|
Post by Andrew on Jun 8, 2015 16:00:36 GMT
Theo thanks for taking this seriously and taking the time to deal with the question. >>This law (which is still in operation and has not ceased to exist) means that the smaller amount of energy from a cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy as it simply slows the rate of cooling.The basis of the greenhouse effect is that the addition of a second supposedly unheated radiator slows the cooling rate of the first heated radiator.Therefore once the first radiator has reached equilibrium in the presence of a colder environment, the addition of the second unheated radiator enables the first heated radiator to achieve a higher temperature as the second radiator is heated by the first radiator. To see the greenhouse effect in action we first have to see the consequences of a heated radiator without the presence of the other apparently unheated radiator. We then add the presence of the other radiator and find our first radiator is now warmer due to the second radiator becoming heated by the first radiator and therefore slowing down the heat losses of the first radiator. No, I don't think so Andrew. You have much to learn about your own planet's climate and how it functions in the real world. Quit with the nickel and diming and for heaven's sake, stop denying the laws of thermodynamics and please, learn how to do and understand mathematics. Pink elephants (aka 'anthropogenic global warming') do not fly son. Theo As your own text demonstrated the basic greenhouse effect enabled by water vapour in the atmosphere is a trivial case of insulation to slow down the heat losses of a heated surface No thermodynamic violations and only a 9 year olds arithmetic
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 8, 2015 17:09:25 GMT
If i may, getting my head around this anyway....
Radiator = Earth Reciever = Atmosphere with CO2
Radiator @ 1000 w/m2 emmits 500 w/m2, radiator now @ 500 w/m2 itself Receiver bounces back 250 w/m2, radiator now @ 750 w/m2, yet would be 500 w/m2 if no co2 in atmosphere....
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 9, 2015 0:54:51 GMT
If i may, getting my head around this anyway.... Radiator = Earth Reciever = Atmosphere with CO2 Radiator @ 1000 w/m2 emmits 500 w/m2, radiator now @ 500 w/m2 itself Receiver bounces back 250 w/m2, radiator now @ 750 w/m2, yet would be 500 w/m2 if no co2 in atmosphere.... Read about radiative and non-radiative gases. Then think about what happens when you add a radiative gas to a mixture of warm non-radiative gases. You do not need any infrared from the surface to have infrared radiation from the radiative gas in the mixture.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 9, 2015 3:29:08 GMT
but the temperature will fall
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 9, 2015 4:56:48 GMT
Code: Actually, Bond Events are world wide events as confirmed by Antarctic Ice cores. Just as the MWP was world wide. Ya see, the AGW crowd can't figure out how to model past events if they are world wide, and they have no explanation for them world wide so they started the false mantra that somehow the MWP and past Bond Events were not world wide. The Little Ice Age was not a Bond type of event, as this appears to BE a regional event. Make sense? Gee that fountainhead of truth and knowledge Wiki says it was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_eventWiki has become a.useless source of info. It is a sad thing to see.
|
|
|
Post by traceec on Jun 10, 2015 4:38:53 GMT
Darn, I wish I was smarter, I seem to be able to only skim the surface of this stuff. Or rather perhaps my wish should be to have more time to study and learn. Still, my gut combined with the little bit I can actually comprehend says that man made global warming does not actually exist. Boy, it's a mess of info out there though. I keep finding things like this... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmHow would I respond to that stance?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 10, 2015 4:47:38 GMT
Darn, I wish I was smarter, I seem to be able to only skim the surface of this stuff. Or rather perhaps my wish should be to have more time to study and learn. Still, my gut combined with the little bit I can actually comprehend says that man made global warming does not actually exist. Boy, it's a mess of info out there though. I keep finding things like this... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmHow would I respond to that stance? Wait a couple of years and say "I Told you so."
|
|
|
Post by traceec on Jun 10, 2015 4:48:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 10, 2015 17:44:40 GMT
Darn, I wish I was smarter, I seem to be able to only skim the surface of this stuff. Or rather perhaps my wish should be to have more time to study and learn. Still, my gut combined with the little bit I can actually comprehend says that man made global warming does not actually exist. Boy, it's a mess of info out there though. I keep finding things like this... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmHow would I respond to that stance? With the fact that our Sun holds 99.8% of the total mass of our solar system Traceec.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 10, 2015 18:31:26 GMT
Darn, I wish I was smarter, I seem to be able to only skim the surface of this stuff. Or rather perhaps my wish should be to have more time to study and learn. Still, my gut combined with the little bit I can actually comprehend says that man made global warming does not actually exist. Boy, it's a mess of info out there though. I keep finding things like this... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmHow would I respond to that stance? Do you believe that 11 year warming line? I don't, not for a minute. Satellite data shows something very different. They are not above lying, it is as easy as falling out of a boat for them. And there are no moral consequences to deal with as far as they are concerned, just dry yourself off and get back at it.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 10, 2015 19:01:01 GMT
I think its hard to support the view that there is no such thing or process as AGW. I think the key issue is materiality.
The key fact that supports this is the fact that both sides of the debate argue continuously about cherry picked start and finish dates of trend lines. By definition then the AGW impact is easy to hide in the noise. Thus the AGW that does exist is unable to be upgraded into CAGW which if it were to be supported would allow a series of events to be invoked involving world governments. The centrally planned model and the consequent poverty that would follow.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 10, 2015 19:03:37 GMT
Darn, I wish I was smarter, I seem to be able to only skim the surface of this stuff. Or rather perhaps my wish should be to have more time to study and learn. Still, my gut combined with the little bit I can actually comprehend says that man made global warming does not actually exist. Boy, it's a mess of info out there though. I keep finding things like this... www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmHow would I respond to that stance? Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been stagnant. Since the sun and climate are going in similar directions scientists conclude the sun might well be the cause of recent global temperatures. The only way to not blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate do not move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in approximately similar directions. - There we are, it's easy to write it how u want!! -
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 10, 2015 19:13:38 GMT
That's just it, too statistically inconclusive to warrant the global mobilization, the hyper-urgency to "fight global warming" seems strangely hollow and even awkward. The science certainly is not settled, but it is "their" side who is demanding "action", which simply means money transferred from the wealthy, productive economies of the world.
I believe there has been some cooling lately (pick your dates) on planet earth. I think that the climate warmed during the active solar cycles, and is cooling again now.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jun 10, 2015 19:57:33 GMT
it's very strange to see that for thousands of yrs people looked to the sun for warmth and even prayed to it.. and now in a time of enlightenment and technology that we are trying to disprove it . when the suns hot we are hot when the suns cold we are cold .. it's that simple
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 10, 2015 20:36:00 GMT
I think its hard to support the view that there is no such thing or process as AGW. I think the key issue is materiality. The key fact that supports this is the fact that both sides of the debate argue continuously about cherry picked start and finish dates of trend lines. By definition then the AGW impact is easy to hide in the noise. Thus the AGW that does exist is unable to be upgraded into CAGW which if it were to be supported would allow a series of events to be invoked involving world governments. The centrally planned model and the consequent poverty that would follow. There is no doubt that anthropogenic warming exists; that is what UHI is for example. However, the next step of claiming that therefore it is global and warms the entire earth is not necessarily true. If the feedbacks are not linear (climate 'scientists' love 'linear') and not necessarily proportionate and they are negative, then heating the globe might be as useful as trying to heat a building by holding a candle underneath an automatic sprinkler. The fact is that the earth system is remarkably homogeneous despite variations in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, clean air acts etc etc. The 'global temperatures' seem to stay within a degree C or much much less of a 'normal' value. The only large variance seems to be when all the multiple cycles move in the same direction and there do seem to be 'beat frequencies' where these cycles all move together if that happens as the chaotic system is close to another 'attractor' then the system can go cold. However, in the Earth's existence so far despite hugely higher levels of CO2, and hotter temperatures, the Earth has never flipped to hotter than say the Eemian - or we would not be here. I think that the feedback mechanisms are so powerful that whatever we put into the atmosphere is like a fly hitting a locomotive. So hypothetically we have an effect but in actuality it's immeasurably small.
|
|