Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 11:41:52 GMT -5
The flat earth society also deserves a seat at the debate table. they clearly have one. you didn't answer my question. but given the extreme lack of physics degrees among the mentioned group, i will assume the answer is no. Not answered because the in your question was the word "concern", as a basis for being qualified for AGW debate. Flat earth was just humor. Example; People seem concerned/not concerned that Trump is qualified to be president.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 12:06:51 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 17, 2016 18:22:51 GMT -5
You've never seen videos on the greenhouse effect? Photons in the visible light spectrum hit CO 2 molecules, imparting some thermal energy and being released as lower energy (i.e. lower frequency) photons. The lower-energy photons are more easily absorbed by the ground and particles in the upper atmosphere, causing them to "bounce around" (for lack of a better word) while bleeding energy that's ultimately converted into heat. ( ETA: I should also mention that CO 2 absorbs infrared-band photons radiated from the ground, re-emitting them in random directions, and thus "trapping" radiation near the Earth.) Supposedly the effect can be demonstrated experimentally at modest scales, although it's not easy to do properly. The effect was theorized to exist as early as the late 19th Century, by founders of quantum theory like Poincare and Lorentz, no less. Any late spectrograph of the earths atmosphere shows the CO2 at energy saturation. At saturation, energy transfer occurs at speed of light. Can you clarify your statement of "trapping" at near earth and parameters of ? Also my current stance, Quote; The central dogma is critically evaluated in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC, claiming the Planck response is 1.2K when CO2 is doubled. The first basis of it is one dimensional model studies with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5°K/km. It is failed from the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for CO2 doubling. The second basis is the Planck response calculation by Cess in 1976 having a mathematical error. Therefore, the AGW theory is collapsed along with the canonical climate sensitivity of 3°K utilizing the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling. The surface climate sensitivity is 0.14-0.17K in this study with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2. - See more at: notrickszone.com/2016/01/08/agw-theory-is-collapsed-japanese-scientist-finds-co2-climate-sensitivity-grandly-overstated-by-factor-of-three/#sthash.CFpiekDw.dpuf And conclusion. Quote; The central dogma of the IPCC is theoretically failed that the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2K for 2xCO2, resulting in the collapse of the AGW theory claiming the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K for CO2 doubling.” - See more at: notrickszone.com/2016/01/08/agw-theory-is-collapsed-japanese-scientist-finds-co2-climate-sensitivity-grandly-overstated-by-factor-of-three/#sthash.CFpiekDw.dpuf "Trapping" is just a layman's term for the radiative forcing mentioned in the abstract. I can't confirm or debunk this paper, Dio. I don't have the tools, and it seems to me that only a highly sophisticated experiment could resolve the issue. I truly wish I had all the money in the world to conduct a grand, definitive experiment that would put the issue to bed, but alas I am a mere pleb. You might want to do a broad search for Dr. Kimoto's work and dig up as much skepticism as you can find. I have no doubt you'll be able to find a thousand sites that call him a "hack" and a "pseudoscientist". He could well be one. Hold on to anything that provides a defensible explanation for the skepticism, compile it, and reach your own conclusion. You'll probably wind up in a he-says-she-says situation you can only reasonably resolve by conducting the experiments yourself, which I'm guessing is no more in the cards for you than it is for me. This has always been the curse of the AGW theory. Whether you support it or not, belief fundamentally hinges on trust in the competence and objectivity of other scientists.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 20:00:34 GMT -5
"Trapping" is just a layman's term for the radiative forcing mentioned in the abstract. I can't confirm or debunk this paper, Dio. I don't have the tools, and it seems to me that only a highly sophisticated experiment could resolve the issue. I truly wish I had all the money in the world to conduct a grand, definitive experiment that would put the issue to bed, but alas I am a mere pleb. You might want to do a broad search for Dr. Kimoto's work and dig up as much skepticism as you can find. I have no doubt you'll be able to find a thousand sites that call him a "hack" and a "pseudoscientist". He could well be one. Hold on to anything that provides a defensible explanation for the skepticism, compile it, and reach your own conclusion. You'll probably wind up in a he-says-she-says situation you can only reasonably resolve by conducting the experiments yourself, which I'm guessing is no more in the cards for you than it is for me. This has always been the curse of the AGW theory. Whether you support it or not, belief fundamentally hinges on trust in the competence and objectivity of other scientists. I have been in contact with Dr. K. for a while. No hack. The only curse on the A G W theory is it became sensationalized/politicized long before it was viable/finished. Im not even sure if that's possible. Too many variables. I continue to stick with the rules of energy transfer. I believe it's the only possible, but partial answer. Edit; I'll end my part of the discussion here, as this forum really isn't a good place to have it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 17, 2016 22:03:33 GMT -5
they clearly have one. you didn't answer my question. but given the extreme lack of physics degrees among the mentioned group, i will assume the answer is no. Not answered because the in your question was the word "concern", as a basis for being qualified for AGW debate. Flat earth was just humor. no, "flat earth" was the prevailing world view.Example; People seem concerned/not concerned that Trump is qualified to be president. i am not going to rephrase my question only to have you raise another objection. i find that game tiresome.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 18, 2016 1:28:42 GMT -5
I continue to stick with the rules of energy transfer I'm sorry D23 I know you said you were out of the conversation, I just wanted to add a thought. Transfer in waves? The OP is about 1922. Lots of Canadian arctic expeditions about that time too. Then during my parents generation fields of snow, and of course there was a bit of a global cooling phenomenon in the early 1970's. Bruce and I have been chatting about how CO2 does warm the earth, in cycles, and I'm adding waves... as we know human CO2 adds less than 1% CO2 which is why hockey stick graph was total fail even when human CO2 exceeded hockey stick estimates.... Idk. But if you don't want to carry on here, I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on PM. Later.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 19:07:25 GMT -5
Not answered because the in your question was the word "concern", as a basis for being qualified for AGW debate. Flat earth was just humor. no, "flat earth" was the prevailing world view.Example; People seem concerned/not concerned that Trump is qualified to be president. i am not going to rephrase my question only to have you raise another objection. i find that game tiresome. I posted "Flat earth society" as humor, not a reference to limited knowledge long ago. Tiresome, don't have time. I just say I'm not interested to post on the subject any more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2016 19:25:19 GMT -5
I continue to stick with the rules of energy transfer I'm sorry D23 I know you said you were out of the conversation, I just wanted to add a thought. Transfer in waves? The OP is about 1922. Lots of Canadian arctic expeditions about that time too. Then during my parents generation fields of snow, and of course there was a bit of a global cooling phenomenon in the early 1970's. Bruce and I have been chatting about how CO2 does warm the earth, in cycles, and I'm adding waves... as we know human CO2 adds less than 1% CO2 which is why hockey stick graph was total fail even when human CO2 exceeded hockey stick estimates.... Idk. But if you don't want to carry on here, I wouldn't mind hearing your thougWehts on PM. Later. I just don't have any interest in the political side of the discussion, nor internet chatter on who is/is not qualified etc. Radiative forcing was overestimated and that observation seems to be correct as all the tipping point projections failed. What should happen is less impact effect as man's contribution, regardless of actual radiative forcing level, continues to move to a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole. Edit; I believe it was the last shuttle flight where they measured the energy radiating off the dark side as being much higher than expected. You didn't see that on the network news. It does seem to agree with off planet transfer that should happen in that spectrum, with atmospheric carbon being energy saturated.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 18, 2016 20:46:34 GMT -5
i am not going to rephrase my question only to have you raise another objection. i find that game tiresome. I posted "Flat earth society" as humor, not a reference to limited knowledge long ago. Tiresome, don't have time. I just say I'm not interested to post on the subject any more. i find such honesty refreshing. it prevents discussions from wandering into annoyance.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 19, 2016 10:03:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry D23 I know you said you were out of the conversation, I just wanted to add a thought. Transfer in waves? The OP is about 1922. Lots of Canadian arctic expeditions about that time too. Then during my parents generation fields of snow, and of course there was a bit of a global cooling phenomenon in the early 1970's. Bruce and I have been chatting about how CO2 does warm the earth, in cycles, and I'm adding waves... as we know human CO2 adds less than 1% CO2 which is why hockey stick graph was total fail even when human CO2 exceeded hockey stick estimates.... Idk. But if you don't want to carry on here, I wouldn't mind hearing your thougWehts on PM. Later. I just don't have any interest in the political side of the discussion, nor internet chatter on who is/is not qualified etc. Radiative forcing was overestimated and that observation seems to be correct as all the tipping point projections failed. What should happen is less impact effect as man's contribution, regardless of actual radiative forcing level, continues to move to a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole. Edit; I believe it was the last shuttle flight where they measured the energy radiating off the dark side as being much higher than expected. You didn't see that on the network news. It does seem to agree with off planet transfer that should happen in that spectrum, with atmospheric carbon being energy saturated. It would appear that it is already happening: Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions nearly stable for third year in row But while increase in emissions has been halted, CO2 concentrations in atmosphere still at record high and rising. It makes perfect sense too. The wavelengths in the atmosphere would have to be consistent yet able to adapt to the earth and it's changes. What happens within the field is relative unto itself. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean with " measured the energy radiating off the dark side as being much higher than expected" But if you have the time could you expand on that a bit, please? Thanks in advance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 14:37:30 GMT -5
I just don't have any interest in the political side of the discussion, nor internet chatter on who is/is not qualified etc. Radiative forcing was overestimated and that observation seems to be correct as all the tipping point projections failed. What should happen is less impact effect as man's contribution, regardless of actual radiative forcing level, continues to move to a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole. Edit; I believe it was the last shuttle flight where they measured the energy radiating off the dark side as being much higher than expected. You didn't see that on the network news. It does seem to agree with off planet transfer that should happen in that spectrum, with atmospheric carbon being energy saturated. It would appear that it is already happening: Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions nearly stable for third year in row But while increase in emissions has been halted, CO2 concentrations in atmosphere still at record high and rising. It makes perfect sense too. The wavelengths in the atmosphere would have to be consistent yet able to adapt to the earth and it's changes. What happens within the field is relative unto itself. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean with " measured the energy radiating off the dark side as being much higher than expected" But if you have the time could you expand on that a bit, please? Thanks in advance. The amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than it's temperature rises. This include the surface of atmospheric molecules along with the actual surface of the earth. Outgoing radiated energy increases with the fourth power of temperature (16x). As solar heating and back radiation from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat, equivalent to about 117% of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow is equivalent to 17% of incoming sunlight (117% up, 100% down) Some of the heat escapes directly to space and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of the incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant, the greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in the surface temperature on earth. Edit; No surprise to me that Nasa measured this outflow change due to the minor temperature increase.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 20, 2016 15:50:59 GMT -5
The amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than it's temperature rises. This include the surface of atmospheric molecules along with the actual surface of the earth. Outgoing radiated energy increases with the fourth power of temperature (16x). As solar heating and back radiation from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat, equivalent to about 117% of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow is equivalent to 17% of incoming sunlight (117% up, 100% down) Some of the heat escapes directly to space and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of the incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant, the greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in the surface temperature on earth. Edit; No surprise to me that Nasa measured this outflow change due to the minor temperature increase. The problem is that the Earth isn't a blackbody radiator. There are infinitely many different temperature distributions throughout the atmosphere that have the same outgoing radiative flux. Thus even if negative feedback brings outgoing flux back into equilibrium with incoming flux, there may still be different intermediate temperature distributions. By analogy, consider thermal conduction in a hot room separated from the cold outdoors by a pane of glass, a few inches of air, and another pane of glass. Due to conduction, the air between the panes will heat to the average temperature of the indoors and outdoors, and due to convection currents, will have more or less uniform temperature throughout the gap. Now suppose you split the pane closest to the indoors into two panes of equal thickness and place the newly created pane halfway between the original two. The total thermal resistance remains the same, thus the thermal flux from indoors to outdoors remains constant. But the air between the indoor pane and middle pane is now significantly warmer than it was before. You should obviously take this analogy with a grain of salt, but the principle is the same. The boundary conditions of a system don't always determine everything about what's going on inside.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 20, 2016 16:52:26 GMT -5
Have more to add, busy couple days, just wanted to add something to VtL's thought. More to the point, instead of glass, say something like a graphene(sic) membrane?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 11:36:14 GMT -5
The amount of energy a surface radiates always increases faster than it's temperature rises. This include the surface of atmospheric molecules along with the actual surface of the earth. Outgoing radiated energy increases with the fourth power of temperature (16x). As solar heating and back radiation from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heat, equivalent to about 117% of incoming solar energy. The net upward heat flow is equivalent to 17% of incoming sunlight (117% up, 100% down) Some of the heat escapes directly to space and the rest is transferred to higher and higher levels of the atmosphere, until the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere matches the amount of the incoming solar energy. Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant, the greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in the surface temperature on earth. Edit; No surprise to me that Nasa measured this outflow change due to the minor temperature increase. The problem is that the Earth isn't a blackbody radiator. There are infinitely many different temperature distributions throughout the atmosphere that have the same outgoing radiative flux. Thus even if negative feedback brings outgoing flux back into equilibrium with incoming flux, there may still be different intermediate temperature distributions. By analogy, consider thermal conduction in a hot room separated from the cold outdoors by a pane of glass, a few inches of air, and another pane of glass. Due to conduction, the air between the panes will heat to the average temperature of the indoors and outdoors, and due to convection currents, will have more or less uniform temperature throughout the gap. Now suppose you split the pane closest to the indoors into two panes of equal thickness and place the newly created pane halfway between the original two. The total thermal resistance remains the same, thus the thermal flux from indoors to outdoors remains constant. But the air between the indoor pane and middle pane is now significantly warmer than it was before. You should obviously take this analogy with a grain of salt, but the principle is the same. The boundary conditions of a system don't always determine everything about what's going on inside. You're describing the boundary analogy as an insulation property. As an insulation, it would equally restrict the accretion of energy as well as its depletion. A boundary system can't determine what goes on inside, but it will restrict in both directions. The hot room side also reverses on the day side. Earth is a greybody which has some limitations. The atmosphere however, is not a pane of glass, and gases mix indiscriminately rising and falling according to temperature/energy sharing. That would tend to assist with outgoing radiation versus collecting/restricting it. Temperature rise will still be self regulating according to radiation principle.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2016 12:52:01 GMT -5
Have more to add, busy couple days, just wanted to add something to VtL's thought. More to the point, instead of glass, say something like a graphene(sic) membrane? Would help his cause for outgoing energy, but restriction is also there for incoming energy.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 21, 2016 16:19:04 GMT -5
Have more to add, busy couple days, just wanted to add something to VtL's thought. More to the point, instead of glass, say something like a graphene(sic) membrane? Would help his cause for outgoing energy, but restriction is also there for incoming energy. The thing about graphene is that protons apparently transfer through it at high temperatures with relative ease. Thanks for the expanded post above, btw. That's What I thought you were saying, with a ton of great extras!! What it makes me think even more is that our CO2 affects our biosphere only, and that the earth's atmosphere adapts to hold everything together in its own way; graphene membranes do explane how gases could operate independently while still allowing energy to transfer. Honestly, when you said you weren't surprised by the push back from the dark that's immediately what I was thinking, sounds like pushing through a membrane...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 21, 2016 19:20:26 GMT -5
The problem is that the Earth isn't a blackbody radiator. There are infinitely many different temperature distributions throughout the atmosphere that have the same outgoing radiative flux. Thus even if negative feedback brings outgoing flux back into equilibrium with incoming flux, there may still be different intermediate temperature distributions. By analogy, consider thermal conduction in a hot room separated from the cold outdoors by a pane of glass, a few inches of air, and another pane of glass. Due to conduction, the air between the panes will heat to the average temperature of the indoors and outdoors, and due to convection currents, will have more or less uniform temperature throughout the gap. Now suppose you split the pane closest to the indoors into two panes of equal thickness and place the newly created pane halfway between the original two. The total thermal resistance remains the same, thus the thermal flux from indoors to outdoors remains constant. But the air between the indoor pane and middle pane is now significantly warmer than it was before. You should obviously take this analogy with a grain of salt, but the principle is the same. The boundary conditions of a system don't always determine everything about what's going on inside. You're describing the boundary analogy as an insulation property. As an insulation, it would equally restrict the accretion of energy as well as its depletion. A boundary system can't determine what goes on inside, but it will restrict in both directions. The hot room side also reverses on the day side. Earth is a greybody which has some limitations. The atmosphere however, is not a pane of glass, and gases mix indiscriminately rising and falling according to temperature/energy sharing. That would tend to assist with outgoing radiation versus collecting/restricting it. Temperature rise will still be self regulating according to radiation principle. The whole point behind radiative forcing is that CO 2 does act as a kind of non-reciprocal insulator. It interacts with relatively few of the high-energy photons coming in, but when they're converted to IR-band photons upon striking the Earth, these lower-energy photons are much more easily absorbed and scattered by it. Thus an insulating effect exists, the radiation-escape-by-altitude profile shifts upward (i.e. to higher altitudes), and everything at lower altitudes has a higher temperature at equilibrium. It's not as "rigid" an effect as a pane of glass, which is why I said to take the analogy with a grain of salt. I merely intended it to show that even if the amount of radiation escaping is constrained to equal the amount of radiation incoming--and I agree that it is--this doesn't mean that factors like atmospheric composition can't change what the intermediate distribution of radiative flux (and thus the distribution of temperatures) looks like. If you want to prove this to yourself, you could build a simple planar atmospheric model based on first principles and simulate its behaviour using e.g. finite element methods. You'd readily see that you can change the temperature distribution by changing the concentration of any gas that scatters surface radiation more readily than solar radiation. Of course, the multi-trillion-dollar question is "Can you change it significantly?" by doubling the concentration of a trace gas like CO 2.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 22, 2016 9:02:06 GMT -5
If the temperature at the South Pole at 12:00 midnight yesterday was -15, How much warmer did it get at high noon, in the middle of the day?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 22, 2016 11:27:32 GMT -5
If the temperature at the South Pole at 12:00 midnight yesterday was -15, How much warmer did it get at high noon, in the middle of the day? I don't know. How much?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 11:35:36 GMT -5
If the temperature at the South Pole at 12:00 midnight yesterday was -15, How much warmer did it get at high noon, in the middle of the day? The same. The sun should hold the same relative position above the horizon all day on the south poles summer solstice.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 22, 2016 11:39:04 GMT -5
If the temperature at the South Pole at 12:00 midnight yesterday was -15, How much warmer did it get at high noon, in the middle of the day? The same. The sun should hold the same relative position above the horizon all day on the south poles summer solstice. it actually depends on wind and weather conditions. but all things being equal, you would be correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 12:16:30 GMT -5
You're describing the boundary analogy as an insulation property. As an insulation, it would equally restrict the accretion of energy as well as its depletion. A boundary system can't determine what goes on inside, but it will restrict in both directions. The hot room side also reverses on the day side. Earth is a greybody which has some limitations. The atmosphere however, is not a pane of glass, and gases mix indiscriminately rising and falling according to temperature/energy sharing. That would tend to assist with outgoing radiation versus collecting/restricting it. Temperature rise will still be self regulating according to radiation principle. The whole point behind radiative forcing is that CO 2 does act as a kind of non-reciprocal insulator. It interacts with relatively few of the high-energy photons coming in, but when they're converted to IR-band photons upon striking the Earth, these lower-energy photons are much more easily absorbed and scattered by it. Thus an insulating effect exists, the radiation-escape-by-altitude profile shifts upward (i.e. to higher altitudes), and everything at lower altitudes has a higher temperature at equilibrium. It's not as "rigid" an effect as a pane of glass, which is why I said to take the analogy with a grain of salt. I merely intended it to show that even if the amount of radiation escaping is constrained to equal the amount of radiation incoming--and I agree that it is--this doesn't mean that factors like atmospheric composition can't change what the intermediate distribution of radiative flux (and thus the distribution of temperatures) looks like. If you want to prove this to yourself, you could build a simple planar atmospheric model based on first principles and simulate its behaviour using e.g. finite element methods. You'd readily see that you can change the temperature distribution by changing the concentration of any gas that scatters surface radiation more readily than solar radiation. Of course, the multi-trillion-dollar question is "Can you change it significantly?" by doubling the concentration of a trace gas like CO2. My current stance is no. I'm in the group that thinks CO2 climate sensitivity is overstated by a factor of three. Radiation principle still applies. What is actually happening as CO2 levels rise only verifies the stance. All tipping point models have failed, hence the search for corrections. Research of theory, and also the debate, will continue. The correctness of expensive global solutions to the believers of a maybe right/maybe wrong theory, I will leave to others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 12:19:21 GMT -5
The same. The sun should hold the same relative position above the horizon all day on the south poles summer solstice. it actually depends on wind and weather conditions. but all things being equal, you would be correct. Since his post only referenced time of day with no other variables mentioned, that's all I would answer.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 23, 2016 8:55:53 GMT -5
This is similar to ,, If you are standing directly over the South Pole, Which direction are you looking?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 23, 2016 8:56:43 GMT -5
If the temperature at the South Pole at 12:00 midnight yesterday was -15, How much warmer did it get at high noon, in the middle of the day? I don't know. How much? It was the same.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,404
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 23, 2016 11:33:40 GMT -5
This is similar to ,, If you are standing directly over the South Pole, Which direction are you looking? north.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 12:05:16 GMT -5
This is similar to ,, If you are standing directly over the South Pole, Which direction are you looking? UP Up only requires an agreed upon point of reference.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Dec 23, 2016 18:52:35 GMT -5
Here's the irony I find in the AGW arguments:
When some religious fanatic predicts the end of the world on a certain date, the fanatic is referred to as a loon. And then when the end doesn't occur on that date, the failure is seen as proof that the fanatic was a loon. And the people that still follow the fanatic are seen as weak-minded.
Yet AGW alarmists have been wrong on their predictions all the time...yet that isn't used as proof that the alarmists are loons. And many people continue following the alarmists' views and predictions, yet they are somehow not weak-minded.
For instance, in 2005, AGW alarmists (these are UN scientists, by the way) were saying that by 2010-2015, sea levels would rise, especially in island regions like the pacific islands, and that there would be 50 million "climate refugees" from those areas. Never happened. But somehow that doesn't mean anything. Yet if you replace "AGW" with "religious" the failure of the prediction would show just how ridiculous the alarmists' predictions were.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 15, 2024 17:53:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 21:16:54 GMT -5
This is similar to ,, If you are standing directly over the South Pole, Which direction are you looking? Depends... are you looking ahead? down (towards your feet)? at the sky? at some obscure yet oblique angle?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 24, 2016 0:08:03 GMT -5
If you are looking at you feet or the horizon, you will still be looking the same direction.
|
|