On May 15, 6:25 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On May 15, 5:40 pm, William Asher <gcn... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
This is the most interesting pargraph you've ever written.
Hmm. I wonder why William snipped the paragraph. And a blind snip,
at that. Kinda makes one wonder. I wouldn't want our audience to
lose track of the context of the conversation. So I am cutting and
pasting it back in. I''m sure He'll understand:
************ Begin Cut and Paste ************************
BobG wrote:
How about this: insulated column like a dewar flask.... source of UV/
light/heat/solar insolation at top, something that converts
ultraviolet to IR on the bottom (dirt?), pressurize the column to
simulate height of atmosphere ~20 miles... so that the UV has the same
probability of hitting O2 and N2 molecules on the way down, and IR has
the same probability of hitting a CO2 near the surface. Gas mix can be
varied... start out with 33% O2, 33% N2, 33% CO2.... apply simulated
solar insolation for 12hrs while recording temperature. Allow cool
down for 12 hrs. Repeat. Calc avg temperature over some statistically
significant number of cycles. If the CO2 rich atmosphere does not cool
fast enough in the evening, the avg temp should rise. Now repeat the
calcs with the correct mix of gases to get the correct temp rise.
Constructive criticism invited.
You won't get vertical convection right and the vertical inhomogeneity is
completely wrong. These two issues, which are critical, are common
problems in all laboratory scale experiments designed to simulate the
greenhouse effect. But you know, there are lots of things you can't really
simulate very well, or not at all, in a laboratory, tropical cyclogenesis,
tsunami runup, and tides for instance. That doesn't mean the science
behind them are wrong, it just means that things occur on scales that are
not amenable to laboratory distances. It's a common skeptic argument that
because you can't show the complete CO2 greenhouse effect in the
laboratory, it can't possible have an effect in the atmosphere. You can't
show the moon causes tides in the laboratory either, but that doesn't mean
the theory is wrong and the moon doesn't in fact cause tides. You can show
CO2 absorbs IR radiation, and from that you can model the effect knowing
atmospheric structure. That you can measure the effect of CO2 on the
outgoing longwave radiation pretty much validates the concept behind an
atmospheric greenhouse effect from CO2. Skeptics would do well to leave
this behind as a rational objection and move on to something else. I
suggest deep convection. There is at least a small shred of evidence that
deep convection is increasing (not nearly enough to offset the forcing from
greenhouse gases, but when you are clutching at straws like you skeptics
are, any port in a storm right?).
************ End Cut and Paste ************************
You are,
essentially, stating (admitting) that the greenhouse properties of CO2
are assumed into existence. (Am I, possibly, misreading you? Please
explain.)
No response.
Still no response.
Why could one not do the same for N2 and O2?
No response.
Still no response.
I feel that I should advise you that it may be in your best interest
to talk this over with a lawyer before your respond.
c-babe:
Nah. Look, if you don't understand something, just ask. What I said was
the net effect of CO2 on longwave radiative transfer through the Earth's
atmosphere couldn't be simulated correctly in a realistic laboratory
experiment. There were some other subtleties there, but we can stick with
that one idea.
If the effect (and/or "net" effect) of CO2 on longwave radiative
transfer through the Earth's atmosphere cannot be simulated correctly
in a realistic laboratory experiment then how do you know it exists?
No reponse.
Are there nonlaboratory methods that allow us to substantiate the
existence of this effect or are they, as I suspect, assumed into
existence?
No response.
If so then what are these nonlaboratory methods?
(References?)
No response
And, again, if they are, as I suspect, assumed into
existence then why could one not do the same for N2 and O2? (Did you
think I wouldn't notice you tried to evade this question?)
No response.
I provided or someone in this thread with a reference showing where
people had measured the change in outgoing longwave IR radiation at the
top of the atmosphere over the time period 1970 (I think) to today (or
thereabouts).
Thank you for that useless information. Now answer the questions you
ignored above, you evasive twit.
The change in IR radiation was in complete agreement with
what one would expect based on CO2 and CH4 absorbing longwave IR
radiation.
It's regrettable you are unable to provide us a link to your
imagination.
I apologize if the importance of that result slid on by you,
but you're used to that I imagine so you probably took it right in
stride. However, just because you choose to remain uninformed doesn't
make the result any less true.
And the fact that it may or may not be true doesn't dictate the
conclusion that it is relevant to the topic under discussion, you
deceptive jackass.
So, yes, it is virtually impossible to
simulate a realistic planetary atmosphere on laboratory scales. But that
doesn't mean there are no direct empirical measurements demonstrating the
radiative effect of CO2.
And you are not claiming to have any knowledge, direct or indirect,
that any such methods of empirical measurement actually exist. You
just choose to BELIEVE they must exist. Right? Afterall, thousands
of scientists couldn't be wrong. Could they?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
"I shall send my honest old minister to the weavers," thought the
emperor. "He can judge best how the stuff looks, for he is
intelligent, and nobody understands his office better than he."
The good old minister went into the room where the swindlers sat
before the empty looms. "Heaven preserve us!" he thought, and opened
his eyes wide, "I cannot see anything at all," but he did not say so.
Both swindlers requested him to come near, and asked him if he did not
admire the exquisite pattern and the beautiful colours, pointing to
the empty looms. The poor old minister tried his very best, but he
could see nothing, for there was nothing to be seen. "Oh dear," he
thought, "can I be so stupid? I should never have thought so, and
nobody must know it! Is it possible that I am not fit for my office?
No, no, I cannot say that I was unable to see the cloth."
"Now, have you got nothing to say?" said one of the swindlers, while
he pretended to be busily weaving.
"Oh, it is very pretty, exceedingly beautiful," replied the old
minister looking through his glasses. "What a beautiful pattern, what
brilliant colours! I shall tell the emperor that I like the cloth very
much."
"We are pleased to hear that," said the two weavers, and described to
him the colours and explained the curious pattern. The old minister
listened attentively, that he might relate to the emperor what they
said; and so he did.
Now the swindlers asked for more money, silk and gold-cloth, which
they required for weaving. They kept everything for themselves, and
not a thread came near the loom, but they continued, as hitherto, to
work at the empty looms.
Soon afterwards the emperor sent another honest courtier to the
weavers to see how they were getting on, and if the cloth was nearly
finished. Like the old minister, he looked and looked but could see
nothing, as there was nothing to be seen.
"Is it not a beautiful piece of cloth?" asked the two swindlers,
showing and explaining the magnificent pattern, which, however, did
not exist.
"I am not stupid," said the man. "It is therefore my good appointment
for which I am not fit. It is very strange, but I must not let any one
know it;" and he praised the cloth, which he did not see, and
expressed his joy at the beautiful colours and the fine pattern. "It
is very excellent," he said to the emperor.
Everybody in the whole town talked about the precious cloth.
Finally, if you asked questions that made sense, even a teensy little bit
of sense, they would get answered more.
I would think it was obvious that anybody dumb enough to be fooled by
this statement wouldn't be worth fooling.
