 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » The Earth Without GreenHouse Gases... |
|
Page 7 of 8 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bill Ward... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:46 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com... [SNIP]
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What
fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
.
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will
absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
radiation.
[/quote]
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume a
gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a relativistic
elevator, after all.
In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR to
make a significant difference in the surface T. H2O clearly does, the
issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating mechanism would be.
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's the
hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately explained.
Welcome to the group. Fasten your seat belt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
<sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4lrtek5frra1qs4cj6b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
.
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
[/quote]
There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
hypothetical Earth without them.
[quote].
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
[/quote]
So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
seems to deny.
[quote].
Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
.
[/quote]
Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
to cool. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stewart Robert Hinsley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <4vmtd5dkmboe48ndmn64avmpeli5f29c8k at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4lrtek5frra1qs4cj6b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
.
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
hypothetical Earth without them.
.
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
seems to deny.
[/quote]
Yet another strawman.
[quote]
.
Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
.
Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
to cool.
The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the[/quote]
source of the heating of the atmosphere.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:25:02 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
<{$news$} at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]In message <4vmtd5dkmboe48ndmn64avmpeli5f29c8k at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4lrtek5frra1qs4cj6b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
.
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
hypothetical Earth without them.
.
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
seems to deny.
Yet another strawman.
[/quote]
Do you understand that a pure N2 atmosphere
would be warmed by the warm rocks heated by the
sun in daylight (an atmosphere with NO GHGs!)
How is that a strawman, strawman?
[quote]Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
.
Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
to cool.
The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the
source of the heating of the atmosphere.
[/quote]
You are ignoring the fact that sunlight warms rocks,
only the rocks heat an atmosphere with NO GHGs.
Please try to comprehend what you read, if I
am not precise enough about "a pure N2 atmosphere",
let me know.
Most of the surface of the Earth would be
volcanic rock if there never had been any water
on Earth, and most volcanic rock is rather dark
in color, and the porosity causes it to be very
good at absorbing almost any em wavelength. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stewart Robert Hinsley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message <fvqtd59vt6req4jg0v3kc06rfnst2qkl4d at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:25:02 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
{$news$} at (no spam) meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <4vmtd5dkmboe48ndmn64avmpeli5f29c8k at (no spam) 4ax.com>, "I M at (no spam) good
guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> writes
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"I M at (no spam) good guy" <I_m at (no spam) good.guy> wrote in message
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4lrtek5frra1qs4cj6b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
.
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
hypothetical Earth without them.
.
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
seems to deny.
Yet another strawman.
Do you understand that a pure N2 atmosphere
would be warmed by the warm rocks heated by the
sun in daylight (an atmosphere with NO GHGs!)
How is that a strawman, strawman?
[/quote]
The strawman is that you claim by people deny this.
[quote]
Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
.
Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
to cool.
The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the
source of the heating of the atmosphere.
You are ignoring the fact that sunlight warms rocks,
[/quote]
You do love your strawmen. That's another.
[quote]only the rocks heat an atmosphere with NO GHGs.
Please try to comprehend what you read, if I
am not precise enough about "a pure N2 atmosphere",
let me know.
Most of the surface of the Earth would be
volcanic rock if there never had been any water
on Earth, and most volcanic rock is rather dark
in color, and the porosity causes it to be very
good at absorbing almost any em wavelength.
[/quote]
The nature of the surface of a hypothetical Earth without any water is
hard to predict, as the absence of water would affect plate tectonics
(and also the porosity of lavas). You may be right in your conclusion
that such a planet would have a lower albedo than the contemporary Earth
(even though granite and sand have higher albedos than vegetation). But
if you're depending on a changed albedo to achieve a higher temperature
then you've implicitly conceded the falsity of your claim that
greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I M at (no spam) good guy wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:06:10 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam||| at (no spam) nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It cannot radiate to the sky so it can only lose heat to the cold sink at
the poles and the side of the Earth facing away from the sun.
But only by contact, and it would take a well controlled
air handler to direct all parcels down across the surface.
[/quote]
Usually called convection.
[quote]The principle effect of having an atmosphere assuming the planet still
rotates every 24 hours is to average out some of the diurnal temperature
variation.
That is my point, that an Earth with an atmosphere
is what moderates the temperatures, the GHGs do have
a role in distribution, but do not have the mass to hold
much thermal energy.
[/quote]
Compared to the part that liquid water oceans play in moderating the
Earths diurnal temperature variation the atmosphere is noise.
Go and stand outside on a clear night. Hint: You cannot have cloudy
nights in a pure nitrogen atmosphere at least not until temperatures are
close to 77K.
[quote]What are you talking about? It doesn't have to "rush" down. The pressure
gradients drive the movement of the gasses in an atmosphere.
And the warm air stays warm without GHGs, there
is no good way to describe this, as adiabatic cooling
does not remove energy.
[/quote]
But molecular collisions with the surface in cold polar regions does.
[quote]There just isn't any driver for two-way circulation.
[/quote]
The pressure gradient between pole and equator is all that is needed.
But you are clearly unable to see this. Interestingly the atmosphere of
Titan is close enough to pure nitrogen with methane clouds that full
simulations of that system including a dry nitrogen atmosphere model for
comparison do exist in the astronomical literature. see for example:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~mitch/Publications_files/Mitchell.et.al.09.titan.methane.climate-1.pdf
[quote]Nonsense. The air will attempt to move along the pressure gradient. It
will be frustrated in that by conservation of angular momentum or
Coriolis force if you prefer.
The pressure gradient is a function of gravity,
not temperature, and since the stratosphere has
an inverse lapse rate, I am not convinced the
troposphere would have the same temperature
gradient as with GHGs.
[/quote]
What you are convinced of or not is irrelevant to what happens in nature.
[quote]More nonsense. Warm air rising must cool as it expands to match the
local column pressure that is determined by the equilibrium lapse rate.
It must expand, but it doesn't lose energy. the
expansion is simply the result of not as much downward
pressure from above.
[/quote]
Its temperature is lower higher up in the atmosphere. This is relevant
in the GHG scenario since the effective temperature of the surface of
last scattering determines the net flux of longwave thermal radiation
into space at the wavelengths where the GHG are strongly absorbing.
[quote]Sorry it doesn't conform to the 33 degree myth.
Your ideas do not conform to the known laws of physics.
I beg to disagree.
[/quote]
So prove it. Handwaving arguments will not cut it.
Lets see your mathematical justification for this absurd claim.
[quote]I didn't say how much, but I suspect that a
large part of the 33 degrees is from the atmosphere
and not the GHGs, that is the only point.
[/quote]
Do the maths.
[quote]You are clueless.
I don't see your participation as a discussion of the
science as much as a defense of an agenda.
[/quote]
Pot, kettle.
[quote]
A number of factors other than GHGs moderate
the swing in temperature between night and day, the
rotation period give less time for heating and less
time for cooling, the size of the Earth and the wind
speeds restricted by the speed of sound, which once
the medium is established as air, is related to temperature,
so wind speeds can't be much different than now.
So any retention of heat not only slows the
changes in temperatures, but also moves the average
temperature higher.
And that is why I say the GHGs cool the atmosphere,
and I ask, if GHGs cool the atmosphere, will more GHGs,
more CO2, cool the atmosphere more?
[/quote]
You are barking up entirely the wrong tree.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom P... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bill Ward wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which
is a very different thing. At least be honest about what is
driving you when you post in this newsgroup about what you
consider to be "CO2 hysteria". I did say it drives everything you
post on here and all through your talk about a hypothetical planet
without GHGs, you cannot split yourself from your need to press
home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your
denialist schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem
to believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been
spent by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious
failure to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the
side that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make
predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents
to make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the
data that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then
there can be a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and
skeptics can question the points of disagreement. Until you can
precisely state your hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of
the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global
proportions, that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of,
to justify your writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of
course. It always is from those that haven't the capability to
explain when things are not going the way they *know* that they
should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your models
don't predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever do so,
since climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and
their amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which
the accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary
mask on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the
other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like
that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken
experiment considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself,
and see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the questions
I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says this:" I
don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I need
them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you asked.
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
in a very small minority there with that view.
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
(not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
(directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water.
Bill, I guess you know how H2O vapour raises the surface temperature?[/quote]
And you know that between 5km and 10km altitude the mixing ratio drops
to less than 1 g/Kg? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 10:30 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:51 +0200, Tom P wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which
is a very different thing. At least be honest about what is
driving you when you post in this newsgroup about what you
consider to be "CO2 hysteria". I did say it drives everything you
post on here and all through your talk about a hypothetical planet
without GHGs, you cannot split yourself from your need to press
home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your
denialist schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem
to believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been
spent by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the
obvious failure to do so, it seems a completely justifiable
position. Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you
expect the side that holds climate is currently unpredictable to
make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents
to make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the
data that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then
there can be a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and
skeptics can question the points of disagreement. Until you can
precisely state your hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation
of the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global
proportions, that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of,
to justify your writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of
course. It always is from those that haven't the capability to
explain when things are not going the way they *know* that they
should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when
things are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your
models don't predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever
do so, since climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make
your case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and
mechanism you can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text
-
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and
their amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which
the accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a
scary mask on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest
in governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of
a bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival
trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the
other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like
that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken
experiment considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself,
and see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you
asked.
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view.
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it,
I don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
(not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one
would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the
difficult questions that could be put to them about their beliefs).
I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises
and why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic?
Write a folk song?
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them..
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't
work.
why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be
clarifying the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water.
Bill, I guess you know how H2O vapour raises the surface temperature?
And you know that between 5km and 10km altitude the mixing ratio drops
to less than 1 g/Kg?
Yup. I also know the surface mixing ratio increases with surface
temperature, which lowers cloud base, increases the radiating
temperature, and thus provides negative feedback, as shown by Lindzen, et
al 2009.
What do you think CO2 has to do with that process?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
go to altitiudes just below and above the tropopause, and move to
higher latitudes away from the tropics (please read the paper you are
citing), and you will find a positive feedback that cannot be
discounted or ignored.. Why does mr ward continue to ignore the facts? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:YYydnW_vtcYESUPXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:46 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com... [SNIP]
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What
fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
.
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will
absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
radiation.
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume a
gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a relativistic
elevator, after all.
..[/quote]
Not so sure I'd buy into perfect anything in materials - not even
transparency.
The higher the thermal absorbance (= emissivity) the less temperature builds
up
over and above what can be expected from ambient radiation levels. What
gives
carbon dioxide a little kick in the temperature is the lousy emissivity
(=lousy absorbance). The latest on CO2 emissivities I've found to date is in
a
doctoral thesis by Farag (1976) - the first to attempt to address binary
mixing issues.
..
[quote]In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR to
make a significant difference in the surface T.
..[/quote]
I think it's more the case that more of the heat absorbed is reradiated
before it has
a chance to be conducted (via direct contact) into bodies within the
atmospheric mixture.
Maximum emissivity of nitrogen is higher than that of CO2
..
[quote]H2O clearly does, the
issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating mechanism would be.
..[/quote]
Which leads us back to a huge "yes but". If memory serves, H2O has better
conductivity than CO2 which makes it much better at dumping its heat at
the tropopause.
..
[quote]
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's the
hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately explained.
..[/quote]
Agreed. But if we don't separate the roles of electromagnetic and kinetic
heat,
we'll wind up not knowing what to measure, which kind of leaves one juggling
lottery balls.
..
[quote]Welcome to the group. Fasten your seat belt.
..[/quote]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind...
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
..
[quote]so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
..[/quote]
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:51 +0200, Tom P wrote:
[quote]Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which
is a very different thing. At least be honest about what is
driving you when you post in this newsgroup about what you
consider to be "CO2 hysteria". I did say it drives everything you
post on here and all through your talk about a hypothetical planet
without GHGs, you cannot split yourself from your need to press
home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your
denialist schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem
to believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been
spent by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the
obvious failure to do so, it seems a completely justifiable
position. Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you
expect the side that holds climate is currently unpredictable to
make predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents
to make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the
data that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then
there can be a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and
skeptics can question the points of disagreement. Until you can
precisely state your hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation
of the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global
proportions, that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of,
to justify your writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of
course. It always is from those that haven't the capability to
explain when things are not going the way they *know* that they
should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when
things are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your
models don't predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever
do so, since climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make
your case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and
mechanism you can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text
-
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and
their amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which
the accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a
scary mask on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest
in governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of
a bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival
trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the
other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like
that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken
experiment considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself,
and see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you
asked.
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view.
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it,
I don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
(not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one
would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the
difficult questions that could be put to them about their beliefs).
I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises
and why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic?
Write a folk song?
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't
work.
why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be
clarifying the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water.
Bill, I guess you know how H2O vapour raises the surface temperature?
And you know that between 5km and 10km altitude the mixing ratio drops
to less than 1 g/Kg?
[/quote]
Yup. I also know the surface mixing ratio increases with surface
temperature, which lowers cloud base, increases the radiating
temperature, and thus provides negative feedback, as shown by Lindzen, et
al 2009.
What do you think CO2 has to do with that process? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
.>so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
[/quote]
Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| I M at (no spam) good guy... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:51 +0200, Tom P <werotizy at (no spam) freent.dd> wrote:
[quote]Bill Ward wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:37:41 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw... at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which
is a very different thing. At least be honest about what is
driving you when you post in this newsgroup about what you
consider to be "CO2 hysteria". I did say it drives everything you
post on here and all through your talk about a hypothetical planet
without GHGs, you cannot split yourself from your need to press
home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your
denialist schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem
to believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been
spent by "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious
failure to do so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the
side that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make
predictions?
and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents
to make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way,
explaining their logic, the data they think supports it, and the
data that seems not to support it. When you've done that, then
there can be a discussion of the merits of the hypothesis, and
skeptics can question the points of disagreement. Until you can
precisely state your hypothesis, with a simple, lucid explanation of
the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to discuss.
- which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global
proportions, that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of,
to justify your writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of
course. It always is from those that haven't the capability to
explain when things are not going the way they *know* that they
should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things
are not going the way you *know* that they should. Your models
don't predict future climate. It's likely no model can ever do so,
since climate is chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you
can neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and
their amount of possible error that you are referring to.
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which
the accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary
mask on a witch doctor.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
There is no strawman there.
There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the
other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like
that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken
experiment considering a transparent atmosphere?
and
if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself,
and see what you think.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the questions
I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says this:" I
don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I need
them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you asked.
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
in a very small minority there with that view.
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
You can thus expect to
criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
(not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
That's why so many climate
scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
(directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water.
Bill, I guess you know how H2O vapour raises the surface temperature?
And you know that between 5km and 10km altitude the mixing ratio drops
to less than 1 g/Kg?
[/quote]
And.............. CO2 is what, 0.003 g/Kg? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bill Ward... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:28:45 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
[quote]"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:YYydnW_vtcYESUPXnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:38:46 +1100, Timothy Casey wrote:
"Bill Ward" <bward at (no spam) ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbXnZ2dnUVZ_jFi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[SNIP]
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out.
What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
.
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will
absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
radiation.
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume a
gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a
relativistic elevator, after all.
.
Not so sure I'd buy into perfect anything in materials - not even
transparency.
[/quote]
I see it as a simplification of the real world. It's like assuming a
"perfect gas".
[quote]The higher the thermal absorbance (= emissivity) the less temperature
builds up over and above what can be expected from from ambient
radiation levels . What gives carbon dioxide a little kick in the
temperature is the lousy emissivity (=lousy absorbance). The latest on
CO2 emissivities I've found to date is in a doctoral thesis by Farag
(1976) - the first to attempt to address binary mixing issues.
.
In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR to
make a significant difference in the surface T.
.
I think it's more the case that more of the heat absorbed is reradiated
before it has a chance to be conducted (via direct contact) into
bodies within the atmospheric mixture.
[/quote]
That would be true at low enough pressures and temperatures. It's a race
between the re-emission and the next collision.
[quote]Maximum emissivity of nitrogen is higher than that of CO2.
[/quote]
Where do you find that?
[quote]H2O clearly does, the issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating
mechanism would be.
.
Which leads us back to a huge "yes but". If memory serves, H2O has
better conductivity than CO2 which makes it much better at dumping its
heat at the tropopause.
[/quote]
They're both picayune compared to N2 and O2. All GHGs do is heat or cool
the rest of the air. I think the heat dumping of H20 in the troposphere
has more to do with forming clouds, plus, of course a much wider
bandwidth than CO2.
[quote]
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's
the hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately
explained.
.
Agreed. But if we don't separate the roles of electromagnetic and
kinetic heat,
[/quote]
That's what "GHGs" do - transduce heat to photons and back.
[quote]we'll wind up not knowing what to measure, which kind of leaves one
juggling lottery balls.
[/quote]
It's all energy.
[quote]Welcome to the group. Fasten your seat belt.
.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind...
[/quote]
Thanks for your response. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Martin Brown... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Timothy Casey wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8b1e3521-ace3-4bef-9485-843985e25f5e at (no spam) e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
.
so explain heat the different heat capacities for polyatomic vs
diatomic molecules..
.
That's doesn't address the question of how to quantify the "greenhouse"
property of a gas in terms of real, measurable thermodynamic properties.
[/quote]
The simplest test is does it have any vibrational modes that can be
excited at prevailing temperatures and pressures. Diatomic molecules
cannot be GHG on Earth but polyatomics can have (at least) one low
energy vibrational mode active in the longwave IR.
Nice animation for teaching IR spectroscopy online at:
CO2 (a simple triatomic molecule)
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
CH4 (more complex polyatomic)
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ch4.html
Then to a first approximation the greenhouse property of a gas is
determined by its absorbtion spectrum in the band that the planet
surface is emitting the most thermal radiation in. For the Earth this
translates as roughly wavelengths in the range 1-10um.
There is also the secondary effect of the gas half life in the
atmosphere. CH4 is a potent short term GHG but is oxidised to CO2 in our
oxygen rich atmosphere with a half life of about a decade. The CO2 hangs
around for a lot longer.
Regards,
Martin Brown |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:10 am
|
|