|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 17:07:31 GMT
Yes I know that the Earth is 33K warmer than it should be given it's distance from the sun. The calculation is quite simple you don't need to be a scientist to manage it. The explaination for the discrepancy is the greenhouse effect. If you want to deny the greenhouse effect you have to explain where the 33K extra comes from instead. That's easy - don't call it the 'greenhouse effect' which works in high school and for the media and politicians - call it instead the Hydrologic Cycle. The Earth is warmer because it's atmosphere is transparent to incoming visible light is, while partially opaque to outgoing IR. Greenhouse gases contribute the opacity to outgoing IR and it's that effect which is described as the "greenhouse effect". The hydrological cycle has nothing to do with IR, it would be wrong to describe the greenhouse effect as the hydrological cycle. The greenhouse effect isn't about the earth being warmer than it would be if it's atmosphere was transparent to longwave radiation. On Venus there is
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 17:42:02 GMT
The balance is only returned when these higher layers are warmed sufficiently that they can radiate extra energy away. The question I have is where is this heat coming from. Everything the sun emits our direction that is not reflected is absorbed immediately by something and is reemitted. Always has. So as if you say we change the balance causing more heat to be absorbed in the atmosphere once it equals the "normal" temperature of the surface we are back in balance again. Being a US Pacific coast resident, about 3 days a year the water feels warm in relationship to the air. The ground is cold at night and warm during the day. Seems the only potential non-external source of additional heat is through the changing of the globe's albedo so that it absorbs more heat. But why should I get excited about that prospect in view of the north Greenland shore study last year that demonstrated the arctic was ice free about 6,000 years ago indicating the global albedo has fluctuated mightily naturally?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 15, 2009 19:40:52 GMT
You sure do talk like you actually know something. What are your bona fides? Are you a climate scientist, or just a typical blowhard knowitall? No offense. Here Ron in the vein of a 4th Century Emperor turns democracy on its head on who gets to speak (or presumably vote) without being assaulted. Guess it depends upon the number of bona fides issued by James Hansen. Perhaps if you stuck to educating, debating the topic, providing links and explanations. . . .you would be a nicer person. Ultimately this is all an exercise in making some wings and jumping off the ridge board of the barn. The IPCC went first hopefully we can learn from their mistake. I'm sorry, I'd like to know a little bit about the person standing on front of the class, who never says "I think" or "maybe" or "perhaps" and seems to know physics and global climate models and everything about everything better than everyone else here. I suspect since he didn't bother to answer the question asked he is but a blowhard, but I hate making that assumption. As for whether I'm a nice person, hmmmm. I'll ponder that for a while. Let's see, I asked about a person's qualifications because of his pontification style, and you replied with your opinion about my posting style likening me to a 4th Century Emperor. I guess that I'll have to consider the source.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 19:50:42 GMT
Here Ron in the vein of a 4th Century Emperor turns democracy on its head on who gets to speak (or presumably vote) without being assaulted. Guess it depends upon the number of bona fides issued by James Hansen. Perhaps if you stuck to educating, debating the topic, providing links and explanations. . . .you would be a nicer person. Ultimately this is all an exercise in making some wings and jumping off the ridge board of the barn. The IPCC went first hopefully we can learn from their mistake. I'm sorry, I'd like to know a little bit about the person standing on front of the class, who never says "I think" or "maybe" or "perhaps" and seems to know physics and global climate models and everything about everything better than everyone else here. I suspect since he didn't bother to answer the question asked he is but a blowhard, but I hate making that assumption. As for whether I'm a nice person, hmmmm. I'll ponder that for a while. Let's see, I asked about a person's qualifications because of his pontification style, and you replied with your opinion about my posting style likening me to a 4th Century Emperor. I guess that I'll have to consider the source. Bottom line is when we switch from actual observations by the common man to determine policy to pontifications by somebody with the proper bona fides we will have gone full circle and be back to the age of the witch doctor. Thats just common sense, studying your history, and true science. But if you need a proper bona fide to convince you of that you have Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Professor of Physics, Princeton University who is basically maintaining the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 15, 2009 19:59:20 GMT
Perhaps then he is the Einstein of our time. If not, I'd like to understand what it is he actually knows. If not then it is impossible to tell, without researching everything he writes, when he knows something (or anything) and when he's just blowing smoke up everyone's methane vent.
|
|
|
Post by greenlandexile on Mar 15, 2009 20:10:24 GMT
The overlying premise for anthropogenic global warming is that Man is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by oxidizing hydrocarbons which is overwhelming the balance of nature. The equation for oxidation of the simplest hydrocarbon molecule is CH4 + 4 O --> 2 H2O + CO2. For every CO2 molecule we add to the atmosphere, we remove 4 oxygen atoms (or 2 O2 molecules) from the atmosphere.
So for any PPM increase in the atmosphere to be anthropogenic in nature, there has to be a subsequent 4 fold decrease in oxygen. If there isn't that exact ratio, the change in CO2 is from another source. Conversely the primary source of free oxygen is from photosynthesis and associated complexation of CO2. If O2 levels are fairly constant then photosynthesis must be compensating for the burning of hydrocarbons.
This is simple mass balance, I don't understand why I haven't seen this argument against anthropogenic CO2 increase in print. Perhaps it has and I have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Mar 15, 2009 21:49:08 GMT
The overlying premise for anthropogenic global warming is that Man is increasing CO 2 in the atmosphere by oxidizing hydrocarbons which is overwhelming the balance of nature. The equation for oxidation of the simplest hydrocarbon molecule is CH 4 + 4 O --> 2 H 2O + CO 2. For every CO 2 molecule we add to the atmosphere, we remove 4 oxygen atoms (or 2 O 2 molecules) from the atmosphere. So for any PPM increase in the atmosphere to be anthropogenic in nature, there has to be a subsequent 4 fold decrease in oxygen. If there isn't that exact ratio, the change in CO2 is from another source. Conversely the primary source of free oxygen is from photosynthesis and associated complexation of CO 2. If O 2 levels are fairly constant then photosynthesis must be compensating for the burning of hydrocarbons. This is simple mass balance, I don't understand why I haven't seen this argument against anthropogenic CO 2 increase in print. Perhaps it has and I have missed it. There is a lot of Oxygen in the atmosphere. I believe that, if all of the plants on earth were burned, it would only reduce the amount of O2 by a very small amount. It would add a lot of CO2, but that's because there is so little CO2 already in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 22:22:04 GMT
The overlying premise for anthropogenic global warming is that Man is increasing CO 2 in the atmosphere by oxidizing hydrocarbons which is overwhelming the balance of nature. The equation for oxidation of the simplest hydrocarbon molecule is CH 4 + 4 O --> 2 H 2O + CO 2. For every CO 2 molecule we add to the atmosphere, we remove 4 oxygen atoms (or 2 O 2 molecules) from the atmosphere. So for any PPM increase in the atmosphere to be anthropogenic in nature, there has to be a subsequent 4 fold decrease in oxygen. If there isn't that exact ratio, the change in CO2 is from another source. Conversely the primary source of free oxygen is from photosynthesis and associated complexation of CO 2. If O 2 levels are fairly constant then photosynthesis must be compensating for the burning of hydrocarbons. This is simple mass balance, I don't understand why I haven't seen this argument against anthropogenic CO 2 increase in print. Perhaps it has and I have missed it. It's because O2 levels are declining at about the expected rate, so it wouldn't make a very good argument. Then again I wouldn't be totally suprised to see it make it into print (the uk telegraph or the australian for example) www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/coop/scripps/o2/o2.html
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 23:11:46 GMT
The overlying premise for anthropogenic global warming is that Man is increasing CO 2 in the atmosphere by oxidizing hydrocarbons which is overwhelming the balance of nature. The equation for oxidation of the simplest hydrocarbon molecule is CH 4 + 4 O --> 2 H 2O + CO 2. For every CO 2 molecule we add to the atmosphere, we remove 4 oxygen atoms (or 2 O 2 molecules) from the atmosphere. So for any PPM increase in the atmosphere to be anthropogenic in nature, there has to be a subsequent 4 fold decrease in oxygen. If there isn't that exact ratio, the change in CO2 is from another source. Conversely the primary source of free oxygen is from photosynthesis and associated complexation of CO 2. If O 2 levels are fairly constant then photosynthesis must be compensating for the burning of hydrocarbons. This is simple mass balance, I don't understand why I haven't seen this argument against anthropogenic CO 2 increase in print. Perhaps it has and I have missed it. It's because O2 levels are declining at about the expected rate, so it wouldn't make a very good argument. Then again I wouldn't be totally suprised to see it make it into print (the uk telegraph or the australian for example) www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/coop/scripps/o2/o2.htmlPerhaps putting this into a common perspective would be more useful. The site with the graph says: "From 1991 through 2005, the O2 content of the atmosphere has dropped by 0.00248% (248 per meg) of it's initial amount. The rate is mostly explained by the global combustion of fossil-fuel over this period, although the actual rate is slightly smaller than expected from fossil-fuel alone. The difference evidently reflects a global imballance between photosynthesis and respiration." Seems to me, whats missing here is a whole lot more photosynthesis. My calcs from Greenlandexile come out to something like a 32 part per million increase in CO2 so we should see a 128 part reduction in oxygen but .00248% is 25 parts per million. So do we have a 103 part per million equivalent increase in photosythesis? It wouldn't surprise me if the scientists there sucking for grants would try to obscure it by referencing a bunch of respiration/photosythesis ratios to minimize the positives here. But like I said elsewhere, I am stupid and obviously missing something. Just wish folks would speak plain English.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 23:35:05 GMT
This explains it: "It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air." blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/14/205855.php
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 15, 2009 23:43:27 GMT
This explains it: "It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. True cooling oceans absorb CO2. Warming oceans expel it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 15, 2009 23:49:46 GMT
This explains it: "It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. True cooling oceans absorb CO2. Warming oceans expel it. The direction is also affected by the difference in concentration between the atmosphere and what is disolved in the surface ocean. Due to atmospheric co2 increasing sharply the direction of flow has been from atmosphere to ocean, despite a warming of the oceans.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 16, 2009 1:16:19 GMT
True cooling oceans absorb CO2. Warming oceans expel it. The direction is also affected by the difference in concentration between the atmosphere and what is disolved in the surface ocean. Due to atmospheric co2 increasing sharply the direction of flow has been from atmosphere to ocean, despite a warming of the oceans. But do we really know this socold? All I have seen is an indication pH has dropped about .075 in the last 250 years (from 1700 something to 1994). That could be just from the cooling of the first 150 years of that period. Reportedly local pH changes in a 24 hour period exceed that 250 year change by a factor of more than 3. How accurate are proxy records in light of that? Sort of sounds like Bristlecone Pines. And for you to claim this when its acknowledged we don't really understand how the physical mechanisms work is just laughable considering the basis by which you discount alternatives to the AGW theory. Seems to me on the surface its just the crisis du jour to fill in when the AGW crisis falls in a heap. . . .if it does. . . .on top of the IPCC models.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 16, 2009 4:49:05 GMT
Isn't Photosynthesis wonderful? ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2009 11:07:15 GMT
The balance is only returned when these higher layers are warmed sufficiently that they can radiate extra energy away. The question I have is where is this heat coming from. Everything the sun emits our direction that is not reflected is absorbed immediately by something and is reemitted. Always has. So as if you say we change the balance causing more heat to be absorbed in the atmosphere once it equals the "normal" temperature of the surface we are back in balance again. Being a US Pacific coast resident, about 3 days a year the water feels warm in relationship to the air. The ground is cold at night and warm during the day. Seems the only potential non-external source of additional heat is through the changing of the globe's albedo so that it absorbs more heat. But why should I get excited about that prospect in view of the north Greenland shore study last year that demonstrated the arctic was ice free about 6,000 years ago indicating the global albedo has fluctuated mightily naturally? In balance the earth absorbs approx 235W/m^2 on average from the sun as shortwave radiation, and matches this by radiating 235W/m^2 of longwave radiation. A proportion of the longwave radiation comes from the atmosphere - each layer in the atmosphere radiates an amount proportional to the 4th power of its temperature (in Kelvin). If you double the amount of CO2 throughout the atmosphere, then some of the radiation (about 4W/m^2 or 2% of the original amount) that would have gone into space and cooled the earth is instead reabsorbed. This imbalance causes a gradual build-up of heat. The balance is restored when the atmosphere is warmed sufficiently to overcome the absorption by the extra CO2. In short, the warming comes from the fact that the earth's ability to keep to a stable temperature by losing energy to space is interrupted. But as the earth warms it emits more radiation to space. The warming stops when the earth recovers its ability to lose the same amount of energy as it is receiving.
|
|