biggest factor in climate uncertainty

[Old Rocks]

You were told they can measure the light absorbed by a gas and determine the absorption spectrum. If it doesn't absorb IR it isn't a greenhouse gas. You were told they can measure the sunlight striking a planet too, the amount of light the planet gives off and it's temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet doesn't warm much.

Yes dubya, the absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses to tell us that they absorb IR. What you don't seem to get is that the so called greenhouse gasses also have an emission spectra that tells us that they emit what they absorb at a very slightly lower wavelength due to the energy required to cause a vibration. They don't retain any of that IR.

They emit non-directionaly. That is, about half of what they absorb will be emitted back to the Earth. So, if you add more GHGs to the atmosphere, they will absorb more, and a higher percentage of energy that would normally be lost to space will be retained here on Earth. Another point, as the atmosphere warms from the actions of CO2, it retains more H2O. Which warms it further.

Simple logic, lost on you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This is not just wrong (as demonstrated in all of the links previous provided and throughout the researches and studies conducted by a broad range of scientific fields of investigation), it is almost 180º opposite of the evidences.

So you say, except that hundreds of repeatable experiments being performed since about 2000 say that you are wrong. Which observable experiments prove you right?

OK. Since you act just like the dumbasses I deal with on a daily basis, I will address you as such.

Dumb fuck, show your card! Yap-yap is all you have given us, no referances backing your flap-yap at all. Traker and I, as well as others, have given you referances to peer reviewed work by well known and respected scientists. If your expect to have any credibility in this debate, show us like material supporting your point of view.

So, link us to those experiments. They were performed by real scientists, correct? With proper documentation as to methodology, tools, ect., so they can be repeated by other scientists? You can do that, can't you?

^ Fails as science, but makes great religion

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd be happy to discuss the history of scientific discovery and understanding of atmospheric greenhouse effects and the substances and mechanisms involved.

I see you would be happy to discuss it and perhaps discuss it ad nauseum. We both know why don't we? I asked for a mathematical model or actual measurement of the greenhouse effect. Not surprisingly, you provided neither....and we both know why you din't don't we?

Lots of hypothesis....assumption...results of computer simulations...but nothing real.

And something simpler here for you;

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

 

[SSDD]

They emit non-directionaly. That is, about half of what they absorb will be emitted back to the Earth.

Can you prove that assumption? You claim it is so but it can't be measured unless you use an instrument that is cooled far below the temperature of the atmosphere which indicates that the 2nd law, stating that a cool object can't further warm a warm object, holds true.

If your claim was true, you should be able to measure downward radiation with an instrument at ambient temperature.

 

[SSDD]

And something simpler here for you;

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

We both know that you don't understand that at all rocks, but the glaring error there is an assumed forcing and an assumed climate sensitivity. We don't know what the climate sensitivity is, therefore your so called proof is nothing more than an unverifiable assumption.

Lets pretend for a second that you actually do understand what you posted. If that is the case, then lets assume that you understand the ideal gas law which is even simpler than what you posted.

PV=nRT where P = the pressure of a gas, V = the volume of a gas, n = the amount of a gas ( the number of molecules), R = the universal gas constant, and T = the temperature of the gas.

Look closely at the equation. Note the = sign. That means that the two sides must remain equal, therefore a change in any one, or more than one of them will result in changing values across the board. P and V are inversely proportional so an increase in pressure will result in a decrease of volume and vise versa. If you increase either P or V without reducing the other one will require an increase in n, or the gas constant which has a relation to gravity, or T. nRT will then equal PV.

According to the ideal gas law, it isn't possible for PV to not equal nRT and you can't hold P steady while increasing T and V equally but reducing n.

If more greenhouse gasses lead to a higher T, which causes V to rise, then the reduced n must result in a lower V which must result in a lower T.

Explain how to get around that problem within the framework of the greenhouse hypothesis.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd be happy to discuss the history of scientific discovery and understanding of atmospheric greenhouse effects and the substances and mechanisms involved.

I see you would be happy to discuss it and perhaps discuss it ad nauseum. We both know why don't we? I asked for a mathematical model or actual measurement of the greenhouse effect. Not surprisingly, you provided neither....and we both know why you din't don't we?

Lots of hypothesis....assumption...results of computer simulations...but nothing real.

And something simpler here for you;

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

There's no forcing.

None.

 

[Dubya]

And something simpler here for you;

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

We both know that you don't understand that at all rocks, but the glaring error there is an assumed forcing and an assumed climate sensitivity. We don't know what the climate sensitivity is, therefore your so called proof is nothing more than an unverifiable assumption.

Lets pretend for a second that you actually do understand what you posted. If that is the case, then lets assume that you understand the ideal gas law which is even simpler than what you posted.

PV=nRT where P = the pressure of a gas, V = the volume of a gas, n = the amount of a gas ( the number of molecules), R = the universal gas constant, and T = the temperature of the gas.

Look closely at the equation. Note the = sign. That means that the two sides must remain equal, therefore a change in any one, or more than one of them will result in changing values across the board. P and V are inversely proportional so an increase in pressure will result in a decrease of volume and vise versa. If you increase either P or V without reducing the other one will require an increase in n, or the gas constant which has a relation to gravity, or T. nRT will then equal PV.

According to the ideal gas law, it isn't possible for PV to not equal nRT and you can't hold P steady while increasing T and V equally but reducing n.

If more greenhouse gasses lead to a higher T, which causes V to rise, then the reduced n must result in a lower V which must result in a lower T.

Explain how to get around that problem within the framework of the greenhouse hypothesis.

n is just the number of moles of the gas, so it is a constant too, unless you are adding or removing gas. In the case of the atmosphere, the change is so insignificant that the accuracy of measurements would dwarf it.

How many moles of each gas are in the atmosphere? Wouldn't the amount of gases change with the seasons? Wouldn't the estimation of an average n contain so many moles that even our significant emissions would be dwarfed by the total number? n would increase with us putting gases into the atmosphere and a warmer Earth would also increase n by outgasing water, which increases PV slightly, but the significant change would be the temperature change to PV.

You just don't have a clue what n is to claim it would decrease.

 

[SSDD]

n is just the number of moles of the gas, so it is a constant too, unless you are adding or removing gas. In the case of the atmosphere, the change is so insignificant that the accuracy of measurements would dwarf it.

So the CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses are so insignifigant that they are not measurable? Interesting...and yet you believe that this immeasurably insignifigant amount of gas is driving the climate.

How many moles of each gas are in the atmosphere? Wouldn't the amount of gases change with the seasons? Wouldn't the estimation of an average n contain so many moles that even our significant emissions would be dwarfed by the total number? n would increase with us putting gases into the atmosphere and a warmer Earth would also increase n by outgasing water, which increases PV slightly, but the significant change would be the temperature change to PV.

The question was simple dubya and attempting to cloud the water with trivia is not going to get it answered.....If you want to leave n unchanged, then you have an even greater problem....how are you going to raise T and V while keeping n constant and keep the equation balanced?

 

[Dubya]

n is just the number of moles of the gas, so it is a constant too, unless you are adding or removing gas. In the case of the atmosphere, the change is so insignificant that the accuracy of measurements would dwarf it.

So the CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses are so insignifigant that they are not measurable? Interesting...and yet you believe that this immeasurably insignifigant amount of gas is driving the climate.

How many moles of each gas are in the atmosphere? Wouldn't the amount of gases change with the seasons? Wouldn't the estimation of an average n contain so many moles that even our significant emissions would be dwarfed by the total number? n would increase with us putting gases into the atmosphere and a warmer Earth would also increase n by outgasing water, which increases PV slightly, but the significant change would be the temperature change to PV.

The question was simple dubya and attempting to cloud the water with trivia is not going to get it answered.....If you want to leave n unchanged, then you have an even greater problem....how are you going to raise T and V while keeping n constant and keep the equation balanced?

It's an equation. If T increases then the product PV has to increase. R is a constant and can't change. If the right side of the equation increases, then the product on the left side has to increase. Notice I said product, because it's possible for either P or V to increase or decrease and still have the product increase.

I told you n will increase by not significantly, because our atmosphere has a hugh amount of moles of various gases. Moles are a measurement to express the amounts of the gases. As water warms it gives up gases, so why would you think n can decrease, remember we are adding small amounts of n compared to the whole atmosphere. The Earth will add some too, like methane and water vapor with increased T, so why would n decrease?

n and T will both increase, so the product PV has to increase. On a planet like Earth, there will be an increase in pressure, because gravity will hold the total volume of the atmosphere constant. Our atmospheric pressure varies, so don't expect to notice the increase in pressure from that change.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I see. So the temperature increases and that creates record cold in China and Russia.

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard!

 

[SSDD]

n and T will both increase, so the product PV has to increase. On a planet like Earth, there will be an increase in pressure, because gravity will hold the total volume of the atmosphere constant. Our atmospheric pressure varies, so don't expect to notice the increase in pressure from that change.

CO2 causes not only warming but an increase in pressure as well. If T is great enough to be measured, then one would expect a similar rise in P. It isn't happening.

Nice try, but failure is failure.

 

[Trakar]

I'd be happy to discuss the history of scientific discovery and understanding of atmospheric greenhouse effects and the substances and mechanisms involved.

I see you would be happy to discuss it and perhaps discuss it ad nauseum. We both know why don't we? I asked for a mathematical model or actual measurement of the greenhouse effect. Not surprisingly, you provided neither....and we both know why you din't don't we?

Lots of hypothesis....assumption...results of computer simulations...but nothing real.

If you aren't open to (or are incapable of) read(ing) and understanding published journal references, it is little wonder that your comprehension of this issue is so fundementally flawed and corrupt. I presented references to actual field studies, measurements, and laboratory experiments. Both the original studies and experiments (prior to the existence of computers) and the modern atmospheric studies. Scientific writing (especially those writings from a century or more in the past) can be confusing to those who are unfamiliar with the material and unused to reading such, that is why I also linked you to the American Institute of Physics site which explains many of these works in a more common, and easy to understand parlance. Personally, I prefer the published papers, but Dr. Weart provides an excellent treatment of the topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

The last thing that people like SSDD will do is read what real scientists present. They much prefer their politically driven alternative universe to reality. Sad that there are so many of them at present in our nation.

 

[SSDD]

If you aren't open to (or are incapable of) read(ing) and understanding published journal references, it is little wonder that your comprehension of this issue is so fundementally flawed and corrupt.

References to the output of computer models and quaint 19th century science. Are you kidding?

You haven't presented the first actual measurement of a greenhouse effect or a mathematical model of it. Don't worry though, I wouldn't have asked if I thought such a thing actually existed. If such actually did exist, then I would hold a different position on the topic.

 

[SSDD]

The last thing that people like SSDD will do is read what real scientists present. They much prefer their politically driven alternative universe to reality. Sad that there are so many of them at present in our nation.

You think computer models are actual science? Guess you do, don't you?

 

[Trakar]

If you aren't open to (or are incapable of) read(ing) and understanding published journal references, it is little wonder that your comprehension of this issue is so fundementally flawed and corrupt.

...References to the output of computer models and quaint 19th century science. Are you kidding?...

Being unable to properly read and comprehend published science is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is it surprising. It is generally something that only becomes easy once you are fully familiar with higher level learning in math and science and have years of practical experience analyzing and digesting the journal papers of your peers. Even then it can sometimes be a bit tricky especially moving from one field of expertise to another.

If you aren't interested in learning then understanding climate science isn't a topic that you are likely to ever possess a well-founded and rational understanding of. And that's okay too. There are a lot of subjects that I don't fully understand or have a solid background of information about, but then I don't try to pretend that I know all that is important about those areas of understanding.

 

[whitehall]

The biggest factor in climate change? 12 year old kids used to be able to answer that question before years of brainwashing. How come the "scientists" don't know? It's the Sun stupid.

 

[Trakar]

The biggest factor in climate change? 12 year old kids used to be able to answer that question before years of brainwashing. How come the "scientists" don't know? It's the Sun stupid.

No "brainwashing" required, the Sun's output is the single largest variable in terrestrial climate. The second largest variable is the orbit and orientation of planet in that orbit, and the third greatest variable is our atmospheric composition. The Sun's output has actually been remarkably stable over the over the last few thousand years, and orbital factors indicate that we should be experiencing a slow cooling to a period of increased glaciation over the next 20-30k years. Forcings are variable factors that tend to drive and direct a changing climate. The preponderance of available evidence indicates that the current climate change episode is being driven by human forcing factors that include land-use changes and the release of previously sequestered carbon into the active carbon cycle.

 

[Dubya]

n and T will both increase, so the product PV has to increase. On a planet like Earth, there will be an increase in pressure, because gravity will hold the total volume of the atmosphere constant. Our atmospheric pressure varies, so don't expect to notice the increase in pressure from that change.

CO2 causes not only warming but an increase in pressure as well. If T is great enough to be measured, then one would expect a similar rise in P. It isn't happening.

Nice try, but failure is failure.

It's happening, but you can't understand the word insignificant. If you are adding gases to an atmosphere, then the pressure has to increase, but what makes you think it's a measurable increase or not happening when you were told it was insignificant?

Running around saying people who know science fail is just making you look stupid, but you don't care, because stupid is all you are about.

If you drill a large well away from the ocean and pump the water into the ocean, it will cause the sea level increase, but according to you it doesn't. You don't even have common sense with your arguments.

Why did you even bring up PV = nRT? You didn't even know what n was or that a college freshman in Chemistry is going to use the formula many times on exams to do calculations just to pass the course. Gas measurements were what originally lead scientists to understand the nature of atoms.

 

[SSDD]

Being unable to properly read and comprehend published science is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is it surprising.

So don't worry about being a victim of the greatest hoax of all time. Don't worry about being tricked into believing that the output of computer models = real science.