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

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



Message


BenevolentM -> An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 7:47:40 PM)

My goal is to present the material in an unbiased fashion. If I appear biased do try to look past it.

As a first approximation I thought of the following question: If the earth's atmosphere were compressed to the same density as liquid water how deep would it be?

Changes in the amount of carbon dioxide that there is in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. If it were one meter thick, one part per million would correspond to a layer that is one micron thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_wrap "Common plastic wrap is roughly 0.5 mils, or 12.5 µm, thick"

In other words the layer would be less than 1/12th the thickness of common plastic wrap.

It is not my intention to make a point per se. Understanding how the blanket works is involved because it isn't plastic wrap. The atmosophere has no surfaces so the notions of reflectivity and such don't make complete sense. Thinking about how thick it is helps.

I suspect many here are not especially well educated on the topic yet have a great deal to say on it. They defer to the experts, but that is an appeal to authority which is fallacious. Technically speaking, at the present time there are no experts on the topic. There are people who earn a living at it, but they are like experts in astrology. They know something about the motions of the planets, but how it relates to the weather remains unclear.

But clearly there is science behind it. What makes a one micron layer or one that is a hundred microns thick matter so much? If the layers had surfaces, it would make a difference because it would be like wrapping the planet in a hundred blanks, but the atmosphere has no surfaces and the carbon dioxide is diffuse.

Let's face it no one has explained any of this stuff to us. So it is up to us to figure it out for ourselves. Unfortunately, many feel that how they feel about it emotionally is sufficient.




MrRodgers -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 8:04:26 PM)

Well if you believe our space scientists and you want to see what just a whole lotta CO2 can do...look at Venus. Surface temps. are 400-500 deg. F. What do ya think...we could stop at say...150 ?

Next question.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 8:11:15 PM)

Though what I wrote is accurate "They know something about the motions of the planets, but how it relates to the weather remains unclear." my understanding is is there is close agreement between increases in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, human activity, and increase in global temperatures. So I take the argument is kind of like if you disagree with us it is like disagreeing with Johannes Kepler http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html and his laws of planetary motion.

The underlying physics behind the motions of the planets are less complex than the physics underpinning the theory of global warming. Can such broad generalizations be made when the system under observation is complex? For example, if x is a 2 dimensional flat plane in space, only 3 points are needed to define it. Only 3 points are needed because the shape is a simple shape. Try that with a complex shape. Because the number of points you need to get right are small for the 2 dimensional flat plane, a game of twenty questions works well even if the game is played badly. You only need to get 3 of your 20 questions right, what if there are a 100 variables all of which are equally important? A game of 20 questions will be insufficient. After 20 questions, you won't understand the shape you are observing.

I started with 1 question that we have not yet even begun to explore and once we have explored it, another 99 questions will remain. It would be easier if broad generalizations could be made.




DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 8:32:08 PM)

The physics of AGW is very simple. CO2 is a photon trap. It absorbs photons and reradiates part of the absorbed energy as heat. The major components of the atmosphere, N2 and O2, do not so as CO2 concentration increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere increases and therefore the atmosphere is hotter.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:07:07 PM)

I know about Venus, but we have no where even remotely near the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as does Venus. The relationship between how much you have and how effective it is as a blanket would need to be non-linear. Assuming for the sake of simplicitity that the relationship was continuous and monotonic increasing, the relationship would need to be logarithmic because it couldn't be exponential. If it were expoential the temperature of the surface of Venus would be in the millions of degrees. Though it is hot enough to melt lead it is not hot enough for nuclear fusion.

What would account for this non-linearity? We are talking about almost zero here. How could something that exists in almost zero quantities have such a profound effect? It reminds me of discussions what is that area of medicine that is regarded as quakery? Something about diluting the medication in half 40 times or something like that. In order for the theory to seem credible something has to explain this non-linearity.

How does medication that is so diluted as to be 1 part in a 1000 billion be effective? They advance an explanation. They claim that it isn't the medication that is effective. It is the shape of the molecules. The role of the original medication was to establish a template for the water molecules to emulate, but the effectiveness of the emulation is hampered by the presence of the original medication.

What might explain the non-linearity? Hmm, perhaps carbon dioxide alters the properties of the atmosphere in a way that small impurities introduced into an almost pure substance can radically alter its properties as is the case of semi-conductor electronics.

If you don't believe me what is room temperature in Kelvin?
25 degrees Celsisus = 25 + 273.15 degrees Kelvin ~ 300 degrees Kelvin
Just for argument sake say the surface temperature of Venus was 500 degrees Celsius and not 500 degrees Farenheit which would make it conserably hotter than it already is. Just for simplicity sake for our calculations and say 25 degrees Celsius is actually 0 for the same reasons.

The surface temperature of Venus would then be 500 + 300 = 800 Kelvin. Forget that someone has done the calculations for us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus "The temperature at the surface is 740 K ... The atmosphere of Venus is much denser and hotter than that of Earth." The differences in density is going to mess with the calculations, but we do know that it is a lot more dense; hence, a lot more carbon dioxide than my figures would indicate. Under Composition on the right "Carbon dioxide 96.5%" in other words within the accuracy of our simple model we are attempting to formulate, it is for all practical purposes 100% carbon dioxide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is 0.035 percent or approximately 1/3000 the amount of carbon dioxide if the density of the atmosphere on Venus were the same as that of the earth. There is no figure for surface temperature. Also let's not forget that Venus is closer to the solar furnance than we are. Ignoring that I'll continue.

http://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html "The average temperature on Earth is about 61 degrees F (16 C)." 16 + 273 = 289 degrees Kelvin. In other words room temperature more or less albeit a few degrees cooler.

So what is the difference in temperature 740 - 289 K = 451 K Now divide that by 3000 - 1. If the relationship where linear if the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosophere were to double the temperature of the earth would on average increase by 0.150 C which is approximately 1/7 of a degree, but this is not what they are claiming. The actual figure would be far lower than this because the atmosophere of Venus is considerably more dense than Earth and Venus is closer to the solar furnance. So if I made the calculations more accurate the resulting number would be much lower than 1/7 of a degree.

Clearly if the global warming theory is right, the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature must be logarithmic.

Why would it be logarithmic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well if you believe our space scientists and you want to see what just a whole lotta CO2 can do...look at Venus. Surface temps. are 400-500 deg. F. What do ya think...we could stop at say...150 ?


Hopefully, I didn't make a glaring mistake in my math since I didn't bother to check my figures. Perhaps my simple model is consistent with global warming theory. It might be if I got the math wrong. Let us not get anal and worry too greatly about our reputations.




Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:14:09 PM)

Not quite Ken

We see materials as transparent, translucent, reflective or absorptive.
One thing that a lot of folks have a hard time wrapping their minds around is how something that looks transparent can actually be reflecting or absorbing certain wavelengths.
Radiant energy is just photons. Photons have wavelengths that can be measured in Kilometers (radio) all the way down to the approximate size of an atomic nucleus (gamma).
It's all a form of 'light' but we can only see a tiny portion of it. (Visible Spectrum from Red to violet)
Any substance will have a spectrum denoting what wavelengths it transmits, emits or absorbs. This is how things have color. Transparent substances are transparent to visible light but they DO absorb or reflect other wavelengths we just don't see it.

The sun shines. Some wavelengths are reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The really nasty stuff is deflected by the magnetic field.
Most of it is transmitted.
Light hits the earth. Darker areas (land & water) absorb it and grow warmer. Icy areas reflect it back into space and warm up a lot less.
Land is constantly reradiating 'light' back into space in the form of Infra Red photons.
That's right. Visible light was absorbed but a totally different wavelength is emitted.
Ideally, the exact same amount of energy is absorbed and emitted over time. When this happens, the planet stays the same average temp.

Now, let's play with the gas mixture.
Several different gasses including CO2 and Methane transmit the visible light that went down but they reflect the IR that's coming up and trying to escape right back down to the planet. It's not a blanket like you're used to cuddling up with on a cold night as much as it's like a thin foil one way mirror.
More greenhouse gas = more heat reflected back to the ground instead of escaping to space.

The problem is that it doesn't take a lot to upset the balance. The warming won't happen all at once but over decades and centuries.

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.

I hope that helped some folks with the VERY basic scientific principles behind warming. (In practice, it's a fuck of a lot more complex because of differential albedo, ocean currents, etc)




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:16:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The physics of AGW is very simple. CO2 is a photon trap. It absorbs photons and reradiates part of the absorbed energy as heat. The major components of the atmosphere, N2 and O2, do not so as CO2 concentration increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere increases and therefore the atmosphere is hotter.


Yes, I understand that. There is the << 1/7 of a degree problem. My development does not show that global warming is not real. It shows that the relationship must be logarithmic in order for that theory to hold water. I have not heard anyone explain why the relationship would be logarithmic. A linear relationship requires no explanation whereas a non-linear one does.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:22:30 PM)

Taking a moment to think about it the only thing I can immediately come up with that could explain why the relationship is logarithmic is the atmosphere is so pure that its impurities act like dopants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopant

But that is novel. I haven't heard anyone claim such a thing. Did I discover new physics? My genius having unraveled it before our very eyes? It is something to ponder. How did I do it?




Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:26:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Taking a moment to think about it the only thing I can immediately come up with that could explain why the relationship is logarithmic is the atmosphere is so pure that its impurities act like dopants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopant

But that is novel. I haven't heard anyone claim such a thing. Did I discover new physics? My genius having unraveled it before our very eyes? It is something to ponder. How did I do it?

Look at my post and think about the analogy of the person just eating a very few extra calories a day and eventually getting fat and see if that helps.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:35:50 PM)

The atmosphere is not a crystal, but perhaps it is in an exotic sense, hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopant "The aluminum and oxygen atoms in the transparent crystal of aluminum oxide served simply to support the chromium atoms in a good spatial distribution, and otherwise, they do not have anything to do with the laser action." This suggests something a wee bit less exotic. The ability of carbon dioxide to act as a "photo trap" to use the jargon must be degraded by the presence of carbon dioxide. That could explain why the relationship is logarithmic. The efficiency in which carbon dioxide is able to keep the planet warm must decrease as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.

Carbon dioxide must give our atmosphere a color of sorts much as trace quantities of chromium make rubies red.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:41:20 PM)

Perhaps the sparse distribution in a gas makes it very average; thus very regular on average and therefore crystalline like.




Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:42:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Carbon dioxide must give our atmosphere a color of sorts much as trace quantities of chromium make rubies red.

If you could see infra red, it probably would be colored.

Remember, we can only see a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:42:43 PM)

This suggests that something akin to lasing is occurring in our atmosphere.




Hillwilliam -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:45:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

This suggests that something akin to lasing is occurring in our atmosphere.

no. totally different concept.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:45:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

Carbon dioxide must give our atmosphere a color of sorts much as trace quantities of chromium make rubies red.

If you could see infra red, it probably would be colored.

Remember, we can only see a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.


I agree. It might alter our perspective, seeing what our atmosphere looks like in other ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum. What strange things might we observe? UFOs or atmospheric phenomena we do not yet understand?




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:49:45 PM)

The problem with this theory I'm advancing here, namely atmospheric lasing, is as dopants go carbon dioxide exists in very high concentrations, but perhaps this is a problem only because science so far has only been interested in the effects of dopants in solids and has yet to explore the effects of dopants in gases.




DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:51:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

The physics of AGW is very simple. CO2 is a photon trap. It absorbs photons and reradiates part of the absorbed energy as heat. The major components of the atmosphere, N2 and O2, do not so as CO2 concentration increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere increases and therefore the atmosphere is hotter.


Yes, I understand that. There is the << 1/7 of a degree problem. My development does not show that global warming is not real. It shows that the relationship must be logarithmic in order for that theory to hold water. I have not heard anyone explain why the relationship would be logarithmic. A linear relationship requires no explanation whereas a non-linear one does.

Simple. Each CO2 molecule radiates heat and some part of that heat is reabsorbed by nearby CO2 molecules and other matter like the ground or ocean.




BenevolentM -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:51:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

This suggests that something akin to lasing is occurring in our atmosphere.

no. totally different concept.


I listen to Coast to Coast AM. I've been trained to think outside the box.




DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:53:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

This suggests that something akin to lasing is occurring in our atmosphere.

no. totally different concept.


I listen to Coast to Coast AM. I've been trained to think outside the box.

Well that is the start of the problem.

Pretty much everything on there is bullshit.




DomKen -> RE: An Attempt to Understand the Science Behind Global Warming (9/28/2013 9:54:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Not quite Ken

We see materials as transparent, translucent, reflective or absorptive.
One thing that a lot of folks have a hard time wrapping their minds around is how something that looks transparent can actually be reflecting or absorbing certain wavelengths.
Radiant energy is just photons. Photons have wavelengths that can be measured in Kilometers (radio) all the way down to the approximate size of an atomic nucleus (gamma).
It's all a form of 'light' but we can only see a tiny portion of it. (Visible Spectrum from Red to violet)
Any substance will have a spectrum denoting what wavelengths it transmits, emits or absorbs. This is how things have color. Transparent substances are transparent to visible light but they DO absorb or reflect other wavelengths we just don't see it.

I was keeping it simple for a guy who clearly has no idea how this stuff works at even the most basic level.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875