|
Post by duwayne on Nov 29, 2017 16:06:20 GMT
Except when it is quanta - and particulate like a photon. or both as in the interference fringes where a photon can go through both slits probabilistically The question being discussed at WUWT is that the lapse rate is caused by gravity. Downbursts actually cause the highest surface temperatures in the experienced due to the increase in pressure - not surprising if you understand the gas laws. So called green house gases do not have an effect in the world of physics and physical chemistry. It is worth reading the thread that I referenced. Anthony deleted the original post and it had a 'Streisand Effect' and the discussion moved from the post subject to the subject of the banned post. I posted the quote above to correct your statement that N2 and O2 do not emit radiation. Unfortunately you cut off the important part of the quote.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 29, 2017 17:05:25 GMT
I missed that. N2 and O2 deff emit radiation.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 29, 2017 18:07:01 GMT
From a freshman atmospheric science textbook the answer would be yes. Feed the kids what you like, 4.6% currently per annum. Yes, apparently all previous non-anthropogenic co2 emissions balanced out. This however an argumentative circle. Next we discuss co2 molecules and ir photons, then blackbodies etc All we know is that a bunch of well Informed and possibly intelligent (well, you all are, I just speak for myself there...) people cannot agree. This is a very dynamic and complicated subject. Duwayne I think your efforts to calculate future temp trends are brilliant. However, do you think the agw thing is 97% or not? Because as of this minute I do not fully understand every aspect of this massive subject and I have an inquiring mind, many people here tolerate this and only mildly abuse me publicly (ratty.....😉) I do not think the agw thing is 97%, that's just gut instinct...now. sure, i.m just a plumber, ratty is just retired, sigs just a farmer, MOboy is just a data whizz, Graywolf is in politics I think? I actually don't know if atmospheric pressure at our surface exerts a temperature Increase due to that pressure, so while I sat in my 12 year olds guitar lesson I read up on avogrados constant. Why not, I'd rather use my brain then be brain dead. I may not know everything, but I keep trying to learn. If you wish to stamp on that by referring to my efforts as freshman with a loaded question then that's fine, but believe me, I'm in no way reduced by that, only perhaps my opinion. Acidohm, let me give you my opinion on the CAGW debate. There are six pieces to the CAGW discussion. 1) Is man a major contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? 2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3) What is the direct effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 4) What is the feedback effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 5) What are the overall consequences of the warming (benefits and problems)? 6) Is the projected warming catastrophic? The first question is the easiest. That’s why I label it the freshman question. The label had nothing to do with you or your opinion. The questions which follow get progressively more difficult because more scientific knowledge is required. I believe certain people will answer “no” to the first question even though they realize the right answer is “yes” because they believe “no” is the answer to point 6. Since they do not have the scientific knowledge to debate points 2 through 6 they attempt to “stop” the debate with a “no” for point 1 or 2. Unfortunately, that backfires because the warmists jump on the “no” answer and point out quite easily that it is incorrect and then apply the denialist label to all skeptics and with the help of the media they win the public debate without dealing with important real questions. As I’ve said before, I shudder to see skeptics put forth arguments that are obviously wrong and help feed the alarmist claims that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. Gill’s article on WUWT was one of many examples and the fact that only a few of the 800+ posts in response made any sense at all indirectly enables the alarmist cohorts to continue to label skeptics as denialists. I agree with the logic of your approach. Nicely simplified structural approach to answering the major questions although we may quibble over the number and nature of the questions, particularly number two. Seems to me that the crux of the problem has always been what CO2 can and cannot do. Number two should be divided into two or three (or?) critical directed questions that have a chance of being answered with current science ... which, if falsified, destroys the argument. A pinpoint scientific rout from which one side or the other must run (skedaddle) for their lives. I'm glad that you changed statement number one. I have no problem with that statement as a starting point for the rest of the questions ... although I would still say that the data jury is still out on the actual human contribution.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2017 18:56:30 GMT
See encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/ICAN+Atmospherentrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19630003300.pdfAlso References from earlier post: "In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions. www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdfSince we are at a temperature of less than 33 C and a partial pressure of less than .6096 of CO2 why should I not think CO2 has no effect when it has a ZERO emissivity in almost all of earths atmosphere? " wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/27/mirrors-and-mazes-a-guide-through-the-climate-debate/#comment-2678643There is a lot of discussion on that WUWT thread As the ICAN atmosphere was calculated before anyone could make money out of Carbon Dioxide and has remained unchallenged since the 1960's by the aviation industry that relies on it for safety - I tend to believe that it is correct. The lapse rates it defines have not been altered by hotspots or by different concentrations of atmospheric gases and this would be the case if the Carbon Dioxide causes atmospheric warming hypothesis was true. Similarly balloon sondes have not shown the effect of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere changing lapse rates. So unless someone can explain why it is possible to mathematically and accurately derive the standard surface temperatures and pressures - of all planetary bodies - by using just the standard gas laws - without any reference to 'GHG' (sic) - then I believe that 'Green House Gases' belong with Phlogiston. Whether that rises to the level of Piltdown Man and is a hoax is another matter. It is certainly true that many individuals and companies have been and are making fortunes from 'Global warming' they are possibly not all ENRON or Goldman Sachs; but there is a great temptation to keep this bandwagon moving.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 29, 2017 23:03:50 GMT
From a freshman atmospheric science textbook the answer would be yes. Feed the kids what you like, 4.6% currently per annum. Yes, apparently all previous non-anthropogenic co2 emissions balanced out. This however an argumentative circle. Next we discuss co2 molecules and ir photons, then blackbodies etc All we know is that a bunch of well Informed and possibly intelligent (well, you all are, I just speak for myself there...) people cannot agree. This is a very dynamic and complicated subject. Duwayne I think your efforts to calculate future temp trends are brilliant. However, do you think the agw thing is 97% or not? Because as of this minute I do not fully understand every aspect of this massive subject and I have an inquiring mind, many people here tolerate this and only mildly abuse me publicly (ratty.....😉) I do not think the agw thing is 97%, that's just gut instinct...now. sure, i.m just a plumber, ratty is just retired, sigs just a farmer, MOboy is just a data whizz, Graywolf is in politics I think? I actually don't know if atmospheric pressure at our surface exerts a temperature Increase due to that pressure, so while I sat in my 12 year olds guitar lesson I read up on avogrados constant. Why not, I'd rather use my brain then be brain dead. I may not know everything, but I keep trying to learn. If you wish to stamp on that by referring to my efforts as freshman with a loaded question then that's fine, but believe me, I'm in no way reduced by that, only perhaps my opinion. Acidohm, let me give you my opinion on the CAGW debate. There are six pieces to the CAGW discussion. 1) Is man a major contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? 2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3) What is the direct effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 4) What is the feedback effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 5) What are the overall consequences of the warming (benefits and problems)? 6) Is the projected warming catastrophic? The first question is the easiest. That’s why I label it the freshman question. The label had nothing to do with you or your opinion. The questions which follow get progressively more difficult because more scientific knowledge is required. I believe certain people will answer “no” to the first question even though they realize the right answer is “yes” because they believe “no” is the answer to point 6. Since they do not have the scientific knowledge to debate points 2 through 6 they attempt to “stop” the debate with a “no” for point 1 or 2. Unfortunately, that backfires because the warmists jump on the “no” answer and point out quite easily that it is incorrect and then apply the denialist label to all skeptics and with the help of the media they win the public debate without dealing with important real questions. As I’ve said before, I shudder to see skeptics put forth arguments that are obviously wrong and help feed the alarmist claims that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. Gill’s article on WUWT was one of many examples and the fact that only a few of the 800+ posts in response made any sense at all indirectly enables the alarmist cohorts to continue to label skeptics as denialists. Sorry if I came over all shirty Duwayne, I think work is getting to me 😝 Really like points 1-6 And your interpretation of it, I suspect you are very much correct. However I do think that most sceptics are much better informed then the warmists, generally. It's just even experts in these fields come across confusing, its such a complex subject with many nuances and debatables.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 30, 2017 3:45:08 GMT
Nautonnier, I watched the video which you presumably understand and support and are encouraging us to watch.
The presenter convincingly shows that the ideal gas law can be used to accurately estimate the average surface temperature for Venus, earth and Titan. That alone apparently is enough to convince him and you that there is no greenhouse gas effect. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 30, 2017 3:53:18 GMT
Acidohm, let me give you my opinion on the CAGW debate. There are six pieces to the CAGW discussion. 1) Is man a major contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? 2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3) What is the direct effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 4) What is the feedback effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 5) What are the overall consequences of the warming (benefits and problems)? 6) Is the projected warming catastrophic? The first question is the easiest. That’s why I label it the freshman question. The label had nothing to do with you or your opinion. The questions which follow get progressively more difficult because more scientific knowledge is required. I believe certain people will answer “no” to the first question even though they realize the right answer is “yes” because they believe “no” is the answer to point 6. Since they do not have the scientific knowledge to debate points 2 through 6 they attempt to “stop” the debate with a “no” for point 1 or 2. Unfortunately, that backfires because the warmists jump on the “no” answer and point out quite easily that it is incorrect and then apply the denialist label to all skeptics and with the help of the media they win the public debate without dealing with important real questions. As I’ve said before, I shudder to see skeptics put forth arguments that are obviously wrong and help feed the alarmist claims that skeptics don’t know what they are talking about. Gill’s article on WUWT was one of many examples and the fact that only a few of the 800+ posts in response made any sense at all indirectly enables the alarmist cohorts to continue to label skeptics as denialists. I agree with the logic of your approach. Nicely simplified structural approach to answering the major questions although we may quibble over the number and nature of the questions, particularly number two. Seems to me that the crux of the problem has always been what CO2 can and cannot do. Number two should be divided into two or three (or?) critical directed questions that have a chance of being answered with current science ... which, if falsified, destroys the argument. A pinpoint scientific rout from which one side or the other must run (skedaddle) for their lives. I'm glad that you changed statement number one. I have no problem with that statement as a starting point for the rest of the questions ... although I would still say that the data jury is still out on the actual human contribution. Mossouriboy, can you give me your additional questions to be added to the list.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 30, 2017 12:04:53 GMT
Nautonnier, I watched the video which you presumably understand and support and are encouraging us to watch. The presenter convincingly shows that the ideal gas law can be used to accurately estimate the average surface temperature for Venus, earth and Titan. That alone apparently is enough to convince him and you that there is no greenhouse gas effect. Is that correct? I put the video there for people to look at. The presumption that I support everything in it is just that. What surprises me is that many of these hypotheses are easily tested even with normal observation. But nobody is doing those tests. I do not have the emotional involvement in these hypotheses that you seem to have. I would like to see formal experiment. At the current time I lean toward the gas laws being correct as they are called laws as unlike the 'law of gravity' they have yet to be falsified. As the gas laws on their own can be used to generate the lapse rates and therefore the atmospheric temperatures and correctly predict the temperatures also on Mars and Venus, they have not been falsified whereas the claims for 'green house gases' seem to be more emotional and not based on successful prediction. If CO2 has no deleterious effect - precision about how much is produced by various natural processes and by anthropogenic activity may be of idle curiosity but is unimportant apart from its political use together with a failed hypothesis to gain power and money. It is certainly not science.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 7, 2017 23:24:56 GMT
Does anyone know why Dr Roy Spencer's November satellite temp has not yet appeared?
My initial thought was that the change was so large he was rechecking the numbers!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 7, 2017 23:42:50 GMT
Does anyone know why Dr Roy Spencer's November satellite temp has not yet appeared? My initial thought was that the change was so large he was rechecking the numbers!! I see +0.36 C. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/Is it even possible that latent heat of freezing of massive amounts of water in he Arctic Ocean is keeping the northern air masses modified?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 8, 2017 0:13:25 GMT
One very persuasive argument. In two parts, Robert W Turner November 27, 2017 at 9:55 pm It’s too funny, this is well known and accepted in all science except climate science. Gravity is a force applied to an atmosphere, any air that falls converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and heat. Without gravity, an atmosphere would simply disperse into space. And without a heat source, gravity would pull all the air to the surface and all the energy in it would eventually dissipate as radiation into space. Together, the atmosphere is heated from a source and gravitational compression retains much of that heat within the atmosphere. The heavier the atmosphere, the more kinetic energy and heat there will be within it, nearly irrespective of the composition. Robert W Turner November 27, 2017 at 10:02 pm richard — In reality, there is not magic bottle keeping the air together, you must have a gravitational field to keep the air bound to the surface. Without this force, the atmosphere and all of its molecular kinetic energy would disperse. Gravity keeps this heat bound to the planet, this force retains far more energy than the inaptly named GHG effect.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 8, 2017 0:47:42 GMT
[[I see +0.36 C. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/Is it even possible that latent heat of freezing of massive amounts of water in he Arctic Ocean is keeping the northern air masses modified?]] MB that is the number for October!![you quoted +0.36 assume meant +0.63]]
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 8, 2017 0:59:25 GMT
[[I see +0.36 C. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/Is it even possible that latent heat of freezing of massive amounts of water in he Arctic Ocean is keeping the northern air masses modified?]] MB that is the number for October!![you quoted +0.36 assume meant +0.63]]
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 8, 2017 1:59:59 GMT
[[I see +0.36 C. www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/Is it even possible that latent heat of freezing of massive amounts of water in he Arctic Ocean is keeping the northern air masses modified?]] MB that is the number for October!![you quoted +0.36 assume meant +0.63]] Refresh your browser cache?
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Dec 8, 2017 4:28:18 GMT
Ratty & MB
Apologies - you were right. [But header on Spencer's site still only quotes October!]
|
|