RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming

RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:57:15 PM)
How could trace quantities of chromium give rubies their distinctive color? The relationship between color purity and quantity in these examples has to be logarithmic. The more sparse the more regular, coherent, pure.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 10:04:18 PM)
Carbon dioxide lasers are unusually efficient in the extreme as lasers are concerned and emit light in the infrared. It looks like I nailed it.

DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 10:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Carbon dioxide lasers are unusually efficient in the extreme as lasers are concerned and emit light in the infrared. It looks like I nailed it. No you did not. Lasing is very different.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 10:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Carbon dioxide lasers are unusually efficient in the extreme as lasers are concerned and emit light in the infrared. It looks like I nailed it. No you did not. Lasing is very different. If it is different explain to me how it is different.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 10:33:11 PM)
What I've advanced is interesting because it upholds the theory of global warming in one sense, but also could be its demise because as the concentrations of carbon dioxide increases so does its inefficiency. Those dips could be dramatic.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 10:58:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Those dips could be dramatic. By analogy if the effectiveness of carbon dioxide to act as a blanket is like that of chromium in a ruby the effect could collapse as the concentrations increase.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 11:49:23 PM)
If anyone feels my conclusions are strange, in order for the global warming theory to work something strange must be going on. This is easily demonstrated. I am too much of an outsider for my work to be taken seriously unfortunately. It gives me the luxury to think outside the box, however. Just think of how beautifully dominant I could be.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 11:55:09 PM)
As I pointed out earlier a game of 20 questions doesn't work if there are 100 variables at work, but it does work when there were fewer variables at work than you thought.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 7:07:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM As I pointed out earlier a game of 20 questions doesn't work if there are 100 variables at work, but it does work when there were fewer variables at work than you thought. Actually, a game of 20 questions can work with up to 1,048,576 or 2 ^20 variables if you know the right questions.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 4:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM As I pointed out earlier a game of 20 questions doesn't work if there are 100 variables at work, but it does work when there were fewer variables at work than you thought. Actually, a game of 20 questions can work with up to 1,048,576 or 2 ^20 variables if you know the right questions. Rarely are you in immediate possession of the atom splitting laundry list of questions. To the extent that each question has a grain of truth in it, it can bring you closer to the truth. Look at how long it took mankind to figure out what the laws of planetary motion were? Yet, they are easily described and contain few variables. The sort of complexity the climatologists are talking about don't count because they are not meant to explain why carbon dioxide is able to warm the planet. They are meant to explain what happens if the temperature should increase. Ok, so if the ice melts and exposes x, it may accelerate the effect. It is a red herring. Has anyone bothered to ask if atmospheric lasing is occurring? I doubt it because it means their are macroscopic quantum effects. Such a proposal might end their career. Their colleagues might laugh at them. Sometimes you don't want to ask the right questions. Sometimes you are highly motivated not to ask the right questions.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 4:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam a game of 20 questions can work with up to 1,048,576 or 2 ^20 variables States, not variables. Twenty questions can illicit at most 20 binary variables.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 4:55:32 PM)
I just went to http://www.climateinterpreter.org/content/carbon-blanket and got the dumbest first grade explanation of why carbon dioxide is warming the planet. Does it ever get more sophisticated than this?

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:03:23 PM)
Why would a game of 20 twenty questions fail you when trying to guess what shape it is when the shape is a simple shape such as a 2 dimensional flat plane? When you were expecting a complex shape you will likely be asking the wrong questions and if you continue to insist that the shape is complex when it is simple you will use up all your 20 questions continually asking the wrong questions.

DaddySatyr -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:03:24 PM)
While the AGW crowd tries to insist otherwise, the truth is temperatures have been falling for years. That's why they've changed tack and started to refer to "climate change". Since climates have always been cyclical, all that can be added is: No clue, Dick Tracy. Where'd ya park the squad car? [image]local://upfiles/1271250/396C131FBCD84D179A85BB8520B9F740.jpg[/image]

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr While the AGW crowd tries to insist otherwise, the truth is temperatures have been falling for years. The problem with the implicit rhetorical question your argument advances is that it is not atom splitting. It may contain a grain of truth, however, enough to cause you to ask more pertinent questions.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:17:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam a game of 20 questions can work with up to 1,048,576 or 2 ^20 variables States, not variables. Twenty questions can illicit at most 20 binary variables. Then you need to ask the right questions. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:19:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Does it ever get more sophisticated than this? Have you bothered to read my post #6 on this thread?

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:57:54 PM)
The 'crystal' and dopant' analogies are specious. Several corrections to Hillwilliams overview: The atmosphere is NOT generally transparent to all electromagnetic radiation. It IS transparent to a high degree to 'visible' light. Just like 'sand glass', used for greenhouses. Same principles, same result. Water content among others like methane and CO2 greatly lowers IR transparency. The 'window' of visible light combined with evolution, resulted in most surface animals have evolved eyes to utilize all significant surface 'light'. Birds and many insects see further into the UV range than mammals, it seems related to food choices where plant differences (flowers, etc.) in UV reflectivity are useful, not for omnivore or carnivore mammals. The CO2 doesn't so much reflect as absorb IR radiation. It re-radiates it's molecular heat as IR again in all directions, acting as a low quality mirror to any significant IR energy flow, a thin layer (OP's conceptual crystal) would have little effect with multiple 'not-long' re-radiant paths. When the atmosphere's useful density is in miles, it matters. The result is higher temps at the bottom (If I have to explain the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, you DON'T yet belong in this discussion!) where heat is more effectively trapped. No matter the amount of heat trapped or the mechanism, Hillwilliam's note on Balance arising over time holds. Change the composition of the atmosphere (or the radiant energy of the Sun) and the surface temps of Earth will move to a new 'balance', or equilibrium. There is a Lot of energy coming in daily and a Lot leaving. We are closing a small door for energy exit. Enough to matter! Do a massive CO2, particulates and sulfur dioxide injection into the atmosphere (Deccan Traps, Pinatubo, Mankind's discovery and use of coal and oil on industrial scales) and you get a short or longer term change in radiant energy reaching the lower atmosphere and surface, and leaving for Space. (Depends on the injection volume and species of gasses, particle size and the height of the injection.) Which results in a new balance or a dynamic situation as the changing compositions and properties affect visible and IR radiation into and out of the different parts of the atmosphere. It seems incontrovertible that human 'civilization' has about doubled the CO2 concentration in the important (Thickest, lowest) parts of the atmosphere in recent historical time. No large scale volcanism or extra-planetary impacts seem of sufficient scale and the numbers for the carbon in forests cleared and the fossil fuels 'liberated' for energy closely match the observed tonnage of CO2 in our air. Long term questions of how fast unusual levels of greenhouse gasses persist, what mechanisms sequester them, how Long they sequester for each mechanism and what feed back mechanisms with increasing planetary surface temps liberate new CO2 (Some in catastrophic state changes, far above logarithmic!) remain to be given satisfyingly precise numeration. This in no way means global warming isn't happening. Like a car skidding off the crown of an icy highway, not knowing the final result doesn't mean an accident isn't in progress.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 5:59:47 PM)
Is the capacity for a blanket to warm you linear? The capacity for a blanket to warm you is logarithmic. The efficiency of the first blanket is the highest, but as you add more blankets the efficiency of each blanket falls. Suppose the first blanket traps half of the heat. The amount of heat available to the second blank to trap would be half and it can return only half. With one blank 50 percent of the heat was trapped. With two blankets 75 percent of the heat was trapped. If the relationship were linear, after two blankets 100 percent of the heat would be trapped which would be absurd. What I said about carbon dioxide lasers suggests that carbon dioxide is one hell of a photon trap for infrared radiation. Likewise, nitrogen and oxygen must suck at it. That lasing is occurring continues to seem plausible, but the theory may not need it though it would help explain how something so sparse could have such an impact. Sparse amounts of heavy metals in the environment can be toxic and it makes sense in that though the amount deposited in the body at any one time is small, it accumulates over time. Electromagnetic radiation cannot accumulate in a substance for long.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 6:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam a game of 20 questions can work with up to 1,048,576 or 2 ^20 variables States, not variables. Twenty questions can illicit at most 20 binary variables. Then you need to ask the right questions. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Perhaps I should have qualified the word variable with the word independent as in the maximum number of independent variables. The number of dependent variables could be higher. When you want to understand a problem you don't want to know what the dependent variables are. You want to know what the independent variables are. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Have you bothered to read my post #6 on this thread? I'll check it out.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875