|
Post by ron on Feb 3, 2009 18:44:33 GMT
For every CO2 molecule we "create" from burning fossil fuels, we must necessarily destroy an O2 molecule.
O2 is a potent "greenhouse gas".
Therefore, as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere we increase greehouse gasses and as we decrease O2 in the atmosphere we decrease greenhouse gasses.
"Oho!" some will argue. "O2 is so abundant in the atmosphere it easily absorbs all of the energy it can, so removing some from the atmosphere will not reduce the amount of energy it traps."
"Exactly so," say some skeptics. "The same principle applies to CO2 saturation, doesn't it?"
Well either we are neutral in greehouse gasses, or the CO2 absorption bands will become saturated. You can't argue it both ways. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 3, 2009 19:57:40 GMT
1. That would be a very basic and simple flaw with co2 forcing.
2. This would pretty much make co2 forcing irrelevant.
Doesn't the combination of those two raise alarm bells with you?
How can any scientists take co2 forcing seriously if it is so easy to dismiss?
Seriously, when you think an argument like this is too good to be true - it always is.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 3, 2009 20:22:17 GMT
1. That would be a very basic and simple flaw with co2 forcing. 2. This would pretty much make co2 forcing irrelevant. Doesn't the combination of those two raise alarm bells with you? How can any scientists take co2 forcing seriously if it is so easy to dismiss? Seriously, when you think an argument like this is too good to be true - it always is. Well you might think that if it weren't for the FACT that the only way to project anything outside of the insignificant increases that the strait physics indicates is to make a computer model. You know, something obviously not based on reality because we keep finding new climate forcings. You know...something almost exclusively done by people that worry about global warming (or at least, only taken seriously by the AGW people if it points to AGW...yeah, everyone else must be in the pocket of big oil, that's it! Yeah! Big oil, man! BIG OIL! *crazed look* They're out to get us! It's all just a cover up by "the man".) The problem with AGW theories is that the only "settled science" doesn't really lend its self to dangerous warming. Everything else is conjecture. The fast rebounds from volcanic eruptions tells us that feed backs MUST be low or actually resistant to change. The absorption by CO2 just doesn't support substantial AGW. The only reason it was ever even considered is because everyone was gullible enough to believe that the earth's climate has been stable for thousands of years. Climate fluctuates over years, decades, centuries, etc...and we KNOW we were whining about global warming when we should have expected warming. THAT is why AGW is junk science. The heavy reliance on computer models of poorly understood climate forcings is another reason AGW is junk science. The absurd notion that the rough correlation between CO2 and temperature in the ice core data (where CO2 often stays high for thousands of years as the temperatures drop abruptly) is another reason AGW is junk science. Junk science all around.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 3, 2009 20:30:51 GMT
1. That would be a very basic and simple flaw with co2 forcing. 2. This would pretty much make co2 forcing irrelevant. Doesn't the combination of those two raise alarm bells with you? How can any scientists take co2 forcing seriously if it is so easy to dismiss? Seriously, when you think an argument like this is too good to be true - it always is. Then disprove it.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 3, 2009 20:37:05 GMT
1. That would be a very basic and simple flaw with co2 forcing. 2. This would pretty much make co2 forcing irrelevant. Doesn't the combination of those two raise alarm bells with you? How can any scientists take co2 forcing seriously if it is so easy to dismiss? Seriously, when you think an argument like this is too good to be true - it always is. Um... the situation is so clear that it can't be true? Is that seriously what you're saying? That such points can't possibly be true because if they were somehow those wishing to prove otherwise would have changed their minds? That 'flaw' is being seen by many - just not those with agw religion guiding their paths. Have a read back over the posts here - the irrelevancy of CO 2 as a main constituent of Climatge Change has been pointed out to you many times over, with evidence. You choose not to believe it & now we see your logic. It can't be true or the priests of agw would tell me. What was that quote I saw yesterday? You can't reason anyone out of a position they weren't reasoned into.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 3, 2009 21:15:21 GMT
For every CO2 molecule we "create" from burning fossil fuels, we must necessarily destroy an O2 molecule. O2 is a potent "greenhouse gas". Therefore, as we increase CO2 in the atmosphere we increase greehouse gasses and as we decrease O2 in the atmosphere we decrease greenhouse gasses. "Oho!" some will argue. "O2 is so abundant in the atmosphere it easily absorbs all of the energy it can, so removing some from the atmosphere will not reduce the amount of energy it traps." "Exactly so," say some skeptics. "The same principle applies to CO2 saturation, doesn't it?" Well either we are neutral in greehouse gasses, or the CO2 absorption bands will become saturated. You can't argue it both ways. Can you? Oxygen is NOT a greenhouse gas. It absorbs UV and microwaves, but not visible or infra-red. Your argument is therefore incorrect. Socold, please note. I address errors wherever I find them in the name of the Truth.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 3, 2009 21:18:40 GMT
I would rather not focus on why the co2, o2 and saturation argument on this thread is wrong.
Because nothing is achieved by doing that from my perspective. People would just say "ah but <insert brand new totally different topic argument here>", this is why I have got bored of correcting these claims and just let them go now.
Instead I just want to point out that the if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
If you think AGW is *obviously* wrong due to a very simple argument then the biggest confusion you should have is why scientists haven't spotted, or deliberately ignore, something that is so simple.
That's the biggest problem to solve and should be the first thing focused on. By doing that you can avoid making a lot more mistakes without even having to know much about the subject.
For example if you know nothing about the physics yet think "if the earth is round people would fall off australia"
You might think such a simple argument obviously disproves a spherical earth if you were ignorant of the physics.
But you could ask yourselves "would scientists be able to ignore or accidentally miss such a simple flaw?". The answer is "No" and so you can assume "there must be more to this than my simple argument assumes"
I think generally this is called being skeptical of your own arguments.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 3, 2009 22:21:22 GMT
Oxygen is NOT a greenhouse gas. It absorbs UV and microwaves, but not visible or infra-red. Your argument is therefore incorrect. Aha! But doesn't O2 absorb 100% of UV radiation in some bands? Where does that energy go? (Luckily I did say "energy" and not "heat", right?) I would rather not focus on why the co2, o2 and saturation argument on this thread is wrong. Because nothing is achieved by doing that from my perspective. People would just say "ah but <insert brand new totally different topic argument here>", this is why I have got bored of correcting these claims and just let them go now. So what you're saying is you'll just beg the argument and blame the other side for doing it. You're really becoming quite a BS artist.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 3, 2009 22:21:45 GMT
As I suspected, once the the argument that started this thread has been debunked we have now been distracted by the forces that be onto a completely different subject. We don't want to focus on the fact an overconfident error was made do we?
We should do because otherwise those involved don't learn to be more cautious in future.
But it seems we must instead move on to Climate models.
The flaw in the argument against climate models just happens to be less straight forward as the flaw in the argument of this thead. But it's a flaw nontheless.
Climate models essentially are our Theory of Climate.
If any aliens came to Earth and wanted to see our theory for how our climate works we would present them with climate models. For all their holes and flaws they are the best we have.
They include contain more and detailed climate, chemical and biological processes than any other method, including speculative blog posts from our favorite skeptics.
Climate models consistently confirm manmade global warming. No matter which group of scientists in which country has set to build a climate model up from the physics of the earth, they all show manmade global warming.
By attacking climate models you are basically attacking human understanding of climate by proxy. That's fine, because there are obviously holes in human understanding of climate.
What you can't do (or shouldn't) is simultaneously argue AGW is false and also that climate models contain too many unknowns. That's a contradiction.
If human understanding of climate showed AGW was false it would be reproducable in a climate model.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 3, 2009 22:25:19 GMT
Please Mr. Distractions, can we keep this thread on topic? If you want to start a thread about the process and tactics of skeptics or conformists, please do so.
I'd like to discuss the OP's (my) subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 3, 2009 22:27:58 GMT
Please Mr. Distractions, can we keep this thread on topic? If you want to start a thread about the process and tactics of skeptics or conformists, please do so. I'd like to discuss the OP's (my) subject at hand. O2 isn't a greenhouse gas, O3 is.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 3, 2009 22:29:48 GMT
O3 isn't part of the discussion, either.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 3, 2009 22:56:30 GMT
Okay, as O2 doesn't play a role, CO2 does.
Anybody wanting to explain again why CO2 absorption is not saturated?
(hint: spectrum broadening)
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 4, 2009 1:50:24 GMT
As I suspected, once the the argument that started this thread has been debunked we have now been distracted by the forces that be onto a completely different subject. We don't want to focus on the fact an overconfident error was made do we? We should do because otherwise those involved don't learn to be more cautious in future. But it seems we must instead move on to Climate models. The flaw in the argument against climate models just happens to be less straight forward as the flaw in the argument of this thead. But it's a flaw nontheless. Climate models essentially are our Theory of Climate. If any aliens came to Earth and wanted to see our theory for how our climate works we would present them with climate models. For all their holes and flaws they are the best we have. They include contain more and detailed climate, chemical and biological processes than any other method, including speculative blog posts from our favorite skeptics. Climate models consistently confirm manmade global warming. No matter which group of scientists in which country has set to build a climate model up from the physics of the earth, they all show manmade global warming. By attacking climate models you are basically attacking human understanding of climate by proxy. That's fine, because there are obviously holes in human understanding of climate. What you can't do (or shouldn't) is simultaneously argue AGW is false and also that climate models contain too many unknowns. That's a contradiction. If human understanding of climate showed AGW was false it would be reproducable in a climate model. There's a more basic assumption going on socold - you are assuming those promoting agw are actually doing science. There's no evidence to support that. See, a scientist who played on the computer & found his results weren't matched by reality would go outside & have a look. If he did an experiment to find out how CO 2 behaves & came up with something startling he'd scale up the experiment to go check real life against lab. As I think twawki pointed out, it would be a cheap thing to do - fly a plane over a location at various altitudes. If he wanted to show a particular relationship using statistics he'd go do some statistics first, or run his theory by a real statistician. What we have is a political decision to enforce a particular PoV & those who do the science & find out it isn't correct can't get published due to the 'Consensus' not poor science. Now if someone finds out something that seems clear cut & there's a govt committee who says something different, wouldn't the someone be expected to show how the govt committee had it's brain casing up its waste disposal?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 2:57:10 GMT
Okay, as O2 doesn't play a role, CO2 does. Anybody wanting to explain again why CO2 absorption is not saturated? (hint: spectrum broadening) No, but I can explain again why it is! The vast bulk of the absorption of the small portion of the IR spectrum is 100% saturated. When faced with this absolute objection, the AGWers went looking for excuses. Spectrum broadening is a real. but largely irrelevant. This is nothing but waving smoke & mirrors to try & support a failed theory, Spectrum broadening has 3 causes: 1. The accuracy & resolution of equipment. 2. The Doppler effect. 3. The Collision effect. Comments: 1. Is imaginary, and can have no effect, since it is purely a measuring error. Spectra have narrowed as electronics has improved. 2. Means that the absorption by molecules travelling toward the observer (source or IR) or away from the observer "appears" to be at a different frequency. This effect is well known, and the log relationship of absorption isn't effected. The Beer Lambert laws still apply. 3. Collisions happening at the time of absorption also broad the absorption spectrum, this effect increases at very high temperatures. None of these effects is particularly significant, and amounts to desperation by the AGWers who are (a) not Physical Chemists and don't understand, and (b) don't really care about real science to begin with. THe greenhouse effect is NOT the simple absorption of IR energy, but the absorption & re-emission of the energy in random directions. CO2 molecules do not TRAP energy, but re-direct it. They do not care if the IR is heading toward the earth or away- they catch & redirect over & over again. There is enough CO2 to catch every Quanta in the spectral range and re-direct it. Many, many times over. IR gets reflected space-wards more often than earthwards for 3 reasons: 1. The geometry of the sphere means that slightly more than half of all directions are space-wards and 2. The higher the IR photon rises, the fewer CO2 molecules above, and the more below - meaning the probability of escape keeps increasing the higher in the atmosphere it reaches. 3. The broadening decreases with height. Since the lower atmosphere is of a higher pressure and warmer than the upper atmosphere, the spectral broadening decreases with height. It means that the lower atmosphere is more likely to reflect the IR coming down back out, and the upper atmosphere less likely to trap IR radiation leaving. Any effect that enhances the capture works in both directions. Any "increase" in broadening just means that it may take a greater depth of atmosphere to catch that particular frequency.
|
|