weather

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Aug 8, 2010.

  1. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Well, folks, it is just weather.

    The Russians have lost at least 20% of their grain crops, and it looks like they will lose a major portion of the winter wheat as well. Pakistan just had over 1 million acreas of crops destroyed by flooding. There is also extensive heat and flooding damage to crops in China. European crops, while not as badly affected as the Russian crops, still look to be down by 5% to 10%. Only Australia seems to have an increased potential for a better wheat crop, but only by 1 million tons.
     
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,212
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,954
    This can only mean that the Magical Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster is off its low carb diet!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2010
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Mindless derision from the mindless. But what else can one expect of the Krudesater.
     
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,212
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,954
    This is the exact same stupidity Chris posted.

    I know you're a fan of Goebbels "Big Lie" but I assure you, your AGW nonsense WILL get shot down everytime you post it, no matter how many times you post it.

    Again, if deminimus increases in CO2 are so powerful it should be no trouble at all for you to demonstrate that in a laboratory

    Show us how a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes ANY of the effect for which you give it credit.

    I'm never going to stop asking you to prove it and you're never going to stop avoiding answer the challenge directly.

    You Lose.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,954
    Thanks Received:
    7,973
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,709



    More importantly let them pump 500ppm, or 1000ppm (it honestly doesn't matter) more CO2 into the atmosphere then show us how you can get 101 units of energy when only 100 was put into the system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says quite clearly for every interaction energy is lost. There are at least 6 interactions involved with the commensurate loss of energy with each one. So how does it get warmer with ever reducing energy?
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441


    Now you appear to be doing what you accuse the alarmists of doing. Distorting truths into half truths and misdirecting. Energy can't be created or destroyed (but it can be changed into an equivilent) and the entropy of a system must go down. In this case the temp of the world depends on the heat sources in (primarily the sun) versus the heat sources out (primarily radiation escaping into outer space). Entropy is USABLE energy gradients. Swapping heat back and forth between molecules doesn't create or destroy energy but it does lessen entropy because all the molecule tend towards the same temperature. AGW says that feedback loops slow down the escape of radiation into space. That is not saying heat is magically created.

    jus sayin
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,954
    Thanks Received:
    7,973
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,709



    Actually Ian that is EXACTLY what they are saying. I distorted nothing. Their basic premise is that when solar energy hits the Earth some of it, instead of being radiated away into space, is directed back to Earth thereby increasing the overall heat in the system. If the second Law of Thermodynamics holds to be true, and to the best of my knowledge it has so far withstood every test, then what they claim is physically impossible.
    It violates that fundamental principle. I merely used a huge CO2 amount to show how the problems with their theory.

    How is that hyperbole?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2010
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441


    When a CO2 molecule absorbs IR it then turns around and gives off its own black body radiation, because the direction of the radiation is random some of it does return earthward. Overall the frequencies that CO2 absorbs are pretty quickly transformed into other frequencies but there is still an effect on how fast infrared energy escapes from the earth into space

    Skeptics shouldn't be denying this effect: just its size and importance.

    There are easy targets in the AGW case that should be pointed out. CO2 is constantly being released by warm tropical oceans and reabsorbed by colder ones. The vast amount of this churning totally overwhelms the amount we put into the air and effectively wipes out the exaggeration that CO2 stays in the atmosphere 600 years. The gradual warming of the oceans since the little ice age probably accounts for much of the increase in CO2. Eg- one of the reasons that the temp/CO2 increases have an 800 year lag time ( that Al Gore was so careful to disguise).

    Anyways, I was just pointing out that your statement (as it is) could easily be taken as invoking fundemental physics laws where they were not applicible.
     
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,954
    Thanks Received:
    7,973
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,709



    Hello Ian,

    The last time I checked the laws of physics are allways applicable. They don't just stop working. CO2 does absorb IR radiation (in the 14.5 micron wavelength) and this makes it possible for the CO2 to interfere with the long wavelength radiation emitted from the Earth back to space. However H2O does the exact same thing over a much broader spectrum (including the 14.5 micron wavelength) and as it constitutes 95% of all GHG's the possible effect (if any) of CO2 is lost in the background of water vapor.

    Another problem with any CO2 GHG effect is the Beer-Lambert Law of radiative absorbtion
    which basically says the absorbtive value of a given wavelength decays on a logarithmic basis. Thus while the first 20ppm of CO2 might have an effect the remaining 300 or 500ppm will have a miniscule effect.

    Add to this the fact that the CO2 concentrations rise 800 or so years after the warming has been initiated and one can very easily hypothesize that the CO2 rise we see today is the effect of the MWP which coincidentally occured about 800 years ago.

    Finally the alarmists love to hype the "acidification" of the oceans due to CO2 abundance. The very real problem with this little hypothesis is the fact that when corals were evolving the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on the order of 8000ppm as opposed to the 390ppm or so we see today. That is an excellent example of the Beer-Lambert Law in action.
     
  10. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    the first law says energy cannot be lost or created. that is the law relevent to your first sentence.

    the second law states that entropy must increase overall in a system. your second sentence is incorrect.

    your third sentence is an appeal to authority (incorrectly stated) because there is no energy lost. perhaps you meant that the wavelength was getting longer on average because of entropy but I don't know because it was poorly stated.

    your fourth sentence implies that the person you are rebutting has made a logical error or a mistake in reasoning but your previous statements are so messed up that it makes no sense.

    I'm sorry but I hold people, who's knowledge and opinion I respect, to a higher standard than some idiot that just regurgitates talking points without understanding them. You were off track and I thought you'd like to be told.

    BTW, I think I misspoke earlier on entropy. more entropy means less information/gradient, I said lessen but I meant increase.
     

Share This Page