|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 23, 2012 5:36:25 GMT
I know that Whats up with that has said Wiki is unreliable on climate change and the greenhouse effect, but i dont know much more.
It seems to me they are wanting to very strongly minimise the influence of water and emphasise the influence of C02.
|
|
tenuc
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by tenuc on Mar 23, 2012 10:46:31 GMT
Correct, WIKI is not reliable for climate data, or in fact much of anything else. It always gives the standard 'gloss' for all the sciences. It tends to often assert current theory as fact, for example on the physics pages, and seldom dwells too long on problems with current conjectures/theories.
Most institutions have a small group of people to act as 'gatekeepers', with the role of protecting the standard model from competing ideas.
In the real world, the science is never settled and a single new observation can falsify any theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 24, 2012 1:35:50 GMT
I detected a similarity in style to "radiant". I think they are sensitive about AGW references on the solar threads which is why the global warming section (asylum) was created.
Assume you are talking about Wikipedia. What specifically are you talking about?
Don't think there is any controversy that the water vapour influence on radiation is huge near the ground. AGW, however, is about the *change* in radiative forcing due to increasing CO2. The change due to rising CO2 is tiny near the ground (because of the large amounts of water vapour) but significant higher up in the atmosphere where there is much less water vapour.
When I say "significant" the effect is still small - a rise of 2-4.5C in relation to a doubling of CO2 is small compared with the current greenhouse effect (from water vapour mainly, plus CO2, CH4 and other gases) of around 33C, but is still significant.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 24, 2012 1:41:53 GMT
I detected a similarity in style to "radiant". I think they are sensitive about AGW references on the solar threads which is why the global warming section (asylum) was created. Assume you are talking about Wikipedia. What specifically are you talking about? Don't think there is any controversy that the water vapour influence on radiation is huge near the ground. AGW, however, is about the *change* in radiative forcing due to increasing CO2. The change due to rising CO2 is tiny near the ground (because of the large amounts of water vapour) but significant higher up in the atmosphere where there is much less water vapour. When I say "significant" the effect is still small - a rise of 2-4.5C in relation to a doubling of CO2 is small compared with the current greenhouse effect (from water vapour mainly, plus CO2, CH4 and other gases) of around 33C, but is still significant. When I say "significant" the effect is still small - a rise of 2-4.5C in relation to a doubling of CO2 is small compared with the current greenhouse effect (from water vapour mainly, plus CO2, CH4 and other gases) of around 33C, but is still significant. Opinions....opinions..... |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 24, 2012 8:55:43 GMT
[Curiously Icefisher here was very supportive of the Wiki kind of view that radiation is of no importance near the surface, and just like with Wiki no amount of reason was useful against that view.]
You might actually have some good stuff to contribute if you could train yourself to listen to what others are saying.
I have discussed backradiation and would like to see some experimental evidence it exists. But I have always acknowledged that CO2 absorbs outgoing energy. The question is what does it do with it.
If its captured in the bottom of the atmosphere, say the bottom thousand meters it will still result in enough atmosphere warmth to potentially send some of it back to the surface at nighttime as the surface has far higher rates of radiation loss. So if the surface drops 6C below the Stevenson screens, which it does (thats why you can get frost when its +6C outside).
Nighttime is a time for inversions and depending upon their strength you are going to get more warming of the surface from heat trapped in the atmosphere.
The big question is how much of that is offset by shading of the surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Mar 24, 2012 11:17:08 GMT
Just a thought on the frost under Stevenson screens, have you considered that the shadow area under the screen would accumulate less heat in the ground ? Night time radiation from that position would also be less.
Old Ice Walls were built so that the sun never shone on the side that produced ice, and obviously that area could only radiate to a 90° or so of the sky but would be affected by back radiation to the same degree, but still produced ice at above freezing air temps.
|
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Mar 24, 2012 11:44:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 25, 2012 2:03:06 GMT
Maybe factcheck is a Mr. Green front as well. When there is demon CO2 to be attacked why just say anything to promote the cause. "FactCheck.org misrepresents the dangers of carbon dioxide" "FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to “apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship” to “reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” FactCheck.org recently published an article entitled “Santorum’s science,” by Lori Robertson. In this piece, Robertson criticizes Rick Santorum for a statement he made about global warming on March 12th in Biloxi, Mississippi. Alluding to the fact that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a vital ingredient for plant life, Santorum quipped, “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.” Robertson attempts to refute Santorum’s remark by declaring: • “Too much” CO2 “is definitely a bad thing.” • “Exposure to high levels of CO2 can cause ‘headaches, dizziness, restlessness … coma, asphyxia to convulsions … and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice,’ which is solid CO2.” • “Plants do, in fact, absorb CO2. But even plants might not like too much of it. A 2008 study conducted at the University of Illinois found that instead of increasing organic matter in soil, higher carbon dioxide levels actually led to less organic matter.” These statements are materially misleading" www.justfactsdaily.com/factcheck-org-misrepresents-the-dangers-of-carbon-dioxide |
|
