|
Post by hunter on Jan 4, 2010 13:36:11 GMT
Quibbling over a desert planet and its nearly absent atmosphere is not dealing with the topic of this thread very well. One of the major points of the paper is that the very term 'greenhouse gas' is misleading and inappropriate. Perhaps that would be more relevant to explore?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2010 14:11:03 GMT
Quibbling over a desert planet and its nearly absent atmosphere is not dealing with the topic of this thread very well. One of the major points of the paper is that the very term 'greenhouse gas' is misleading and inappropriate. Perhaps that would be more relevant to explore? The reason it is inappropriate is that the heat is trapped in a greenhouse NOT due to glass radiative forcing but due to a lack of convection. So it does not represent a real atmosphere. Interesting that the IPCC definition of radiative forcing uses a greenhouse approach as it ALSO freezes the atmosphere and assumes no convection. So those calculations also do not represent the real atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2010 15:06:04 GMT
The question is why would anyone feel that it is important to spend many pages discussing the inadequate *description* of the "greenhouse effect" in a so-called scientific paper? Where has the term been used in a way that is "misleading and inappropriate"? A greenhouse reduces the loss of energy from a greenhouse through cutting down convection and radiation to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases reduce loss of energy from the earth by cutting down radiation emission to space. If people are really interested in knowing more, the full details of the theory are publicly available.
But they are not being misled if they come away believing that "greenhouse gases" keep the earth warm and that nearly all scientists who have studied the subject believe that more "greenhouse gases" are "very likely" causing the earth to warm more.
As to nautonnier's comment, I'm surprised that he does not realise that the radiative forcing concept is a representation of just part of the problem in a way that is designed to compare the effect of different components on the atmosphere. It does seem to be that certain sceptics have difficulties with analogies and with novel ways of breaking down problems into parts so they can be looked at from different angles. Sorry if the mechanical analogy I've just used doesn't make sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2010 16:50:24 GMT
The question is why would anyone feel that it is important to spend many pages discussing the inadequate *description* of the "greenhouse effect" in a so-called scientific paper? Where has the term been used in a way that is "misleading and inappropriate"? A greenhouse reduces the loss of energy from a greenhouse through cutting down convection and radiation to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases reduce loss of energy from the earth by cutting down radiation emission to space. If people are really interested in knowing more, the full details of the theory are publicly available. But they are not being misled if they come away believing that "greenhouse gases" keep the earth warm and that nearly all scientists who have studied the subject believe that more "greenhouse gases" are "very likely" causing the earth to warm more. As to nautonnier's comment, I'm surprised that he does not realise that the radiative forcing concept is a representation of just part of the problem in a way that is designed to compare the effect of different components on the atmosphere. It does seem to be that certain sceptics have difficulties with analogies and with novel ways of breaking down problems into parts so they can be looked at from different angles. Sorry if the mechanical analogy I've just used doesn't make sense to you. "As to nautonnier's comment, I'm surprised that he does not realise that the radiative forcing concept is a representation of just part of the problem in a way that is designed to compare the effect of different components on the atmosphere. It does seem to be that certain sceptics have difficulties with analogies and with novel ways of breaking down problems into parts so they can be looked at from different angles. Sorry if the mechanical analogy I've just used doesn't make sense to you" A nice strawman in the cold weather ;-) The calculation of THE EFFECTS of a 'green house gas' on the Atmosphere is being defined by assuming some of THE EFFECTS are not happening. This is akin to 'lets assume the Earth is a point in space' and other oversimplifications used because otherwise it is too difficult but not realizing that the system IS complex and cannot be described simply. I was only pointing out that the radiative forcing coefficients are actually defined AS IF the atmosphere was held unmoving just as in a greenhouse. While those who use the coefficient then go on to say 'of course we don't think the atmosphere works like a greenhouse' - a little amusing to highlight that perhaps their coefficients and conceptions are driven by their own simplistic terminology I am sure you followed that.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 4, 2010 17:49:39 GMT
The question is why would anyone feel that it is important to spend many pages discussing the inadequate *description* of the "greenhouse effect" in a so-called scientific paper? Where has the term been used in a way that is "misleading and inappropriate"? A greenhouse reduces the loss of energy from a greenhouse through cutting down convection and radiation to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases reduce loss of energy from the earth by cutting down radiation emission to space. If people are really interested in knowing more, the full details of the theory are publicly available. But they are not being misled if they come away believing that "greenhouse gases" keep the earth warm and that nearly all scientists who have studied the subject believe that more "greenhouse gases" are "very likely" causing the earth to warm more. As to nautonnier's comment, I'm surprised that he does not realise that the radiative forcing concept is a representation of just part of the problem in a way that is designed to compare the effect of different components on the atmosphere. It does seem to be that certain sceptics have difficulties with analogies and with novel ways of breaking down problems into parts so they can be looked at from different angles. Sorry if the mechanical analogy I've just used doesn't make sense to you. "As to nautonnier's comment, I'm surprised that he does not realise that the radiative forcing concept is a representation of just part of the problem in a way that is designed to compare the effect of different components on the atmosphere. It does seem to be that certain sceptics have difficulties with analogies and with novel ways of breaking down problems into parts so they can be looked at from different angles. Sorry if the mechanical analogy I've just used doesn't make sense to you" A nice strawman in the cold weather ;-) The calculation of THE EFFECTS of a 'green house gas' on the Atmosphere is being defined by assuming some of THE EFFECTS are not happening. This is akin to 'lets assume the Earth is a point in space' and other oversimplifications used because otherwise it is too difficult but not realizing that the system IS complex and cannot be described simply. I was only pointing out that the radiative forcing coefficients are actually defined AS IF the atmosphere was held unmoving just as in a greenhouse. While those who use the coefficient then go on to say 'of course we don't think the atmosphere works like a greenhouse' - a little amusing to highlight that perhaps their coefficients and conceptions are driven by their own simplistic terminology I am sure you followed that. 'of course we don't think the atmosphere works like a greenhouse' And yet there are numerous examples where prominent institutions directly compare earth's atmosphere to a "real glass greenhouse". www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/interior/greenhouse_effect.html&edu=elemThere's nothing like a good dose of indoctrination for young skulls full of mush.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 4, 2010 18:31:18 GMT
Nautonnier,
The temptation to build a strawman when there is so much straw around is too strong. You "was only pointing out" what is clearly there in the description of radiative forcing. The concept of radiative forcing is an aid to comparing agents. The impact is assessed in a separate set of experiments. Why is that so hard to understand?
And we seem to have gone back around the loop with Magellan's comment. So I'm still waiting for a reason as to why use of a slightly crap analogy matters. Should we stop buying electrical goods till we all understand the details of how a transistor works?
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jan 4, 2010 19:06:40 GMT
Were the atmosphere to "absorb" radiation reflected from the Earh, thus heating the atmosphere, would not the heated atmosphere expand thus reducing the heat per cubic metre contained in the atmosphere resulting in a relative lowering of temperature per cubic metre and a relative overall lowering of the temperature of the atmosphere? Given that there is an infinite amount of space into which the atmosphere may expand and blow away, would it not be the case by that fact that the atmosphere compensates for ingress of heat/energy and temperature of the atmosphere should not increase thereby? Would the issue not be the rate of introduction of substances into the atmosphere rather than the quantity of substances introduced?
I am way out of my league here.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 4, 2010 20:05:37 GMT
From the paper "Neither the infrared absorption nor reflection coefficient of glass is relevant in this explanation of the real greenhouse effect, only the panes of glass hindering the movement of air. This text is a recommended reading for all global climatologists referring to the greenhouse effect: It is not the “trapped" infrared radiation which explains the warming phenomenon in a real greenhouse - it is the suppression of air cooling."
It should be noted that in a real greenhouse convection to the exterior environment is stopped by the glass.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2010 22:39:16 GMT
Nautonnier, The temptation to build a strawman when there is so much straw around is too strong. You "was only pointing out" what is clearly there in the description of radiative forcing. The concept of radiative forcing is an aid to comparing agents. The impact is assessed in a separate set of experiments. Why is that so hard to understand? And we seem to have gone back around the loop with Magellan's comment. So I'm still waiting for a reason as to why use of a slightly crap analogy matters. Should we stop buying electrical goods till we all understand the details of how a transistor works? "The concept of radiative forcing is an aid to comparing agents. The impact is assessed in a separate set of experiments. Why is that so hard to understand?"I fully understand what it is - I don't believe many of the 'users' of the radiative forcing coefficients understand though. They use the radiative forcing in watts per square metre *** from the slab 'green house' atmosphere as if it WAS the way the atmosphere works - plugging those values into the various radiation formulae as if they were universal constants even though you will agree they are 'just comparative constructs in an unreal hypothetical atmosphere'. *** To 2 places of decimals but without any definition of square metres of what? WGS84 elipsoid? TOA? Tropopause?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 4, 2010 23:08:53 GMT
glc, I think the only strawman arguments are those used by the AGW side to mislead people. You guys came up with a snappy new marketing name- 'climate change' when the old one, 'global warming' did not work out so well. I am sure you guys can come up with an easier way to hide the emptiness of AGW theory. I bet even now, a marketing firm, possibly the same one that eased 'global warming' off stage, is fast at work. I bet they will use polar bears as part of the rebranding effort.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 5, 2010 1:27:54 GMT
glc, I think the only strawman arguments are those used by the AGW side to mislead people. You guys came up with a snappy new marketing name- 'climate change' when the old one, 'global warming' did not work out so well. I am sure you guys can come up with an easier way to hide the emptiness of AGW theory. I bet even now, a marketing firm, possibly the same one that eased 'global warming' off stage, is fast at work. I bet they will use polar bears as part of the rebranding effort. Yes the new marketing term is "ocean acidity". See it won't matter if the Earth is cooling or warming, CO2 must be controlled to prevent the oceans from turning acid.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2010 2:01:06 GMT
glc, I think the only strawman arguments are those used by the AGW side to mislead people. You guys came up with a snappy new marketing name- 'climate change' when the old one, 'global warming' did not work out so well. I am sure you guys can come up with an easier way to hide the emptiness of AGW theory. I bet even now, a marketing firm, possibly the same one that eased 'global warming' off stage, is fast at work. I bet they will use polar bears as part of the rebranding effort. Yes the new marketing term is "ocean acidity". See it won't matter if the Earth is cooling or warming, CO2 must be controlled to prevent the oceans from turning acid. Yes, but there are numerous species of crustatians which desire more acidity. Lobsters for one.....and very numerous others. Source: Scripps.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Jan 5, 2010 3:16:20 GMT
OA and climate change are meaningless, content free terms. They are blanks upon which hype mongers can project their fear.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Jan 5, 2010 4:38:15 GMT
Well, if there is at least one strawman left, it would probably be ocean acidity. Here's a link to a quick look at that one: sppiblog.org/news/scientific-american%e2%80%99s-climate-liesLook down to near the bottom for Straw Man 7, as it were. Steve was correct in an earlier point, CO2 does contribute, albeit not very strongly owing to its miniscule concentration, to the blanketing effect, slowing the re-emission of absorbed radiation back to space. However a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling (go higher if you know offhand what 5, 6 etc. are) does not lead to a doubling of its effects. It is near saturation now in terms of thermal inertia. So it isn't that CO2 adds warmth, it slows the rate of cooling. But only incrementally. But it may just be enough. No one can say with any degree of certainty what will happen, because that is a prediction. Base your predictions on whatever makes you feel better. Irregardless, they are just predictions, and the only way to verify a prediction is to see if it happens. Alternatively, you could spend trillions of dollars just in case. I have no problem with that at all. If you feel it is necessary, spend all you want. Operative word is you here. Spend my money without my permission.......be sure to keep your guns clean and your ammo fresh. Or instead of developing a time machine and jetting off to the future, we can actually watch massive abrupt temperature changes happen, over and over again. As we actually did, just before we developed the written word and graduated from our cave person selves, after it warmed up for a few thousand years.... The Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations provide a phenomenal laboratory in which we see what CO2 really does. And it does not cause the warmings. It ameliorates the slide back to the glacial state. So it does act as a blanket. Albeit an insufficient one, even at double the concentration given what is left in the realm of physics to absorb. And you had better hope it does too. Read the papers linked on the MIS-11 thread if you want to get scared and bang about the planet wondering what to do about it. "Ignorance can be cured, but dumb? That's forever...." Richard Lassin (private communication, 1979)
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 5, 2010 5:44:58 GMT
Well, if there is at least one strawman left, it would probably be ocean acidity. GMTA. That's what I said a couple of posts above yours.
|
|