Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

LaDexter

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
831
Points
290
WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.


Asked about Bastardi’s statements, Kerry Emanuel of MIT said: “Utter rubbish. Sorry to be so direct, but that is just the case.” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt added: “Bastardi is attempting to throw out 150 years of physics.” “He seems very confused,” said physicist Richard Muller.


Bastardi may be hoping that when delivered confidently, terms like “specific gravity” and “radiative processes” can convince Fox’s viewers that he knows what he’s talking about. But don’t be fooled; he is again garbling the very basics of climate science.


That's what THE ACTUAL RAW DATA has said ALL ALONG... specifically the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE even as CO2 rose from 270ppm to 400... or 1 in 3000 atmospheric molecules is now CO2...
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,750
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.


Asked about Bastardi’s statements, Kerry Emanuel of MIT said: “Utter rubbish. Sorry to be so direct, but that is just the case.” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt added: “Bastardi is attempting to throw out 150 years of physics.” “He seems very confused,” said physicist Richard Muller.


Bastardi may be hoping that when delivered confidently, terms like “specific gravity” and “radiative processes” can convince Fox’s viewers that he knows what he’s talking about. But don’t be fooled; he is again garbling the very basics of climate science.


That's what THE ACTUAL RAW DATA has said ALL ALONG... specifically the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE even as CO2 rose from 270ppm to 400... or 1 in 3000 atmospheric molecules is now CO2...
Bs, You'd have to be telling me that we have seen no warming the past 150 years to say what you're saying. So we're still deep in the little ice age, right? lol Oregon use to see 3-4 times as much snow in winter during the 19th century and the winters were much colder. I could point out dozens of areas on our globe that have also without a doubt have warmed...Joe Bastardi is a ok hurricane met but he doesn't know shit about climate.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
Just wonder if you think the atmosphere is a black body?
of course it isnt.

is the Sun a blackbody?

speaking of the Sun, is the surface just the top of the atmosphere? some people here have been talking about the Sun's corona as if that was the sun's 'atmosphere'. what a ridiculous comparison.
I remember reading about black bodies and radiating. You need that. So ho does a non black body radiate?

nothing is a perfect blackbody. there are practically countless links to blackbody definitions and lectures. I suggest you read some more of them. the wikipedia page includes this quote-

Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in mutual thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[21][22] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[23]
this is totally opposite to what SSDD is proposing. emission is solely determined by its own internal state. got that? no smart photons, no smart emitters.

it is interesting that quantum mechanics evolved from a 'quick fix' to make thermodynamics consistent.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
1,371
Points
275
Location
N/A
So, Ian, have you seen some of these new ideas? One seems to be that CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn't emit it and eventually gets so hot that it rises by buoyancy and attains escape velocity, carrying it's little packet of thermal energy into the depths of outer space and COOLING the Earth. This is proven by the equation E=1/2*mv^2, or so I am told.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,303
Reaction score
7,222
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Amazing how total ignoramouses like jc, SSDD, and LaDexter actually believe that they are smarter than all the Phd's in physics, chemistry, and geology. LOL
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
83,399
Reaction score
6,216
Points
1,815
Amazing how total ignoramouses like jc, SSDD, and LaDexter actually believe that they are smarter than all the Phd's in physics, chemistry, and geology. LOL
Cause if I were one I'd have test results and so they are useless
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
1,371
Points
275
Location
N/A
Over 12,000 peer reviewed studies have been published in the last 20 years whose results support anthropogenic global warming.

What have YOU got?
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
So, Ian, have you seen some of these new ideas? One seems to be that CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn't emit it and eventually gets so hot that it rises by buoyancy and attains escape velocity, carrying it's little packet of thermal energy into the depths of outer space and COOLING the Earth. This is proven by the equation E=1/2*mv^2, or so I am told.

I have scolded SSDD, jc and billybob for some of their more outrageous statements. I wish I could give them to your side.

that said, some of their statements have important ideas hidden inside them, camouflaged by bullshit. eg. gravity and solar input being the most important factors in determining surface temperature. I wish one of them would start up a thread about that sort of thing and put some effort into defending it.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
1,371
Points
275
Location
N/A
Gravity an input into determining surface temperature? Could you explain that one? Atmospheric density vis-a-vis heat transfer?
 
Last edited:

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
Gravity an input into determining surface temperature? Could you explain that one? Atmospheric density vis-a-vis heat transfer?

not my topic. I dont like to comment too much on stuff that I havent though through enough.

solar input has been stored in the atmosphere, both directly and indirectly by the surface. half the energy as kinetic and half as potential energy in the gravity field. that energy is what allows back radiation to warm the surface. there are lots of nuances that could make a big difference.

eg Gas Laws are an idealization. so does it make a difference that the molecules are being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 downward to the surface? does heat flow more easily in one direction than the other? I dont know, but it could be interesting to talk about.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
1,371
Points
275
Location
N/A
Where do you get half and half? 90% of that incoming solar energy is stored in the incompressible oceans.

And, as I pointed out earlier, with no net vertical motion, the gravity field is doing no work on the atmosphere.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
Where do you get half and half? 90% of that incoming solar energy is stored in the incompressible oceans.

And, as I pointed out earlier, with no net vertical motion, the gravity field is doing no work on the atmosphere.

????

why are you bringing up oceans when we are talking about the atmosphere and the role gravity takes on it?

first off, just to get people to understand the basic principle...what would happen to the atmosphere if the solar input was cut off completely? the atmosphere would still be radiating but it would cool off quickly and start to decrease in altitude. this would continue until all the energy was dissappated into space and the gases were just a frozen crust on the surface. faint memories of physics from 40 years ago makes me think that the energy in the atmosphere was stored half and half between kinetic energy (temperature) and potential energy (height in a gravity field). feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.

all atmospheres moderate the temperature swings, and lead to a higher average surface temp. GHGs (leave out water for now) change the temperature profile. closer to the surface the temp increases, closer to the top it is easier to radiate away heat so it is cooler.

adding water not only adds a greenhouse gas but it also adds another pathway for energy to flow via latent heat and convection.

back to gravity.... if you want to warm the atmosphere then half of the energy needed goes into increased potential energy. the atmosphere does puff up during the daytime and relaxes again at night. the gravity field is an integral part of storing energy in the atmosphere, which in turn radiates and sends some back to the surface


BTW this tack was yet another way I tried to dissuade SSDD from his smart photon theory. if the emitter and receptor have the same kinetic energy but one is higher in the gravity field, does it count towards 'energy only moves high to low states'? he, of course, never acknowledged the question.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
after giving it some thought, the simplistic Kinetic energy plus Potential energy = Total energy doesnt really cut it because there are other forms of energy involved such as rotational, vibrational and excitational. and the gravitational field changes strength (slightly).

as a naive first estimate, it is probably pretty good though.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
1,371
Points
275
Location
N/A
From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators. PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic. Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators. PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic. Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.

specifically I think it came from an old physics question on mercury sloshing in a u-tube, or maybe even a swing going up and down.

there are also equations that delve into the most efficient way to store energy between K and P. I'll try and find an example when I have time.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators. PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic. Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.

very interesting topic! the exchange between kinetic and potential energy is behind just about everything that happens in the atmosphere.

while I have not found a specific citation that explicitly states that for a general atmosphere half of the energy is kinetic and the other half is potential, I have seen quite a few clues that that is probably the case.

one of the more interesting ones is that Saturn's moon Titan has an atmosphere yet our Moon does not, even though their gravity is quite similar.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,268
Reaction score
613
Points
255
This is a comment on the relation of kinetic and potential energy in the atmosphere at different heights.

Calculating Kinetic Energy in an Ideal Gas - For Dummies
The total energy of an ideal gas is

The barometric pressure is
Where h is the height. Sorry for the huge font. That's the way it comes in
The Barometric Formula

Using the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nrT, we can express the barometric pressure in terms of V and T. If we look at a specific volume Vo, say one cubic meter, for two different heights, 0 and h, the barometric pressure can be expressed as

Th (nR/Vo) = To (nR/Vo) exp(-mgh/kTh)
nR/Vo cancels on both sides of the equation. Substituting the KEtotal of the ideal gas law. The 3/2 nR will also cancel on both sides of the equation so that.
KE at height =h, T = Th = KE at height =0, T=To exp(-mgh/kTh)
This formula assumes a constant temperature at all heights, so actually To = Th.

Compare that to the easier to derive potential energy which is given by the weight times height. The two energies are not a simple linear relation.


If you want the the formula for a real atmosphere you have to use the measured lapse rate, which also affects the barometric pressure formula. To do that you have to redo the calculus to calculate the barometric formula and include a simple equation for the lapse rate, otherwise it would have to be done with a numeric integration. You are on your own.
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top