|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 25, 2009 19:12:51 GMT
Longwave radiation from Co2 doesn't penetrate into the oceans. It doesn't need to do so to warm the oceans. How is co2 going to warm the oceans if not by radiation? Rub them with a hot towel? So you admit solar effects and oceanic effects are stronger than co2. Good, we are getting somewhere at last.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 20:44:31 GMT
I don't feel a need to calculate anything. You asked why Loch Ness doesn't freeze. You have the answer. Now why don't you explain why lakes at lower latitudes do freeze. I assumed that you know how quickly and extremely the Sahara cools after sunset. If you don't, just forget about it. No idea. Pray tell mapes my old mate.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 20:47:24 GMT
dmaple, what you are ignoring is the fact that Loch Ness radiates its 300-odd watts per metre squared all year every year. Well I'll tell you what Steve, I stopped my bike and had a smoke by the Loch during my ride down the great glen, and I can assure you there wasn't a bar fire's worth of heat coming off the three square metres I was stood next to. Your sums are wrong, my empirical observation guarantees it. Hmmm...not sure whether you're being serious or not - I definitely think you ought to be wearing your longwave high-protection factor cream when you go near that burning furnace of a lake (loch, I mean).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 20:48:56 GMT
It doesn't need to do so to warm the oceans. How is co2 going to warm the oceans if not by radiation? So you admit CO2 radiates. We're getting somewhere at least
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 25, 2009 22:41:12 GMT
Since you put it that way olde beanie, I will help you: education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Sahara"Daytime temperatures are high; Azizia, Libya, recorded the world's highest official temperature in the shade (136°F/58°C) in Sept., 1922. Heat loss is rapid at night and a diurnal range of 86°F (30°C) is common." Do I also have to supply the answer? By the way, "rapid" means "fast". And how about this one: Now why don't you explain why lakes at lower latitudes do freeze. For example, why does Lake Erie, which is more than 10 lat further south than Loch Ness freeze? Different kind of CO2 down there?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 25, 2009 23:04:04 GMT
So you admit CO2 radiates. We're getting somewhere at least Can you name anything that does not radiate?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 23:09:43 GMT
Since you put it that way olde beanie, I will help you: education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/Sahara"Daytime temperatures are high; Azizia, Libya, recorded the world's highest official temperature in the shade (136°F/58°C) in Sept., 1922. Heat loss is rapid at night and a diurnal range of 86°F (30°C) is common." Do I also have to supply the answer? By the way, "rapid" means "fast". Possibly you need to define "common". Also, I am somewhat concerned by their conversion of 86F to 30C diurnal range - major foul-up there I think, not unexpected of Yahoo. I'll try and follow up the references some time. The point of the illustration was to show that in most circumstances the water doesn't freeze. I'm well aware that it will freeze unless there is a current of warm air. I was really looking for acceptance that (whatever the process, be it the "realclimate boilerplate explanation" or something else), the energy in the warm air somehow stops Loch Ness from freezing.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 25, 2009 23:10:52 GMT
So you admit CO2 radiates. We're getting somewhere at least Can you name anything that does not radiate? Can you name any poster here who is not sarcastic?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 25, 2009 23:48:38 GMT
steve: "Possibly you need to define "common". Also, I am somewhat concerned by their conversion of 86F to 30C diurnal range - major foul-up there I think, not unexpected of Yahoo. I'll try and follow up the references some time."
What C equivalent do you think that 86F is, steve? Actually, a more realistic number would be 75F (24C), for a "common" diurnal temperature range. "Common" in this case, means common.
steve: "The point of the illustration was to show that in most circumstances the water doesn't freeze. I'm well aware that it will freeze unless there is a current of warm air. I was really looking for acceptance that (whatever the process, be it the "realclimate boilerplate explanation" or something else), the energy in the warm air somehow stops Loch Ness from freezing." Funny, I thought your point was to show that the realclimate boilerplate explanation-it's gotta be the CO2-is the reason Loch Ness doesn't freeze. But that doesn't work for Lake Erie, right steve.
You also might want to take notice of the fact that the warmth in the air comes from the water in the Gulf Stream. It's the water steve, not those few molecules of that weak $h!- CO2.
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 26, 2009 1:17:21 GMT
How is co2 going to warm the oceans if not by radiation? Rub them with a hot towel? So you admit CO2 radiates. We're getting somewhere at least So obtuse it's nearly a-cute comeback. Take a little time for reflex-ion Steve, and try a different angle.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2009 2:08:00 GMT
The above exchange today was quit interesting and funny.
I don't understand tho...how did it only revolve around co2?
I mean.......get a grip! Water Vapor has much more effect on temp than co2.
Dumbfounded that some are so in lock with co2 as the ONLY item that can influence the climate.
The models used to project temps are broken....have been for ages as they don' t incorporate real world causes....oh well.....
Banging head against the wall again.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 26, 2009 9:45:21 GMT
steve: "Possibly you need to define "common". Also, I am somewhat concerned by their conversion of 86F to 30C diurnal range - major foul-up there I think, not unexpected of Yahoo. I'll try and follow up the references some time." What C equivalent do you think that 86F is, steve? Actually, a more realistic number would be 75F (24C), for a "common" diurnal temperature range. "Common" in this case, means common. A difference of 86F converts to a difference of 47.7C A difference of 30C converts to a difference of 54F The temperature 86F converts to a temperature of 30C - this is where Yahoo went wrong. Now why did that spacecraft crash into Mars again? Once again we're having an argument about something you and I agree on. People *are* coming up with arguments to claim that the back radiation cannot influence the ocean.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 26, 2009 9:47:41 GMT
The above exchange today was quit interesting and funny. I don't understand tho...how did it only revolve around co2? It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. Is that enough times?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 26, 2009 11:47:09 GMT
Thanks Steve.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 26, 2009 16:10:39 GMT
The above exchange today was quit interesting and funny. I don't understand tho...how did it only revolve around co2? It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. Is that enough times? What else can explain ocean warming?
|
|