|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 3, 2016 1:12:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 3, 2016 1:17:23 GMT
Yeah...but aren't they just finding an excuse for lack of Antarctic melting??
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 3, 2016 3:30:53 GMT
True to that excuse. Funny thing is, it has been known since the 70's that both poles are open doors. I read a paper wayyyyy back then about CO2 enhancing the "chimney effect". But of course that was prior to the warming effect.
Just wait. As we enter protracted cooling CO2 will be the reason for that as well. That newly discovered science.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 3, 2016 4:45:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 3, 2016 6:03:58 GMT
Naw Socold. The earth won't continue to heat up from CO2. If that were the case there wouldn't be the glacial periods.
And if it does warm up, the upside far outweighs the negative side.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 3, 2016 6:07:04 GMT
The Earth continues to heat up and will continue to do so as CO2 continues to increase. unfortunately the half degree warming over the last 75 years still leaves us with a relatively cold planet as evidenced by both population distribution and in comparison with the dawn of civilization 6,000 years ago. I can't think of any other relevant comparisons, can you?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2016 10:25:21 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 4, 2016 14:54:58 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Nautonier, I thought I remembered that Oxygen absorbs significant amounts of radiation in the visible light range and re-emits radiation but not in the infra red range. Is my memory wrong? Maybe you have a reference I could look at.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 5, 2016 16:00:45 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Nautonier, you didn't respond to my post above. Another thing that I recall is the satellite-based global temperatures are determined by measuring the level of O2 radiation. I question the notion that O2 does not emit radiation or maybe I misunderstood what you said.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 5, 2016 18:37:09 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 5, 2016 18:45:07 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Nautonier, I thought I remembered that Oxygen absorbs significant amounts of radiation in the visible light range and re-emits radiation but not in the infra red range. Is my memory wrong? Maybe you have a reference I could look at. Yes, the atmosphere absorbs significant amounts of the suns energy. However the molecule of oxygen as O2 will be emitting almost no radiation, but higher in the atmosphere the atomic form of oxygen as O radiates at various frequencies including green. It seems unlikely to me that O2 is being used to measure the temperature of the near surface atmosphere. The total radiation signal detectable from space is going to be very noisy and the emission from 02 is extremely weak.I googled it later though. Atmospheric oxygen produces microwave radiation that can be detected from space and balloons.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 5, 2016 18:46:08 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. Sounds like something like....I don't know....a wind? Would negate the effect hugely?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 5, 2016 19:12:39 GMT
Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. Sounds like something like....I don't know....a wind? Would negate the effect hugely? The situation is complicated because some of the strongest winds on earth are created by warm oceans and rising water vapour. It could easily be much less windy on a waterless planet. It should be clear though that without the atmospheric mass transferring heat to the surface at night by radiation it would be difficult for the heat in the night time calmer atmosphere to be able to come down to the surface and prevent the surface from seeing the full horrifying effect of a very very cold atmospheric radiation temperature through which the surface heat would be pouring outwards to space by radiation. The atmosphere though would be insulated. Sure it is hard to see exactly how it would pan out but the basic principle seems a sound one. We know also that once water vapour becomes less significant atmospheric temperatures begin rising
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 5, 2016 20:13:05 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Nautonier, you didn't respond to my post above. Another thing that I recall is the satellite-based global temperatures are determined by measuring the level of O2 radiation. I question the notion that O2 does not emit radiation or maybe I misunderstood what you said. Sorry for the late response I have been traveling and only had occasional access. I should have been more explicit it is direct heat energy in the form of infrared I was talking about. O2 molecules being broken apart above about 50 Km in the atmosphere does cause heating below that to 15Km O2 causes cooling this is all described in eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/The point I was trying to make was that in the troposphere CO2 will cause cooling by radiating heat energy gained from collisions O2 and N2 cannot do this.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 5, 2016 23:31:17 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. Poppycock! Colder CO2 warms warmer soil and water despite being colder and the sun circles the earth. All the Pope's scientists once again chimes in with a giant kowtow!
|
|