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

Phydeaux -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 6:37:47 PM)
In one sense you are right benevolent. CO2 in the upper atmosphere serves to filter out energy and re radieate it to outer space. This is why incident energy at the top of the atmosphere is roughly 1350 W/m2 but roughtly 347 at the bottom. To answer your question that no one else bothered to: if all the atmosphere were to be liquid, it would be roughly 33 feet thick.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 6:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM A linear relationship requires no explanation whereas a non-linear one does. Suppose you were to walk into a room with two lamps with a 100 watt incandescent bulb. Yes, 100 watt incandescent bulks are not politically correct, but its a simple number. Suppose one lamp was off while the other was on. Now suppose you turned the lamp that was off on. Would you expect that the room would be flooded with twice as might light? If someone told you that the room was twice as bright as it was before would you argue the point? A reasonable person typically would not unless they were a jerk. Special circumstances would be needed. That the room is filled with twice as much light requires no explanation. However, you have a special circumstance. Dr. Michio Kaku walks into the room, a man who can warp space, and makes a bet with you. Though the total number of photons in the room doubled the number of incident photons did not. He pulls out a photometer. You say to herself, maybe one of the bulbs is a 60 watt bulb. You check the bulbs. They are both 100 watt bulbs. You are perplexed because the discrepancy requires an explanation, but you were not perplexed before when you saw no discrepancy. A linear relationship requires no explanation. Two bulbs equals twice as much light. If it isn't twice as much you have something to explain. Dr. Michio Kaku explains that there is something called the inverse square law. The amount of incident light would have doubled only if you were equidistant from the bulbs. An additional independent variable exists, namely the distance between you and the bulbs in addition to the number of light sources.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 7:41:43 PM)
As strategies are concerned it is better to initially assume the shape is simple, because the contradictions will become apparent sooner if the shape turns out to be complex. If you initially assume the shape is complex, you are more likely to assume that the contradictions can be ignored since it is the nature of complex things to be contradictory. The result is a loop where you are unable to conceive of the possibility that the shape is simple. The more wrong guesses you make the more convinced you are of its complexity.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 7:51:08 PM)
Your depth of understanding is molecularly thin. Your concept of 'Logarithmic is not much better. "Geometric' is not logarithmic, for one, nor linear. Doped crystals have different light mechanisms entirely from what is happening in the atmosphere. Likening the greenhouse effect of CO2 in a Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere to the behavior of light pumped lasers shows no understanding of lasers, crystals or atmospheres or the interaction of light with gasses, liquids and solids. One size doesn't fit all, everything Depends. A 'blanket' works because it covers or encloses a heat source. It doesn't heat anything, it slows the escape of existing heat. Earth is a heat source but it's a low grade radioactive heat sufficient to keep the interior molten (for 4 billion years or so and counting, but the 'cold' surface rock is a POOR conductor of heat!) but wouldn't significantly heat the surface in the lack of an atmosphere. (Certainly not enough for liquid water to exist, one of the prerequisites of carbon base life) The CO2 'doped' atmosphere is not an insulator to visible light. It is a Variable insulator (blanket) to infrared light (Heat). We are varying that insulation as more heat is trying to escape Earth then is coming in from the Sun. The Sun is the heat source, the atmosphere acts as a selective filter. It lets visible and other frequencies in fairly freely. All day, every day. These reflect away off clouds or surface objects and travel as freely through the atmosphere to space as they came in OR the surface they hit absorbs them and gets hotter. Heat radiation intensity and Wavelength is a function of absolute temperature. Hot things emit visible light once heated to degrees seen on the surface only during volcanic ejections of hot molten rock, lightning, meteor entries or technologically produced human sources. 'Glowing' hot starts maybe 1000ºF? At ambient Earth surface temps all IR radiation (ALL matter hotter than Absolute Zero emits radiant heat) is in the middle of the IR spectrum, well out of the window of transparency of the Earth's normal atmosphere. CO2 concentrations as well as other greenhouse gasses Change that window's already low clarity for IR, none for the better for our purposes. The point you keep ignoring is the atmosphere and the Sun have arrived at the recent Earth surface temps as an equilibrium of relatively constant energy flows. Changing the heat transparency of the atmosphere while leaving the visible light input alone relatively, Has to increase the average temps of the surface. Engineered GW solutions like seeding the middle atmosphere to produce more ground cover with reflective clouds Does understand this phenomena, but the 'unintended consequences' of more and more reflective clouds, as well as the actual chance of accomplishing it, remain unknowns. Like filling a water tank while draining it from another pipe. If the two flows are similar, the water level in the tank is constant. Increase the drain rate, it drops. Close the drain valve any, the depth increases until water pressure is sufficient to force as much out as the constant input. The analogy only works within narrow ranges of differences in flow. One of the mysteries of Life is how MANY variables of the physical nature of the Universe had to be within narrow windows for water based carbon life to evolve successfully. We are messing with one of those windows! Probably not fatally for carbon based life but maybe for urban technological civilization. And certainly for the existing and projected population of the planet.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 9:05:25 PM)
Below is where your argument is unscientific because you are denying Occam's Razor. quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 One size doesn't fit all, ... . The fundamental laws of physics are all indeed one size fits all. They span the entire universe! Below is where your argument gets vague. You make a number of precise statements, then at the end where it matters the most it gets vague. quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 CO2 concentrations as well as other greenhouse gasses Change that window's already low clarity for IR, none for the better for our purposes. What is the experimentally validated relationship between concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and their capacity to trap heat and what are the scientifically accepted theories to explain those measurements? Does everything match up? As I have demonstrated that the efficiency of blankets are logarithmic which is good news for the greenhouse gas theory, but the deltas are measured in parts per million. We are talking about changes in the amount of greenhouse gasses that are paper thin. Even on a log graph such small deltas, need not produce large changes. Below you are making an emotional appeal. The problem with your emotion appeal is that it is myopic. We are also deriving benefits by ignoring the matter since global warming is not the only problem we face. In order to make progress we must consume energy and the most efficient means for us to consume energy at the present time is to consume fossil fuels. It is a catch-22. If we fail to make progress we will fail to solve this problem as well as all the other problems that face us and will be facing us in the future. In the end we are all crossing our fingers and hoping for the best that an asteroid doesn't come to wipe us out tomorrow. Should we worry more about global warming or asteroids? quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 ... One of the mysteries of Life is how MANY variables of the physical nature of the Universe had to be within narrow windows for water based carbon life to evolve successfully. We are messing with one of those windows! Probably not fatally for carbon based life but maybe for urban technological civilization. And certainly for the existing and projected population of the planet.

DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 9:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The fundamental laws of physics are all indeed one size fits all. They span the entire universe! No. You can't apply QM beyond the quantum scale and you cannot apply relativity at the quantum scale.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 9:42:54 PM)
I remember seeing someone quote a figure of a 100 parts per million increase over a period of 2 decades. 3000 / 100 / 1 * 10^6 * 100 so we are talking about a 33 percent increase. The log graph is only interested in measurements (x axis), not percentage variations, however. As the saying goes, 33 percent of zero is zero; hence, my concern. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The fundamental laws of physics are all indeed one size fits all. They span the entire universe! No. You can't apply QM beyond the quantum scale and you cannot apply relativity at the quantum scale. I suppose you didn't get the memo from Sir Isaac Newton. He must have been a quack. You are going against a fundamental ideological belief. That is an extraordinary assertion. Can you prove it?

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 9:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 ... One of the mysteries of Life is how MANY variables of the physical nature of the Universe had to be within narrow windows for water based carbon life to evolve successfully. We are messing with one of those windows! Probably not fatally for carbon based life but maybe for urban technological civilization. And certainly for the existing and projected population of the planet. There is something I failed to mention in relation to what you wrote. You are assuming that the feedback loop that supports life on this planet is weak. How could it be weak when life has existed on this planet for as long as it has? Ok, so the moon had something to do with it, but the moon isn't going away any time soon. The universal physical constants had something to do with it, but they aren't going to change any time soon either.

DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 10:11:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I remember seeing someone quote a figure of a 100 parts per million increase over a period of 2 decades. 3000 / 100 / 1 * 10^6 * 100 so we are talking about a 33 percent increase. The log graph is only interested in measurements (x axis), not percentage variations, however. As the saying goes, 33 percent of zero is zero; hence, my concern. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The fundamental laws of physics are all indeed one size fits all. They span the entire universe! No. You can't apply QM beyond the quantum scale and you cannot apply relativity at the quantum scale. I suppose you didn't get the memo from Sir Isaac Newton. He must have been a quack. You are going against a fundamental ideological belief. That is an extraordinary assertion. Can you prove it? Ask any physicist.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 10:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux In one sense you are right benevolent. CO2 in the upper atmosphere serves to filter out energy and re radieate it to outer space. This is why incident energy at the top of the atmosphere is roughly 1350 W/m2 but roughtly 347 at the bottom. To answer your question that no one else bothered to: if all the atmosphere were to be liquid, it would be roughly 33 feet thick. 33 feet equals 10 meters, a good round number to play with. Suppose the liquid were a glass, 10 meters of it. If you projected a light whose intensity was 1350 watts per square meter onto this glass after 10 meters it wouldn't be surprising that only 347 watts per square meter made it through. The amount of energy lost is (1350 - 347)/1350 * 100 = 74.3 percent lost so roughly 3/4 of the energy is lost to space and never seen nor felt by us. It wouldn't be surprising if even less made it through, but by the same token, what does reach us has to find its way through this 10 meter thick wall to get out. It acts like a blanket obviously because we are getting two sources of light, only one source in the visible spectrum, but two sources in the infrared. Matter as a rule converts visible and ultraviolet light to infrared light. That light which is reflected back to us from the great infrared mirror in the sky known as our atmosphere and that infrared light which comes directly from the sun. The light that bounced off our atmosphere has only one source, the sun. So there is a subtle difference between what is taking place at the top of the atmosphere and what is occurring at the bottom. At the bottom there are two mirrors that face each other. The sky and the ground/sea. At the top there is only one mirror, the atmosphere. The opposite facing mirrors is what must be creating the blanket where we get to put on bake. A quarter of the light would escape on bounce one, hits the earth and manages to escape directly back into space. On bounce two, a quarter of the three quarters would bounce back into space. The net result is we have more photons bouncing about than can be accounted for by incident radiation from the sun. There is a problem with this model, however. Matter only reflects or absorbs light selectively. Those wavelengths that get through the atmosphere has to be those wavelengths that the atmosphere is chiefly invisible to. If they where reflected unmodified they would make it out again without a problem. The light that gets bounced around within the atmosphere is being converted by carbon dioxide to that form of light that carbon dioxide is the most efficient at trapping and re-emitting at the same frequency. Since the earth is covered in carbon based matter that light that gets reflected off the planets and algae in particular from the surface may also be of the same variety. The purity our atmosphere suggests that carbon dioxide is irrelevant, but what we have is a carbon dioxide laser where you have a tube filled with carbon dioxide at low pressure between two mirrors. In chemistry there is a concept known as partial pressures. Each gas makes a partial contribution to the net pressure. Since the amount carbon dioxide is small so is its partial pressure.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 10:59:07 PM)
What I wrote about partial pressure may seem far fetched, but we are talking about a laser that lases in three dimensions and is really big.

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/29/2013 11:25:06 PM)
There is really no point in further discussion with someone about electromagnetic radiation Physics if the differences between gross Newtonian Physics and Quantum Dynamics is unknown or denied. FAIL. Really, go read Wikipedia on Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Unless you deny Quantum Dynamics because your calculations show it's a myth? As with the love affair with the concept of 'Logarithmic scales' to the obliviousness of all other mathematical relationships. Basic illiteracy in Physics (and Math it appears) are insurmountable obstacles to constructive participation in these discussions. If you have to ask if, quote: What is the experimentally validated relationship between concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and their capacity to trap heat and what are the scientifically accepted theories to explain those measurements? Does everything match up? you slept through HS science or never were in a decent instructor's class. People with a D.Sc and post graduate study take care of these basic relationships early on when doing peer reviewed work. If you are smart enough to ask about such basic questions of Nature, don't you think people who won Nobel prizes for original contributions to Human Knowledge and out competed other genius and near genius level people for professorships at major institutions asked them as well? That you don't know these are established properties of the atmosphere for over a century says what I'm attempting to say, only more eloquently. Still seeing 'reflections'? [8\|] It was explained clearly that little besides visible light and near UV is reflected and only a portion of that, absorption and re-radiation (In Every direction, reflection implies a vector to the energy path; honest, shit like this Matters in useful calculations.) both by gasses and surfaces/masses are critical to much of greenhouse effects and global temp balances. Try to keep up. It works better than defending demolished positions. Where you get the idea the PPM changes are small when the total atmospheric content of CO2 has doubled in the time of the anthropogenic effects under discussions of GW baffles me. If something has an effect, twice as much will have More effect? Maybe even noticeable? It doesn't take all that much for..... (wait for it....) The average global TEMPERATURE to go up! Or is it insignificant if it isn't a Log scale change? "Fuck your arithmetic and geometric progressions! We spit on both!" Jeeze, obsess on something useful?

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 12:38:45 AM)
I was fishing for something quantitative. quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 There is really no point in further discussion with someone about electromagnetic radiation Physics if the differences between gross Newtonian Physics and Quantum Dynamics is unknown or denied. FAIL. Really, go read Wikipedia on Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Unless you deny Quantum Dynamics because your calculations show it's a myth? As with the love affair with the concept of 'Logarithmic scales' to the obliviousness of all other mathematical relationships. Basic illiteracy in Physics (and Math it appears) are insurmountable obstacles to constructive participation in these discussions. If you have to ask if, quote: What is the experimentally validated relationship between concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and their capacity to trap heat and what are the scientifically accepted theories to explain those measurements? Does everything match up? you slept through HS science or never were in a decent instructor's class. People with a D.Sc and post graduate study take care of these basic relationships early on when doing peer reviewed work. If you are smart enough to ask about such basic questions of Nature, don't you think people who won Nobel prizes for original contributions to Human Knowledge and out competed other genius and near genius level people for professorships at major institutions asked them as well? That you don't know these are established properties of the atmosphere for over a century says what I'm attempting to say, only more eloquently. Still seeing 'reflections'? [8\|] It was explained clearly that little besides visible light and near UV is reflected and only a portion of that, absorption and re-radiation (In Every direction, reflection implies a vector to the energy path; honest, shit like this Matters in useful calculations.) both by gasses and surfaces/masses are critical to much of greenhouse effects and global temp balances. Try to keep up. It works better than defending demolished positions. Where you get the idea the PPM changes are small when the total atmospheric content of CO2 has doubled in the time of the anthropogenic effects under discussions of GW baffles me. If something has an effect, twice as much will have More effect? Maybe even noticeable? It doesn't take all that much for..... (wait for it....) The average global TEMPERATURE to go up! Or is it insignificant if it isn't a Log scale change? "Fuck your arithmetic and geometric progressions! We spit on both!" Jeeze, obsess on something useful?

popeye1250 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 12:42:11 AM)
I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans." Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?" If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier. Listening to the tin foil hat warming crew is like trying to question a sociopath. You catch them on one thing and they cover it up and go onto the next. Like playing "whack a mole." Engaging in "Political Correctness" or trying to preach "Global Warming" should be misdemeanors.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 1:29:41 AM)
I would think the boundary layers in the atmosphere would be significant because how can you have a reflection in the absence of a surface? You need an impedance mismatch unless it is lasing.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 1:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I like to hear the beanie wearers try to tell people that; "heat gets trapped deep in the oceans." Isn't it one of the basic rules of thermodynamics that "heat rises?" If it can rise out of the earth in the form of a volcano it can certainly rise out of the ocean much easier. Yes, it is a basic rule. Warm water would rise. If it didn't something would have to explain why it isn't rising. Personally, I don't care if global warming is real or not, but there is precedence for things not rising when you would think would. There is a lake in Africa that traps methane gas and another that traps carbon dioxide gas. The pressure of the water from above keeps the gas from escaping. The gas will explosively escape occasionally when the lakes are disturbed. But if they are just throwing this out there, that doesn't say much for them. It's speculation. The deep oceans are mysterious. There is a lot we don't know about them. Volcanoes physically rise up so I don't feel your analogy holds unless there are volcanoes that don't physically rise up, but the heat does, from the very deep ocean. Given my understanding there are such volcanoes, but the heat doesn't make it to the surface in an obvious way. Maybe such people should be introduced to the wonderful world of Scientology and study tech. I was reading about study tech the other day. Makes a lot of sense.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:05:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam ... An analogy would be if you had your exercise and diet exactly homeostatic until your weight never varied and you were a lean, mean athletic machine. Now, what happens if your activity stays the same but you only eat 10 more calories a day? You slooowly gain weight and in a few decades you're a fat fucker. (It happens to a lot of us[:(] ) from only 10 more calories a day. The same thing can happen to a planet. Lets go back to our model. Remember that ice that was reflecting heat? It's getting less and less now so the land and water can absorb more and heat up faster so that accelerates the process. In our weight analogy, you see you've gained 15# and get depressed so you eat more accelerating the process. This is a plausibility argument, but would be unbecoming of someone who knows that it is a fact because when it is a fact you don't need plausibility arguments. Your reasoning is similar to epiphiny43. quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 ... One of the mysteries of Life is how MANY variables of the physical nature of the Universe had to be within narrow windows for water based carbon life to evolve successfully. We are messing with one of those windows! Probably not fatally for carbon based life but maybe for urban technological civilization. And certainly for the existing and projected population of the planet. There is something I failed to mention in relation to what you wrote. You are assuming that the feedback loop that supports life on this planet is weak. How could it be weak when life has existed on this planet for as long as it has? Ok, so the moon had something to do with it, but the moon isn't going away any time soon. The universal physical constants had something to do with it, but they aren't going to change any time soon either.

crazyml -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:15:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I am too much of an outsider for my work to be taken seriously unfortunately. Are you sure that's the only reason your work may not be taken seriously?

epiphiny43 -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 2:48:34 AM)
So, another who doesn't understand basic Physics. "Heat rises" within relatively homogenous fluids (gasses or liquids), IF there is colder material around or above because Most 'hot' fluids expand compared to their cooler volume. (Boyles Law, except for water between 0ºC and 4ºC, where water reaches it's maximum density, which keeps the ocean bottom from freezing!) Same mass, bigger volume, it's density is less and rises till surrounded by similar density (Temp) fluid, or reaches the surface/top of the fluid reservoir. See: Thermosiphon and Convection. "Hotter" ocean water would rise through the layers above, IF it were hotter THAN THEY ARE. Which isn't the case. The bottom layer in unexpected areas is showing warming as are unprecedented warmings of certain mid level waters. We have few and recent direct records, ocean surface levels (Height) imply water temps, however, and Have been quite stable. Till recently. (No balancing cooling elsewhere noted, warming areas/volumes are Big.) NONE are yet hotter than the warming layers above them! How could they be if the heat is moving down? Surface water warms and cools faster than deeper layers, being exposed far more to the heat engines, the atmosphere and direct Sunlight, which is the significance of seeing unexpected warming deeper than before. Warmer surface waters were expected. Heat is moving deeper faster than we thought it would. It ISN"T warming the lower waters to higher temps than the water above. So, no overturning, no convection. Next strawman, please.

BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/30/2013 3:20:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 So, another who doesn't understand basic Physics. "Heat rises" within relatively homogenous fluids (gasses or liquids), IF there is colder material around or above because Most 'hot' fluids expand compared to their cooler volume. (Boyles Law, except for water between 0ºC and 4ºC, where water reaches it's maximum density, which keeps the ocean bottom from freezing!) Same mass, bigger volume, it's density is less and rises till surrounded by similar density (Temp) fluid, or reaches the surface/top of the fluid reservoir. See: Thermosiphon and Convection. "Hotter" ocean water would rise through the layers above, IF it were hotter THAN THEY ARE. Which isn't the case. The bottom layer in unexpected areas is showing warming as are unprecedented warmings of certain mid level waters. We have few and recent direct records, ocean surface levels (Height) imply water temps, however, and Have been quite stable. Till recently. (No balancing cooling elsewhere noted, warming areas/volumes are Big.) NONE are yet hotter than the warming layers above them! How could they be if the heat is moving down? Surface water warms and cools faster than deeper layers, being exposed far more to the heat engines, the atmosphere and direct Sunlight, which is the significance of seeing unexpected warming deeper than before. Warmer surface waters were expected. Heat is moving deeper faster than we thought it would. It ISN"T warming the lower waters to higher temps than the water above. So, no overturning, no convection. Next strawman, please. You may be right, but without working the actual equations, special conditions may exist where the laws of common sense break down. What is true at the surface of the earth may not be true in the deep oceans simply because the pressures are so high. It is like trying to understand what is occurring on Jupiter. It can humble us. We thought we knew so much, but didn't. If the equations were derived purely through empirical observations, then even the equations may fail you because you need data that is representative of the conditions. I don't care and it is off topic.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625