said:
I think I remember now. You have to use partial pressures of gas. (Been too damn long since I've done this.) So for Earth at 100,000 Pa and Mars is at 600 Pa. It would be 0.0004(100,000) versus 0.95(600)Pa. So partial pressure of CO2 on Earth is 40PA versus 570Pa on Mars. So that would give 570/40 X 400=5700ppm C02 on Mars which is what you got above. Where did all that damn CO2 come from on Mars and why isn't it hotter there? There has to be a role the total pressure has that we don't understand. Has there been any studies on heat effects of atmospheric pressure? Maybe Earth's atmosphere would be a whole lot hotter but water acts as a cooling effect on the temperature and its green house gas effect is negligible. And, maybe the whole concept of green house gas is a red herring. I wonder if the atmospheric pressure of Earth fluctuates a lot due to outside forces like Solar magnetic variations or cycles and that plays more of a factor in climatic cycles due to causing atmospheric pressure fluctuations?
Click to expand...

For starters, the solar radiation reaching Mars is 2.3 times less intense than that reaching the earth due to it's greater distance from the sun. That is a big difference.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#2,054
#2,054
Sandvol said:
Wouldn't changes in atmospheric pressure cause temperature changes which would cause a change in the partial pressure of gases like CO2 which would cause CO2 to fluctuate? Maybe it is CO2 that follows temperature and not the other way around?
Click to expand...

Atmospheric pressure is the result of the force of our atmosphere acting on us due to acceleration by gravity. Global average atmospheric pressure really isn't changing at this point. But if it were to increase globally, surface temperatures would be expected to respond IF it happened faster than that heat could be transferred to the earth or upper atmosphere. Regardless, that isn't going on here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#2,055
#2,055
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but did the earthquake that hit Japan causing the earth to shift on its axis some, play any part, or will play any part, in the conditions on earth being affected?
 
#2,056
#2,056
TennTradition said:
Atmospheric pressure is the result of the force of our atmosphere acting on us due to acceleration by gravity. Global average atmospheric pressure really isn't changing at this point. But if it were to increase globally, surface temperatures would be expected to respond IF it happened faster than that heat could be transferred to the earth or upper atmosphere. Regardless, that isn't going on here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But, if it were happening just slightly. You'd think a large body like the Sun which is constantly pulling in hydrogen from space and fluctuating a lot could have an effect on Earth's gravitational field. I'm not talking about a large change but then wouldn't you expect that to cause a change in the partial pressure of CO2?
 
Last edited:
#2,058
#2,058
Sandvol said:
But, if it were happening just slightly. You'd think a large body like the Sun which is constantly pulling in hydrogen from space and fluctuating a lot could have an effect on Earth's gravitational field. I'm not talking about a large change but then wouldn't you expect that to cause a change in the partial pressure of CO2?
Click to expand...

If acceleration due to gravity were to increase, the partial pressures and/or concentrations of all gases in the atmosphere would increase because the atmosphere would contract. However, that is a measurable quantity. It's not trending up or down. I believe it's been quite constant at a given elevation.
 
#2,060
#2,060
TennTradition said:
If acceleration due to gravity were to increase, the partial pressures and/or concentrations of all gases in the atmosphere would increase because the atmosphere would contract. However, that is a measurable quantity. It's not trending up or down. I believe it's been quite constant at a given elevation.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree the more I think about it.
 
#2,061
#2,061
Sandvol said:
.
Click to expand...

Insolation, or irradiation, is the measure of solar radiation incident on a surface area (aka flux). It falls off at 1/r2, which as TT said is the reason it’s colder there. The reason Mars has so much CO2 is complicated, I’ll just summarize that planets' atmospheric composition depends on the planet’s initial composition (during the formation of our solar system metals/heavier molecules condense at higher temperatures closer to the sun), its mass, and it’s volcanic/outgassing history. On earth the oceans and biosphere are a huge CO2 sink. Earth also has O2 thanks to plant life and Earth has plate tectonics which recycles CO2 back into the mantle.

From the ideal gas law PV=nRT so everything else held constant an increase in P causes an increase in T. But as TT said our atmospheric pressure is pretty constant. Most of the gases that are light enough to escape are already gone. We’re still slowly losing H2 and He. Our magnetic field protects the atmosphere from solar winds that would otherwise strip it away. The sun isn’t constantly pulling H2 from space – everything within its gravitational grasp got pulled into the sun a long time ago. The sun is actually losing mass via radiation and solar wind.

Regarding Mann, obviously if he had handed over his data initially the whole PR nightmare could have been avoided. But the behavior is understandable. To begin with, you don’t ask a scientist for his data via FOI requests – if anyone shows interest in an academic’s work they’ll be delighted and (unless it’s recent work and they want to prevent getting scooped) more than happy to share data. A FOI request is unnecessarily bossy. And the first several FOI requests McIntyre sent were for data that was already publically available on the web and from primary sources. Spamming FOI requests overwhelmed the small CRU unit. They have like 5 people on staff and the FOI legal procedure takes a lot of time and attention from people that really don’t have the time and attention to spare. Eventually they just began giving generic refusals.

It’s not that Mann doesn’t want to defend his work – that’s part of the job description. He’s had to defend his work for years against scientists who are themselves far more skeptical than your average joe on CA. Mann just didn’t want to defend his work against non-scientists who obviously didn’t have honest intentions.
 
#2,062
#2,062
#2,063
#2,063
BartW said:
Insolation, or irradiation, is the measure of solar radiation incident on a surface area (aka flux). It falls off at 1/r2, which as TT said is the reason it’s colder there. The reason Mars has so much CO2 is complicated, I’ll just summarize that planets' atmospheric composition depends on the planet’s initial composition (during the formation of our solar system metals/heavier molecules condense at higher temperatures closer to the sun), its mass, and it’s volcanic/outgassing history. On earth the oceans and biosphere are a huge CO2 sink. Earth also has O2 thanks to plant life and Earth has plate tectonics which recycles CO2 back into the mantle.

From the ideal gas law PV=nRT so everything else held constant an increase in P causes an increase in T. But as TT said our atmospheric pressure is pretty constant. Most of the gases that are light enough to escape are already gone. We’re still slowly losing H2 and He. Our magnetic field protects the atmosphere from solar winds that would otherwise strip it away. The sun isn’t constantly pulling H2 from space – everything within its gravitational grasp got pulled into the sun a long time ago. The sun is actually losing mass via radiation and solar wind.

Regarding Mann, obviously if he had handed over his data initially the whole PR nightmare could have been avoided. But the behavior is understandable. To begin with, you don’t ask a scientist for his data via FOI requests – if anyone shows interest in an academic’s work they’ll be delighted and (unless it’s recent work and they want to prevent getting scooped) more than happy to share data. A FOI request is unnecessarily bossy. And the first several FOI requests McIntyre sent were for data that was already publically available on the web and from primary sources. Spamming FOI requests overwhelmed the small CRU unit. They have like 5 people on staff and the FOI legal procedure takes a lot of time and attention from people that really don’t have the time and attention to spare. Eventually they just began giving generic refusals.

It’s not that Mann doesn’t want to defend his work – that’s part of the job description. He’s had to defend his work for years against scientists who are themselves far more skeptical than your average joe on CA. Mann just didn’t want to defend his work against non-scientists who obviously didn’t have honest intentions.
Click to expand...

So, if the insolation is 1/9th on Mars but CO2 is over 10 times more then why no warming on Mars?
 
#2,064
#2,064
BartW said:
China produces 63% of the world's solar photovoltaics. They also have a lot of wind and hydro-power. And a ton of coal. I never said China has a smaller carbon footprint, just that they are ahead of us in developing clean energy technology.
Click to expand...

No they are far ahead of us on producing clean energy components, not technology. All that cheap labor and no EPA regulations and stuff.

They are building and have built impressive hydro electric dams but again, try to get another Hoover dam project permitted in this country. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,065
#2,065
Obsessed said:
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but did the earthquake that hit Japan causing the earth to shift on its axis some, play any part, or will play any part, in the conditions on earth being affected?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. My gut response would be no since 9.0+ earthquakes happen pretty regularly. I looked it up and the Kobe quake supposedly shifted Earth's axis 6.5 inches (I wonder how they measure that?). To me that seems pretty insignificant compared to the tilt of our axis (23.5 degrees = 1000+ miles).
 
#2,066
#2,066
Another question I have. Earth gets radiation from the Sun. It is re-emitted as IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by green house gases that keep the planet warm. These green house gases have fluctuated over the millennia. But, your model is that CO2 is the only variable over the last 250 years since the industrial revolution and it has gone from about 280PPM to 400PPM. And, this has caused the planet to warm. Has the warming that has occurred due to CO2 agreed with the thermodynamic calculations? What is the expected (calculated) increase and what is the actual increase?
 
#2,067
#2,067
hog88 said:
No they are far ahead of us on producing clean energy components, not technology. All that cheap labor and no EPA regulations and stuff.

They are building and have built impressive hydro electric dams but again, try to get another Hoover dam project permitted in this country. Good luck.
Click to expand...

China Leads the Renewable Energy World

Sweatshops be damned they're #1 in producing cheap renewable energy (and exporting components).
 
#2,068
#2,068
BartW said:
Interesting question. My gut response would be no since 9.0+ earthquakes happen pretty regularly. I looked it up and the Kobe quake supposedly shifted Earth's axis 6.5 inches (I wonder how they measure that?). To me that seems pretty insignificant compared to the tilt of our axis (23.5 degrees = 1000+ miles).
Click to expand...

It tilts the axis by readjusting the center of gravity but you'd expect since the hemispheres haven't changed very much in millions of years all the earthquakes counterbalance each other.
 
#2,069
#2,069
BartW said:
China Leads the Renewable Energy World

Sweatshops be damned they're #1 in producing cheap renewable energy (and exporting components).
Click to expand...

I'm all for hydro electric and nuclear. Where would we be if it wasn't almost impossible to get another one of these projects permitted. Or are you just gong to ignore the question this time also?

Wind, no, not a big fan.
 
#2,070
#2,070
Sandvol said:
Another question I have. Earth gets radiation from the Sun. It is re-emitted as IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by green house gases that keep the planet warm. These green house gases have fluctuated over the millennia. But, your model is that CO2 is the only variable over the last 250 years since the industrial revolution and it has gone from about 280PPM to 400PPM. And, this has caused the planet to warm. Has the warming that has occurred due to CO2 agreed with the thermodynamic calculations? What is the expected (calculated) increase and what is the actual increase?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what all would be involved in that calculation, thermodynamics was never really my jam. It is consistent with the climate models afaik. On the face of it if we consider that:

-about 10% of the solar insolation is from CO2
-CO2 has increased by 40% since pre-industrial times
-Earth's "baseline" average temperature without an atmosphere should be about the same as the moon's mean's temperature, which accordidng to Wiki is 220 K (or ~ -50 C)

an increase on the order of 1 C sounds right to me.

Btw CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas that has increased. CH4, N2O, O3, and some other trace gases contribute as well and have increased since industrialization.

GHGConc2000-large.jpg

(I think there are exact numbers in one of the links I posted recently)

CO2 is the biggest player so we focus on CO2. Another thing that would factor into that calculation is the feedback due to H2O. And there are other forcings like the cooling effect of aerosols (which we also have increased the amount of - but not as much since we cracked down on SO2 emissions in the 60s/70s) that you'd have to take into account.

Tldr such a calculation is over my head and the reason climate science exists. Maybe you could find the answer in an IPCC report or related literature
 
#2,071
#2,071
hog88 said:
I'm all for hydro electric and nuclear. Where would we be if it wasn't almost impossible to get another one of these projects permitted. Or are you just gong to ignore the question this time also?

Wind, no, not a big fan.
Click to expand...

Wind is huge in my home country (NL). Lots of fields with windmills as far as the eye can see. Alot of farmers own their own and sell extra electricity back to the government. I can understand if you think it's an eyesore (though I've personally grown to like them). I'm less sympathetic to the "it kills birds" argument

I'm all for nuclear. It is tough to get dams built nowadays, they come with problems of their own. All energy sources have their drawbacks.
 
#2,074
#2,074
Sandvol said:
Another question I have. Earth gets radiation from the Sun. It is re-emitted as IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by green house gases that keep the planet warm. These green house gases have fluctuated over the millennia. But, your model is that CO2 is the only variable over the last 250 years since the industrial revolution and it has gone from about 280PPM to 400PPM. And, this has caused the planet to warm. Has the warming that has occurred due to CO2 agreed with the thermodynamic calculations? What is the expected (calculated) increase and what is the actual increase?
Click to expand...

I've done basic thermo calcs to predict the earth's surface temperature using the appropriate heat balances. But, it quickly gets complicated because of the various gases each have their own GWP and then as Bart mentioned you have the iterative effect of increasing water vapor with increasing temperature. Lets just say that if it were well outside the realm of reason, there would be far less folks studying it.
 
#2,075
#2,075
TennTradition said:
I've done basic thermo calcs to predict the earth's surface temperature using the appropriate heat balances. But, it quickly gets complicated because of the various gases each have their own GWP and then as Bart mentioned you have the iterative effect of increasing water vapor with increasing temperature. Lets just say that if it were well outside the realm of reason, there would be far less folks studying it.
Click to expand...

I just thought somebody might have done an energy balance on the Earth as a black body that has risen 1C they would know the extra radiance it is giving off, how much escapes into space should be known, and is theoretical matching actual in terms of energy and mass balance? I'm don't mean counting all the "feedbacks" as you call them. I would have thought someone had already done those calculations. I've been trying to do an internet search and can't find anything but I'll keep trying.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top