Northern nations warming faster than global average

[jc456]

Nah I get it....but I just posted the other day of Russian scientists ( not affiliated with Trump btw) predicting a coming ice ice for the next 100 years.

Either way....no way to reverse global warming anyway so who cares?

Actually, in his research, the area he is in used to be grasslands because the mammoths kept stomping down the trees. When they went extinct because of being hunted by man, trees started to grow in the area, and it's because of the trees that it's getting warmer up there, as trees hold heat better than open grassland. He thinks that if he can get the place returned to grassland, the winters will start freezing the permafrost again, and will stop greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.

Trees absorb more CO2 than grass, so the trees are better.

You didn't see his research. He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees. While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't. Why? Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground. Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, in his research, the area he is in used to be grasslands because the mammoths kept stomping down the trees. When they went extinct because of being hunted by man, trees started to grow in the area, and it's because of the trees that it's getting warmer up there, as trees hold heat better than open grassland. He thinks that if he can get the place returned to grassland, the winters will start freezing the permafrost again, and will stop greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.

Trees absorb more CO2 than grass, so the trees are better.

You didn't see his research. He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees. While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't. Why? Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground. Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air. Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.

 

[jc456]

Trees absorb more CO2 than grass, so the trees are better.

You didn't see his research. He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees. While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't. Why? Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground. Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air. Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.

prove it. Like what? offer up what it would cause. climate change is vague and doesn't mean jack. climate is always changing. you sir are in fear of CO2, why? have any observed empirical evidence to back your fear?

 

[SSDD]

Trees absorb more CO2 than grass, so the trees are better.

You didn't see his research. He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees. While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't. Why? Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground. Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air. Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.

got any actual observed measured evidence that CO2 causes warming? Any at all? If so, I would dearly love to see it because as far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You didn't see his research. He said that the reason the permafrost was melting was because of the trees. While you might think that trees would be beneficial up there, they aren't. Why? Because bare ground freezes better than tree covered ground. Trees hold in the heat, causing the permafrost to melt,

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air. Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.

got any actual observed measured evidence that CO2 causes warming? Any at all? If so, I would dearly love to see it because as far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Guess you missed the part about methane being released as well, and methane is a greenhouse gas too.

As far as why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Here ya go...................

Carbon Dioxide Is Warming the Planet (Here's How)


The physics of greenhouse gases
Carbon dioxide is no dark-horse candidate for the warming of the atmosphere. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (who would later win the first-ever Nobel Prize for Chemistry) published a paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science that laid out the basics of what's now known as "the greenhouse effect."


The effect is a result of how energy interacts with the atmosphere. Sunlight enters the atmosphere as ultraviolet and visible light; some of this solar energy is then radiated back toward space as infrared energy, or heat. The atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, which are both gases made up of molecules containing two atoms. These tightly bound pairs don't absorb much heat.


But the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane, each have at least three atoms in their molecules. These loosely bound structures are efficient absorbers of the long-wave radiation (also known as heat) bouncing back from the planet's surface. When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface.

Why not?

 

[Billy_Bob]

When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface.

Why not?

As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then transmitted via conduction in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up it will never again see the surface of the earth. Mathematically the odds are 1/100,000,000,000,000,000., also known as slim and none.

 

[SSDD]

so you're saying it has to be cold? ewwwwwww

Yep. What else would you expect from a place that is located in Siberia, above the Arctic Circle?

well yeah, but why can't it be warm? what is it you have against warmer weather around that area?

Because the warmer weather up there is melting the permafrost, and when the permafrost melts it releases a whole bunch of CO2 and methane into the air. Those are 2 things that contribute a great deal to climate change.

got any actual observed measured evidence that CO2 causes warming? Any at all? If so, I would dearly love to see it because as far as I can tell, there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Guess you missed the part about methane being released as well, and methane is a greenhouse gas too.

As far as why is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Here ya go...................

Carbon Dioxide Is Warming the Planet (Here's How)


The physics of greenhouse gases
Carbon dioxide is no dark-horse candidate for the warming of the atmosphere. In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (who would later win the first-ever Nobel Prize for Chemistry) published a paper in the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science that laid out the basics of what's now known as "the greenhouse effect."


The effect is a result of how energy interacts with the atmosphere. Sunlight enters the atmosphere as ultraviolet and visible light; some of this solar energy is then radiated back toward space as infrared energy, or heat. The atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, which are both gases made up of molecules containing two atoms. These tightly bound pairs don't absorb much heat.


But the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane, each have at least three atoms in their molecules. These loosely bound structures are efficient absorbers of the long-wave radiation (also known as heat) bouncing back from the planet's surface. When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

So which part of that do you think is observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

And are you aware that Arrhenius' ideas were debunked? No less than Clausius ( the guy who provided us with the second law of thermodynamics..a German physicist and mathematician and is considered one of the central founders of the science of thermodynamics), Maxwell, the guy who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, bringing together for the first time electricity, magnetism, and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon, and Carnot, a French military scientist and physicist, often described as the "father of thermodynamics" all said that Arrhenius's hypothesis had no merit and was foolishness.

So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere....there are models galore...and everyone seems to "know" that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere...but there isn't the first piece of real evidence to support the claim.

 

[Wuwei]

When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface.

Why not?

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

Billy is quite wrong with his numbers. Back radiation at 3 meters is not attenuated by 1 / 10¹⁷. It would be attenuated by roughly 1/2. However, at above 100 meters, the exponentially drop-off will make it quite small, and for practical purposes, negligible.

Here is the way I look at it.
Above a 100 meters, the CO2 part of the atmosphere is swarming with CO2 in vibration states which are at equilibrium because of the Equipartition of energy. At that altitude the CO2 obtains it's vibration energy from thermal collisions, and has long “forgotten” what was happening nearer the earth surface. At those higher altitudes 15 micron radiation is minimal because collisions are the major energy transfer mechanism. But above the stratosphere, it's a different story when collisions are rare and radiation is the only way for the earth's energy to escape.

However near the earth surface (less than a few dozen meters) the capturing of radiation by GHGs increases the population of the vibration part of the thermal energy, which means that the energy is not equally partitioned anymore, but has an abundance of energy in the vibration mode. In the natural tendency to achieve equilibrium at lower altitudes the excess vibration energy is naturally transferred to kinetic energy of N2 and O2, and other traces gases. The atmosphere near earth thereby heats up. Vibration energy of GHGs near the surface will never be in equilibrium because of Earth's constant radiation outflux. Back radiation also occurs.


.

 

[Wuwei]

So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

You forgot about Foote's experiment which was an observation and measurement of warming due to CO2.

 

[SSDD]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

So as I said, there is no observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

You forgot about Foote's experiment which was an observation and measurement of warming due to CO2.

No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.

 

[Wuwei]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

You misread Billy who said it was a bit player away from the surface a few meters. It is not a bit player in the first several dozen meters.

As far as no back radiation, there is not physical concept that prevents back radiation. We already went through this.

.

No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.

So, ad hominem is your only reply against the observed measured experiment.


.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

You misread Billy who said it was a bit player away from the surface a few meters. It is not a bit player in the first several dozen meters.

As far as no back radiation, there is not physical concept that prevents back radiation. We already went through this.

.

No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.

So, ad hominem is your only reply against the observed measured experiment.


.

Wrong on several counts..

1. The majority of LWIR is absorbed and conducted upward. 99.9% of it. That will not see the surface f the earth again.

2. The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed. Given the items in 1 where 99.9% of that radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. The minute amount that does get lucky enough be re-emitted towards the earth is again absorbed by the atmosphere and swept away.

This is why there is no hot spot in our atmosphere and why the AGW meme fails emperical review.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

Smart emitters are awesome!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

No...Billy is pointing out that radiation is a bit player and that any energy that is absorbed is most often lost to the molecule via collision and the energy is then consigned to be conducted through the atmosphere till it reaches the top of the atmosphere where it is radiated on....there is no back radiation from the atmosphere to the ground except in rare temperature inversions where the ground is colder than the atmosphere.

You misread Billy who said it was a bit player away from the surface a few meters. It is not a bit player in the first several dozen meters.

As far as no back radiation, there is not physical concept that prevents back radiation. We already went through this.

.

No...I remember perfectly how easily you were fooled...funny that you keep bringing up your gullibility as if it were evidence of anything other than that you lack critical thinking skills.

So, ad hominem is your only reply against the observed measured experiment.


.

Wrong on several counts..

1. The majority of LWIR is absorbed and conducted upward. 99.9% of it. That will not see the surface f the earth again.

2. The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed. Given the items in 1 where 99.9% of that radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. The minute amount that does get lucky enough be re-emitted towards the earth is again absorbed by the atmosphere and swept away.

This is why there is no hot spot in our atmosphere and why the AGW meme fails emperical review.

The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed.

Don't tell SSDD that photons can travel from cool air toward the warmer surface.

 

[Wuwei]

1. The majority of LWIR is absorbed and conducted upward. 99.9% of it. That will not see the surface f the earth again.

You really have to be more clear. Your sentence says LWIR is both absorbed and conducted. Exactly what is conducted? Certainly not the radiation itself.

2. The remaining amount that might get re-radiated can not pass 3 meters without being reabsorbed. Given the items in 1 where 99.9% of that radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. The minute amount that does get lucky enough be re-emitted towards the earth is again absorbed by the atmosphere and swept away.

Again you say radiation is swept away by convection and conduction. How can radiation be “swept”?

Furthermore, why is surface radiation that reaches one meter, for example, impeded from back radiation through that same one meter. There is a reciprocity in the LWIR absorption in both directions.



.

 

[IanC]

Todd asked me to respond to BillyBoob's statement.

First off, it is imprecise in important areas and is falsely overprecise in other areas.

He does not define which wavelengths of LWIR he is discussing. A significant fraction of surface emitted radiation simply leaves at tje speed of light without interacting with the atmosphere .

I presume he is describing 15 micron radiation which is emitted by the surface as part of the blackbody radiation. This has a mean free path of two meters at STP. Therefore it is attenuated by roughly 75% at 3 metres going up, and would be attenuated the same amount going down from emitting CO2 molecules. Other GHGs have different mean free paths but act in the same way.

The energy absorbed near the surface remains in the atmosphere until it returns to the surface, or until it migrates high into air to a point whete it can be emitted to spacr without being reabsorbed . These are the only choices.

While this energy is contained by the atmosphere it can be measured as temperature and density. The amount of energy stored is related to the amount gained from the warm surface minus the amount lost at the cold emission height. The warmer atmosphere causes the surface to warm by altering the equilibria of various pathways, until the surface is putting out enough radiation through the Atmospheric Window to make up for the radiation captured by the GHGs.

These main points should be simple enough for just about anyone to understand. Unfortunately phase change by H2O throws a monkey wrench into the works. While it does not alter the radiation aspect very much, it does alter heat transport.

 

[ABikerSailor]

When the molecules in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases re-emit this long-wave radiation back toward Earth's surface, the result is warming.

Any molecule emitting LWIR above 3 meters will never reach the earths surface. You really dont know the physics involved and you like to remain ignorant..

Dude, you are quoting the article that I posted written by a scientist. I'm not the one that made the claims, I just posted what the scientists had to say about it.