Arctic ice thins dramatically

[wirebender]

I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

Can you provide any compelling empirical evidences that prove atmospheric greenhouse effects?

 

[Big Fitz]

I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

Can you provide any compelling empirical evidences that prove atmospheric greenhouse effects?

Of course they can't. Fuzzy data maybe. empirical repeatable experiments, no. They're proving the existence of sasquatch here and as we all know, till something is proven to exist in science... it doesn't. No proof it exists, only circumstantial evidence that the climate fluctuates on it's own.

The real non-starter is proof that mankind has anything to do with it. There is no possible way for them to conclusively prove that it is man's fault.

ergo: religion.

 

[konradv]

I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

Can you provide any compelling empirical evidences that prove atmospheric greenhouse effects?

Of course they can't. Fuzzy data maybe. empirical repeatable experiments, no. They're proving the existence of sasquatch here and as we all know, till something is proven to exist in science... it doesn't. No proof it exists, only circumstantial evidence that the climate fluctuates on it's own.

The real non-starter is proof that mankind has anything to do with it. There is no possible way for them to conclusively prove that it is man's fault.

ergo: religion.

The REAL non-starter is the fact that you wouldn't accept any data as proof, regardless of the source, because it doesn't fit your POLITICAL bias. The science, despite all the treatises, doesn't really mean much to the deniers, except as a way to throw out big words and BS the subject(see wirebender).

ergo: hypocrisy

 

[Old Rocks]

From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere. You people have been given multiple sites, from real scientific sites, that verify these factors. Yet you come back with the same nonsense time after time. Some of you even claim a scientific background. Then proceed disrespect all the efforts of the scientists from many nations and political systems that all come to the same conclusions.

That AGW is real, and we are already seeing effects that are destructive to our present society.

You made this into a political football, and it is going to come back and bite you big time.

 

[Trakar]

I am unaware of any compelling empirical evidences that refute atmospheric greenhouse effects, I am, however, intimately familiar with nearly a couple of centuries worth of multipley confirmed and intergrated physics and chemsitry that are foundational in the understanding of many aspects of radiation transfer physics and atmospheric chemistry which directly support and depend upon these understandings. Here are some of the high points:

Can you provide any compelling empirical evidences that prove atmospheric greenhouse effects?

The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.

In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly 3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.

There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.

 

[wirebender]

The REAL non-starter is the fact that you wouldn't accept any data as proof, regardless of the source, because it doesn't fit your POLITICAL bias. The science, despite all the treatises, doesn't really mean much to the deniers, except as a way to throw out big words and BS the subject(see wirebender).

To date, you can provide no proof at all and your "data" is no more than the output of notoriously bad computer models. You can't provide one whit of proof that the present climate is in any way unprecedented or even close to the boundrys of natural deviation, much less begin to prove that man is in any way responsible.

 

[wirebender]

From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere.

No gas (other than water vapor) has the capacity to retain heat.

 

[wirebender]

The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.

It is a compelling bit of evidence that certain molecules absorb and emit Ir but it doesn't even begin to support the hypothesis of backradiation or the greenhouse hypothesis in any way.

In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly 3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.

That does not constitute evidence of the greenhouse effect.

There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.

Actually, there is no more. Because you have remained civil, I am going to try one more time with you to demonstrate your error in the simplest terms I can manage. If you don't mind, I would like to do this step by step and have a bit of conversation between rounds to be sure that we are in agreement before proceeding or hash out any disagreement.

An object can become warm via the absorption of electromagnetic radiation. I believe we are both in agreement with that basic fact. Where we split though is at the idea that an object being passively warmed can warm its source of heat. I say that it can't and will try once more to convince you of this fact.

First, if an object that is being passively warmed could warm its source of heat, energy could be multiplied simply by placing objects that radiate IR in proximity to each other and let them mutually radiate IR and collect the excess. This is impossible, however, because the mutually exchanged IR cancels, it does not multiply as suggested by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Let me make a quick illustration and ask a question or two and I will stop for the evening and await your response.

Before I begin, pardon the graphics. If I were a graphic designer, I wouldn't be doing the work that I presently do.

To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero. Now we will add object "B" into the picture. It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.

I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.

At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat. At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.

We still together?

Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A". Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B". Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".

Is that your contention? Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".

 

[Old Rocks]

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.

What is it in the makeup of people like yourself that you think that generations of real scientists have been totally wrong and you are so brilliant that you have figured out everything the missed. Fellow, if you are so sure of your science on this subject, how about a submission to a real peer reviewed scientific journal?

 

[Liability]

The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
As for balance the south pole ice caps are growing.
Dont tell Chris.

If I grok this accurately, the displacement of water by ice not altering the sea level when it melts claim is true, but only for un-anchored ice. In short, if the ice floats, you are 100% correct.

However, if the ice goes all the way down and gets anchored to the floor, then it only displaces the volume it actually occupies. And when it melts, that additional water WILL have to naturally get added to the sea level.

Of course, I'm not an actual scientist, so maybe it's not just the water that's all wet.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have it right, Liability. And if the ice is on land, as is the alpine glaciers, Greenland and
Anarctica icecaps, all of it will add to the volume of the ocean. And the ice on Anarctica is melting in enough places that the net is minus tens of cubic miles of ice per year. The only ice that is increasing is the seasonal sea ice around the edge of the continent. And that is increasing very slightly. Far, far less than the Arctic Ocean Sea Ice is decreasing.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

[Trakar]

From the beginning, it has been pointed out that the absorption bands of CO2 and CH4 are the driving factors of retention of heat by the atmosphere.

No gas (other than water vapor) has the capacity to retain heat.

What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?

Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?

 

[wirebender]

What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?

Experimental evidence. It has to do with water's phases. You can do the experiment yourself on a stove top. Here is how it goes.

Freeze a thermometer into a block of ice. Use a tupperware container or something like it. Put the block of ice in a large pot and put it on an eye of your stove. Turn the heat to whatever setting you choose.

Watch the thermometer in the ice. Clearly, the ice is absorbing heat from the stove but until the ice has phased to its liquid form, its temperature doesn't rise. So long as there is a sliver of ice remaining, even though it is immersed in boiling water, the temperature of the ice will remain at 32 degrees F.

Once the ice has melted, then all of the water in the pot will begin to assume a uniform temperature and it will begin to rise. The water temperature will reach 212 degrees F (boiling) and no matter how hot you turn your stove eye, it will not go above 212 even though it it clearly absorbing heat from the stove eye. The water will remain at 212 until it turns into a gas (steam & water vapor).

If you could contain the steam, you could continue the experiment and see that once all of the water had turned to gas, the temperature would stabalize and from that point you could superheat the water past 212 degrees.

Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?

It is the claim being made by some on this board.

 

[wirebender]

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.

Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago. In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.

 

[RollingThunder]

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.

Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago. In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.

That's your delusion and you're holding on to it like grim death but it is based only on you closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la-la-la" whenever someone shows you the evidence. No one can do much for someone as willfully and ideologically self-blinded as you are.

 

[Trakar]

The fact that we can directly detect and measure the absorption and emission spectra of specific gas components of the atmosphere and confirm these in direct measurement of the atmosphere is a pretty compelling piece of empirical evidence.

It is a compelling bit of evidence that certain molecules absorb and emit Ir but it doesn't even begin to support the hypothesis of backradiation or the greenhouse hypothesis in any way.

Actually these simple aspects are the mechanisms at the core of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

In confirmation of these direct measurements, we can also directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy the surface of the earth emits (roughly 6.2 x 10^24 J) and we can directly measure the amount of longwave IR energy that leaves the top of the atmosphere (roughly 3.8 x 10^24 J) and demonstrate the ~2.4 x 10^24 J that creates our ambient or "atmospheric greenhouse" warmth.

That does not constitute evidence of the greenhouse effect.

This is the greenhouse effect. Visible light from the sun passes through our atmosphere that is largely transparent to visible wavelength light. This light is absorbed by the surface material of our planet. The surface material of our planet re-emits this energy in the form of IR light. The GHGs in our atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, CH4, NO, etc.,) are opaque to IR light, they absorb and then re-emit that IR light slowing its exit from our atmosphere. This delay from the multiple absorption and re-emission by the atmospheric GHGs represents the ambient thermal background warmth.

There is much more, but these are direct measurements that really don't involve any complicated maths are relatively straight-forward, simple to understand and casually (in the modern era) demonstrable.

Actually, there is no more.

We haven't more than outlined the sketch and scratched the surface. There are the methods by which substances actually absorb photons all the way down to the energy state changes of electron orbitals and the relationship between such and quantum numbers and how this allows us to calculate the wavelengths of subsequently emitted photons as the electrons shift from unstable, high energy orbitals down to more stable, lower energy orbitals. Much, much, more,...but, it's best not to try and teach people how to swim by throwing them, fully clothed, off the deck of a cruise ship in 20 foot seas.

Because you have remained civil, I am going to try one more time with you to demonstrate your error in the simplest terms I can manage. If you don't mind, I would like to do this step by step and have a bit of conversation between rounds to be sure that we are in agreement before proceeding or hash out any disagreement.

perfectly fine, it is often the case that people cannot learn new information until they understand how and why what they currently believe is mistaken.

An object can become warm via the absorption of electromagnetic radiation.

Okay, exactly what do you understand "warmth" to be and in as precise and detailed a manner as possible, describe how you understand the process of how "an object" absorbs EM photons (as all EM energy is transferred via photons).

I believe we are both in agreement with that basic fact.

we shall see.

Where we split though is at the idea that an object being passively warmed can warm its source of heat.

several clarifications required:

How (and why) are you distinguishing "passively warmed" from actively warmed, ...or just warmed?

What are these "objects" and "sources" composed of?

As precisely and detailed as you can, how is the energy generated, transmitted, and absorbed?

The answers to these questions are very important in quantifying what we are talking about and in clearly understanding what is actually occurring.

First, if an object that is being passively warmed could warm its source of heat, energy could be multiplied simply by placing objects that radiate IR in proximity to each other and let them mutually radiate IR and collect the excess. This is impossible, however, because the mutually exchanged IR cancels, it does not multiply as suggested by the greenhouse hypothesis.

Nothing in the atmospheric greenhouse effect theory suggests, or implies, a multiplication of energy, the actual function is most similar to an insulation that retards the escape of the initially delivered solar energy.

Let me make a quick illustration and ask a question or two and I will stop for the evening and await your response.

Before I begin, pardon the graphics. If I were a graphic designer, I wouldn't be doing the work that I presently do.

To make this simple, lets let object "A" represent a warmer object radiating its energy to an infinite heat sink "C" maintaining a temperature of absolute zero. Now we will add object "B" into the picture. It is within object A's field of radiation so it will be warmed.

I am guessing that we are in agreement to what happens when object "B" is introduced into the picture.

Based on discussions so far, I'm not so sure. My primary concern is that you are making some generalized assumptions in your considerations that only approximate reality under very specialized hypothetical situations that are not consistent with real-world circumstances.

Are these objects composed of discrete atoms?
Are we talking about EM radiations?
How are you defining "warmed"?

At some point, the temperature of object B will come to equilibrium and at that point, object "B" will begin to radiate heat. At this point, object "A" is subject to more radiation than it was before object "B" reached such a temperature as necessary for it to begin radiating energy which was prior to the introduction of object "B" zero.

What is the difference between the radiations of an object at 50 Kelvin and an object at 500 Kelvin?

What leads you to believe that an object must achieve equilibrium before it begins to emit any radiation?

We still together?

That remains to be seen.

Now, if the idea of backradiation is true, cooler object "B" will be able to warm warmer object "A". Object "A" will become warmer, for free, due to the mere presence of object "B". Objects "A" and "B" together will be able to radiate more energy into the pictured universe "C" simply by introducing object "B" into the radiation field of object "A".
Is that your contention? Are you saying that more energy enters into universe "C" simply by putting object "B" into the picture even though object "B" has no source of energy other than object "A".

No, if the only energy in the system is the original energy, no additional energy will be created, but when object A sheds energy it loses some of that original energy, and if some of the energy that B receives and re-emits is directed at A then A will receive that returned energy that it initially emitted. (to stick within the general guidelines of your model)

When a single electron is in an unstable, high, energy state, it emits a photon and drops to a more stable, low energy state. as soon as it emits the photon and transitions to a low energy state, it is then capable of absorbing a new photon and shifting back up into an unstable, high energy state and repeating the process. As far as the electron is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the photon comes from a neighboring atom within the same object, or an atom in a distant object.

But we can explore and discuss this further tomorrow, after I've had some time to ruminate upon the exchange and information so far and examine your responses and comments to this post.

 

[Trakar]

The ice in the water doesn't change the level at all, The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume.
As for balance the south pole ice caps are growing.
Dont tell Chris.

If I grok this accurately, the displacement of water by ice not altering the sea level when it melts claim is true, but only for un-anchored ice. In short, if the ice floats, you are 100% correct.

However, if the ice goes all the way down and gets anchored to the floor, then it only displaces the volume it actually occupies. And when it melts, that additional water WILL have to naturally get added to the sea level.

Of course, I'm not an actual scientist, so maybe it's not just the water that's all wet.

You grok good!

The overwhelming majority of Arctic sea ice is floating, and will not raise sea levels, but the arctic sea ice is only a fraction of the high latitude arctic and subarctic

Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level

Changes in the Velocity Structure of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Glacier changes in the Siberian Altai Mountains, Ob river basin, (1952

Sorry, these are a bit dated, things have accelerated over the last 4-5 years but I'm on the road right now and don't have ready access to my database.

 

[Trakar]

What evidence leads you to believe water has this ability , but no other poly-atomic gas possesses the same capacity?

Experimental evidence. It has to do with water's phases. You can do the experiment yourself on a stove top...

My question was referring to water vapor in the air, which is already in vapor form and thus no different from any other vaporized substance with regards to its phase state. And I was questioning why you believe water vapor has this capacity but that no other vapors possess this capability. Most, if not all, elements exhibit enthalpy of fusion and enthalpy of vaporization charcteristics. We, however, are not talking about phase transition conditions.

Additionally, what leads to to believe that the ability of a gas to "retain heat" has anything to do with the greenhouse effect?

It is the claim being made by some on this board.

I see, I was concerned that you were misunderstanding something I had said.

 

[Old Rocks]

More sources.

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

USGS P 1386-I -- Chile and Argentina - Wet Andes

Glacier Links

 

[Trakar]

Bentwire, that is about a big a load of drivel as I have ever read. All of that BS to avoid the fact that GHGs absorb IR and re-emit it. The energy that would other wise go out into space is absorbed and re-emited, capturing about 50% of the energy that would otherwise be gone.

Tyndall demostrated this 150 years ago.

Actually rocks, he hypothesized it 150 years ago. In all that 150 years though, no experiment has demonstrated any such thing in an open atmosphere.

This is incorrect, Tyndall and later Arrhenius both confirmed in open air and laboratory experiments and precisely quantified and qualified the various GHG gases and their absorption characteristics and their impacts upon (then) current climate conditions.
These experiments and measurements have been run repeatedly throughout the last century and a half or so, and are being run currently in many high schools and universites around the world.