Recent Comments

Prev  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  Next

Comments 126901 to 126950:

126901. shawnhet at 13:47 PM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, I don't understand your point. I think we more or less agree up until the point where you calculate (for all practical purposes) how much energy would be absorbed if we peeled the "skin" off the Earth and stretched it out into a disk equi-distant to the sun(than it is now). The fact is your value as presented has no physical meaning. The Earth does have a night period and a day period and the energy of the Earth as a whole must take this into account. If you want to calculate the maximum insolation received by some portion of the Earth for some portion of the day, that's great, but it needs to be placed in some kind of context to have any meaning to the behavior of the Earth as a whole(IOW it has to be averaged or distributed somehow). IAC, your post to me has two different equations to allow you to derive the temperature of the Earth and they must be mutually contradictory(when you equate the 2 expressions for TE, you end up with D=2D such that D cannot equal 0). Cheers, :)
126902. Craig Allen at 13:28 PM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        NASA now has a site for neat summaries of the data - http://climate.nasa.gov
126903. Gord at 13:01 PM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        shawnhet - re: your post#54 No, I'm not "off base". The Spherical Earth receives Solar Flux at an angle at all points except the Equator. It is only the vector portion of the flux that is 'normal' to the surface that will cause heating. All 'normals' to a spherical surface will be on a line passing through the center of the sphere. When you Integrate Solar Flux over the Spherical surface (this is called a surface Integral) facing the Sun, it is done by using a projection of the sphere onto a 2D plane. This projection is a disk (actually a circle) that has an Area = Pi X Radius^2. It will produce a Solar Flux density averaged over the disk with no variations for the Equator or any lattitude. You can see the development of this equation here: The Solar Radiation received by the Earth (modelled as a disk, a projection of a sphere onto a 2D plane) represents an average flux density over the entire spherical surface facing the Sun. This quantity is called PEabs, the average solar energy absorbed by the Earth facing the Sun. The emitted energy uses the Earth as a sphere. This is called PEemt. The two quantities are then equated and this equation is the result: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 So this equation represents the Solar Energy received by a disk Earth facing the Sun and emitted by a fully spherical Earth. TE is an average Night and Day temperature in absence of an atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body ------------ To get the equation for the Earth as a sphere one just has to substitute the area of a sphere A = 4 X Pi X Radius^2 in place of A = Pi X Radius^2. And, you get this equation: TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) This will give the temp for Max Solar energy at the Earth's equator...not an average Earth temp. Hope this helps.
126904. Gord at 12:50 PM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Steve - re:your post #56 Geez Steve, what other energy source other than the Sun, is capable of heating the Earth to +15 deg C ? It just takes a "piddly" 390 w/m^2 X Surface Area of The Earth = 390 w/m^2 X 4 X Pi X Radius^2 = 390 X 4 X Pi X (6.371 x 10^6)^2 = 1.99 X 10^17 watts....that's all. Any Ideas? -------------- Here are some Calculations for Mars and Venus. Venus "The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface..." Surface temp (mean) 735K or 461.85 deg C It has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus Mars, atmosphere "The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth." It has an atmosphere that is composed of 95.3% CO2. The surface temp is about 250K or -23 deg C. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html Solar Constants Venus (2647 w/m^2 - 2576 w/m^2)= average of 2611.5 w/m^2 Mars (715 w/m^2 - 492 w/m^2)= average of 603.5 w/m^2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant Heating due to the Solar Constants/4 using Stephan Boltzman Law and (albedo = 0): Venus = 327.58 K or +54.43 deg C Black body temp. Mars = 227.12 K or -46.03 deg C Black body temp. With the addition of an atmosphere the temp increases are: Venus = 735K - 327.58K = 407.42K (461.85 C - 54.43 C = 407.42 deg C) Mars = 250K - 227.12K = 22.88K (-23 deg C -(-46.03 C)= 23 deg C) It should be obvious that Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere (96.5% and 95.3%) yet their temperature increases due to the addition of an atmosphere vary by 407.42 deg C - 23 deg C = 384.42 deg C! CO2 obviously does NOT have any effect on the temperature increases of these planets. The Ideal Gas Law PV = RT gives the general relationship between Pressure P and temperature T. Venus has a much larger atmospheric pressure than Mars thus the Venus temperature is much higher than Mars! CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with these planetary temperatures! ---------------------- Re: Your link: http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html I take it that you want me to explain the "Measurements of downward longwave radiation" ? Well, I have already done that. See my post #16, where I show: "All the Instruments used to measure the so called "Greenhouse Effect" prove that it does not exist! They use IR detectors that have been COOLED far below the -20 deg C atmosphere temperature to make the direct measurement POSSIBLE." I then give the Specs's for the AIRS Instrument and TES Instrument and their IR Detector COOLING temperatures that make the direct Back Radiation measurements possible. Then look at my Post #18 where I provide a link to a paper and measurements done by the Physics Dept. of Brigham Young University proving that Back Radiation cannot reach the Earth. ----------------- Now it's YOUR TURN to provide some very basic answers. 1. Please supply ANY Law of Science that supports the "Greenhouse Effect" and AGW. 2. Please supply ANY Measurement that shows that CO2 in a Colder Atmosphere can Heat up a Warmer Earth. 3. Please describe (and back-up by Physics) how a -20 deg C atmosphere can heat a -18 deg C Earth up by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C. There has been over $200 Billion spent on AGW, there are thousands of papers on AGW, the IPCC has written several reports on it and countless "Scientists" say AGW is real. So, this should a "snap" for you to produce....right? Good Luck!
126905. Gord at 12:46 PM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re:your post #55 You said... "1. The greenhouse effect doesn't violate the 2nd law, since the suppression of radiative dissipation of thermal energy from the surface by back radiation from a cooler atmosphere, doesn't require (as you assert) a flow of heat from a colder (atmosphere) to a warmer body (the surface)." First, there is no "suppression" of radiated energy from the Earth by the Atmosphere. The Radiation occurs at the speed of light and ALL the Earth's Radiation (390 w/m^2) is radiated to cold space....without "suppression"! ------ Second, the "Greenhouse Effect" links say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona “In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere — for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.” http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html The Greenhouse Effect “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html Both examples violate the 2nd Law because there is heat energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth. The above Greenhouse Effect links describe a Perpetual Motion Machine, actually a Perpetual Motion Machine in a Positive Feedback Loop. --------- Third, Trenberth's Energy Budget Diagram clearly shows 324 w/m^2 of Back Radiation from the Colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by a warmer Earth surface ! http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! --------- Fourth, John Cook's response to my very first Post #15 said: "Response: The atmosphere doesn't create energy. Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared energy, preventing some of it from escaping out to space. The absorbed infrared energy is then reemitted in all directions, some of it heading back to Earth where it warms the surface. It's not an argument or a theory that CO2 causes global warming. It's an experimentally observed physical reality." Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! ---------------------- It is obvious that YOU don't understand the Greenhouse Effect, no matter how many times it is shown to you! And, it is YOU that is uses "False Logic" and YOUR argument "fundamentally fails" because it's based on "semantic confusion of heat and radiation." !! ----------------------- Next, You said... "2. The accumulation of thermal energy in the earth system under a positive radiative imbalance obviously doesn't require the "creation of energy". Your non-sequiter ("the sun is the ONLY energy source"...therefore increased thermal energy in the climate system under radiative imbalance is "a violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy") is just silly...it's equivalent to asserting that the analogy of water flowing through a reservoir under constrained outflow (my posts #41 and #43) requires "creation of mass", when nothing is being "created"; the thermal energy (or water) is simply accumulating." There is NO OTHER Energy source besides the SUN! Proof: If the Sun were removed, the Earth and Atmosphere would rapidly cool to near absolute zero!! Your argument is the same as saying your MP3 player will continue to operate when the battery is removed !! Geez, this is as fundamental as it gets. Read the Greenhouse Effect links above, they ALL create energy ! Is 390 w/m^2 of Earth Radiation greater than the 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy heating the Earth? A CLEAR CREATION OF ENERGY! Trenberth's Energy Budget claims that the Sun, Earth and Atmosphere ARE IN RADIATIVE BALANCE ! That's why he claimes that the in-coming 235 w/m^2 of Solar Energy is BALANCED by the 235 w/m^2 out-going IR radiation ! Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR RANT ! And, The Law of Conservation CANNOT EVER be VIOLATED...no matter how "silly" you think Laws of Science are. ----------------------------- Like I said... You just provide your "OPINIONS" ! Face the FACTS: - You have not produced ANY argument for my posts based on any Physics! - ALL your posts are just your "opinions" with ZERO Back-up. You should spend more time reading the Laws of Science and getting your facts straight before babbling your uninformed "opinions". HAHAHA...you are hilarious!
126906. thingadonta at 11:09 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 has been higher in the past
        One important point: Isn't C02 concentration in the atmosphere strongly correlated with ocean temperatures at the time: ie: the oceans absorbs more c02 when the oceans, and the earth is cooler, and the oceans realease c02 as they warms/the earth is warmer? (A simple water temperature-c02 solubility relationship). The correlations in earth history between c02 concentration in the atmosphere and earth temperatures given above, therefore, are at least in part simply a reflection of this ocean temperature/c02 concentration relationship. Correlation is not causation. Therefore, the important issue is establishing to what effect earth temperature drives ocean temperature which then drives c02, and not the other way around. (This is also the reason c02 lags temperature rises at the end of ice ages by several hundred years (something Al Gore forgot to mention) the oceans take longer to warm and then release their c02).
        Response: You're correct that correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. Causation comes from our high understanding of the radiative forcing from CO2. Reinforced by observations of the enhanced greenhouse effect. So from this, we determine the radiative forcing from CO2, calculate the radiative forcing from the sun and work out their combined effect on climate.
        
        Does CO2 drive temperature or the other way around? Both actually. But this is not the question addressed in Royer 2006. The focus is the measured CO2 levels and the radiative forcing they would impose on the climate - is the forcing consistent with temperature records?
        
        I imagine the GEOCARB carbon cycle model used would examine what drives CO2 so he possibly goes into more detail about the carbon cycle in previous papers (here's a complete list of his research complete with PDF links).
126907. NewYorkJ at 10:59 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        "So bringing it all together, there are two reasons for the focus on CO2: 1. CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing 2. CO2 radiative forcing is increasing faster than any other forcing" Wouldn't a third reason be the atmospheric life of CO2 compared with say, methane? A little more than a decade for methane. A few centuries for CO2 at least, or perhaps tens of milleniums for a portion of it, according to other studies... http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1265r6548477378/
        Response: Good point and thanks for the link. Of course, there are other reasons for the focus on CO2, not the least being we're the ones causing the CO2 rise and unless we stop CO2 emissions, the radiative forcing will only increase. But I've learned through experience to keep the "take home points" from each post down to just one or two concise points. Trying to say too much reduces the impact of the message.
126908. Riccardo at 10:52 AM on 27 October 2009
        How do we know CO2 is causing warming?
        Henry Pool, "Sorry Tom, but the same also applies to what your friend said. If they say the cooling effect is next to nothing then I can also say the radiation being blocked from earth must be next to nothing." Being called into question as a friend of Tom (my honour :)), I will try again in a different way to clarify the different behaviour of sunlight and infrared with respect to CO2. I'll use some aproximate numbers (let me keep just a couple of decimal digits) that appears to be what you are looking for. We have sunlight coming in, similar to blackbody radiation at temperature T=5250 K: 1) no scattering; we have the opinion of a physicist of the atmosphere (i'm not). You could also google for Rayleigh scattering if you like. 2) no absorption in the visible 3) absorption in the IR. Even assuming that it's totally absorbed by CO2 in the main band at 600 cm^-1, it is roughly 10^-5 of the total incoming energy. We can safely call it zero. Infrared emitted toward space: 4) no scattering again 5) absorption by CO2, about 1.7 W/m2 more than a century and something ago. Hence, the net forcing is 1.7 W/m2. That's schematically it. You will not agree with one (or more) of these points. Tell us which, maybe it will be easier to understand what is your point. "We do not want stories that nobody can verify. We want actual figures. From actual measurements. Taken during actual experiments." You can verify all of the five points above. But do not look in climate papers, you will not find anything usefull there. It's pretty old and well established 19th century physics and for sure oil companies will not pay a penny for this research ;)
126909. Steve L at 08:57 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, I didn't insist that the atmosphere acted just like a blanket; I said the fact that colder blankets can help you stay warm stomps on the simplistic idea that the Sun is the only factor governing temperature. You didn't take the time to follow the link the I supplied indicating that I'm not saying "the atmosphere is a blanket". And apparently you didn't bother to read the rest of the textbook or Atmoz's blogs to see why the greenhouse effect is real, despite being poorly named and despite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. By the way, how are your calculations coming for explaining the relative surface temperatures of Mercury, Venus, and Earth? And come to think of it, here's another thing for you to explain: http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
126910. chris at 08:39 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        re #52, Not really Gord. We've already seen that your two fundamental assertions are based on false logic: 1. The greenhouse effect doesn't violate the 2nd law, since the suppression of radiative dissipation of thermal energy from the surface by back radiation from a cooler atmosphere, doesn't require (as you assert) a flow of heat from a colder (atmosphere) to a warmer body (the surface). However much you attempt to dress it up with false logic, your "argument" fundamentslly fails since it's based on a semantic confusion of heat and radiation. 2. The accumulation of thermal energy in the earth system under a positive radiative imbalance obviously doesn't require the "creation of energy". Your non-sequiter ("the sun is the ONLY energy source"...therefore increased thermal energy in the climate system under radiative imbalance is "a violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy") is just silly...it's equivalent to asserting that the analogy of water flowing through a reservoir under constrained outflow (my posts #41 and #43) requires "creation of mass", when nothing is being "created"; the thermal energy (or water) is simply accumulating.
126911. shawnhet at 08:33 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        "If you treat the Earth as a sphere for the Solar Flux you get this equation:" Gord, respectfully, you're **way** off base. The amount of light shining on a sphere is exactly the same as if there were a disk continually facing the light source(if you take a photograph of a sphere it will always look like a disk). Your equation might make sense if there was no such thing as nighttime on any part of the Earth, though. Cheers, :)
126912. Gord at 08:10 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Does anybody here understand any Physics? Take the time to go through my posts, and make a reasonable argument based on FACTS and PHYSICS. Opinions are just "ranting". I will be back later.
126913. Gord at 08:00 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Steve - re: your Post #50 The Blanket analogy is false: Do Greenhouse Gases Act As Blankets? http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/08/08/do-greenhouse-gases-act-as-blankets/ Further, right from an on-line AGW Physics textbook... Fundamentals of atmospheric radiation By Craig F. Bohren, Eugene Edmund Clothiaux "....This is yet another reason why assertions about "atmosphere acting like a blanket" are absurd" http://tinyurl.com/lp483t
126914. Gord at 07:59 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re:your post#49 Funny that you use phrases like this: - "pseudophysics approach combined with false logic" What "pseudophysics" and What "false logic" ??? I am the one providing BACK-UP Links to the Physics to support everything I say. You just provide your "OPINIONS" ! Face the FACTS: - You have not produced ANY argument for my posts based on any Physics! - ALL your posts are just your "opinions" with ZERO Back-up. HAHAHA...you are hilarious!
126915. Gord at 07:41 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re: your post #46 Here is how the AGW'ers calculate the -18 deg C Earth temperature. - This site uses 5778K for the temperature of the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body - The equation relating the Earth temp and Sun temp (with the Earth as a disk) is: TE = TS (((1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/(2*D))^0.5 Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Gives TE = 254.90 K or -18.25 deg C ----------------------- If you treat the Earth as a sphere for the Solar Flux you get this equation: TE = TS ( ( (1-a)^0.5 * Rs)/D) ) )^0.5) This will give the temp for Max Solar energy at the Earth's equator...not an average Earth temp. Where TE is blackbody temp of the Earth in K TS is the surface temp of the SUN in K = 5778 Rs is radius of the Sun = 6.96X10^8 D is distance between the Sun and Earth in m = 1.496X10^11 a is albedo of the Earth = 0.3 Result: TE = 360.49 K or 87.34 deg C!! That's the energy that the Ocean can store at the equator and distribute over the Earth by conduction.
126916. Steve L at 07:31 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord #40, I asked you to explain why the Earth's temperature is warmer than calculated when ignoring the greenhouse effect. It's your turn to answer (and show your work), not mine. You might also want to explain the difference between temperatures of Venus and Earth while you're at it, and the difference between Mercury and Venus too. If you don't like the blanket analogy, go here: http://www.grist.org/article/greenhouse-theory-violates-the-laws-of-thermodynamics But I like the blanket analogy because it shows that increased insulation works to slow the loss of heat from something hot (even though the insulation is cooler than the hot thing).
126917. chris at 07:22 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        re #45, come on Gord...why not drop the sales patter and just address the rather simple observations (radiative imbalance, accumulation of energy; mountain streams and reservoirs and accumlation of water). You've shown that it's easy to create the impression of confusion by using a pseudophysics approach combined with false logic. We're quite impressed with your abilities there in fact, and if I had one of those "clappy" smiley things you get on some blogs, I'd use it here. However, it's not helpful when talking about simple observations of the effects of perturbations of equilibria with respect to fluxes (radiative; water flows; or biochemical reactions for that matter) to launch into the physics of pendulums (or is it pendula - which sounds rather rude!). You obviously know enough physics to be able to misuse it with alacrity. Very good. But you simply are not going to overturn physical reality with syllogisms... Still, you have managed to hijack an interesting thread, and perhaps that's your aim...
126918. chris at 07:20 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        O.K Gord, but if you mean "sea surface temperature at the equator", you really shouldn't say: "The Oceans can store energy. They have stored enough energy to heat them up to about +29 deg C." Because the oceans have certainly not stored enough energy to heat them to 29 oC! In any case, you still haven't answered the question of where that thermal energy has come from that has accumulated in the oceans...
126919. Gord at 07:10 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re: your post #44 You said... "incidentally, I don't think the oceans have stored enough energy to heat them to "about +29 oC". The average ocean temperature is surely more like a few degrees (perhapas 4 oC on average)." Think again. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY See the Sea Surface Temperature (Mean)(2nd row first graph) for the Ocean temperature at the equator. The mean Sea Surface Temperature IS 29 deg C at the Equator. (If you take the area under the curve with AutoCad the average temp occurs at a 40 deg latitude and the temperature is 18.7 deg C.) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/hh1996/ocean.html
126920. chris at 07:04 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        re #42 There's a certain illogic in your assertions about the inability of the climate system to accumulate energy Gord. After all you seem comfortable with the fact that the oceans are rather cosy (at least at the surface at low latitudes). They seem to have a considerably higher temperature (more thermal energy), than they should have based on the earths blackbody temperature under the influence of the solar radiation. The solar flux should give the earth a temperature around 255K. So where has this massive amount of excess thermal energy come from that keeps us so cosy? After all energy can't be created (that would be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy!!!!!!). How can that be Gord? Why is our world so cosy? According to your sales patter it can't have accumulated! So what's going on there?
126921. Gord at 06:59 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re:#43 Look Chris, the fact is that you can't get more energy out of system than is put in. You can only transform potential energy to Kinetic energy and vice-versa. A capactitor in a battery powered electric circuit can store energy but it can't store more energy than what the battery provides...EVER! Another example is A swinging Pendulum. Assume Friction, air pressure etc = 0 1) The pendulum is initally at rest. 2) The pendulum is raised to a height h. 3) The pendulum now has a potential energy PE = mgh (where m = mass, g = acceleration due to gravity and h = height) 4) The pendulum is released and some Potential Energy (PE) is converted to Kinetic Energy (KE) and the pendulum starts moving. 5) The pendulum will complete it's swing and be at height h again. It's Potential Energy it started out with = the Potential Energy it finished with and energy has been conserved. 6) But, as the pendulum swings, at each and every point of its swing energy is conserved. PE + KE = mgh. Do you see what I mean? There cannot be a violation of conservation of energy AT ANY POINT during it's swing! The analogy with the Energy Budget diagrams is pretty obvious. The Solar Radiation IN = Radiation OUT at the TOA is equivalent to the iniital h = final h which complies with Conservation of Energy. But, what the Energy Budget diagrams show is a complete violation of conservation of energy between these two points! The ONLY energy available for the pendulum comes from lifting it to height h. This produces PE = mgh of energy and that is ALL the energy available. As the pendulum swings it is converting PE to KE thus reducing PE, but PE + KE = mgh ALWAYS applies. It is IMPOSSIBLE for PE or KE to EXCEED mgh! In the case of the in-coming Solar energy at the TOA = 342 w/m^2 this is the ONLY energy available just like mgh is for the pendulum. Nothing below the TOA can EVER EXCEED 342 w/m^2. Now, as the 342 w/m^2 propagates toward the Earth, it loses some energy due to atmospheric absorbtion (67 w/m^2) leaving 275 w/m^2 available for use. This is just like the pendulum converting some of it's energy to KE leaving mgh - KE available for use. The 275 w/m^2 is further reduced because 107 w/m^2 is reflected leaving 168 w/m^2 to be absorbed by the Earth's surface. That's ALL the energy that was left, yet the Earth radiates 390 w/m^2 ! This is even MORE energy than the 342 w/m^2....the ONLY energy available at the start! In fact it is 1.14 times the energy we started with. In the pendulum analogy it would be like saying PE + KE = 1.14 X mgh, an obvious violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy!
126922. chris at 06:55 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        incidentally, I don't think the oceans have stored enough energy to heat them to "about +29 oC". The average ocean temperature is surely more like a few degrees (perhapas 4 oC on average).
126923. chris at 06:44 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        The extra water in the reservoir, Gord, which accumulates when the cross section of the outflow pipe is reduced. This water wasn't created. It accumulated. Rather like the accumulation of thermal energy in the climate system (oceans, surface, atmosphere) under the influence of positive radiative imbalance. Just as the flux of the mountain stream is "ALL the water you have", so the solar radiation is the flux of all the energy you have. However under an imbalance (radiative in the case of the greenhouse effect; frictional in the case of the reduced cross-section of the outflow, combined with water surface tension), there is a temporary drop in the flow out of the system (climate system, or reservoir in the case of the anology) and a build up of thermal energy (in the climate system) or water mass (in the reservoir), until a "pressure" (thermal or real pressure!) is achieved that allows a rebalancing of the in and outflows. It's not rocket science Gord...it's extremely basic physics. I really don't think you're going to sell any notions here about overturning laws of thermodynamics! Physical laws cannot be countered by semantic mangling and syllogisms...
126924. Gord at 06:30 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re:your post #41 Chris, see my post #27 The Oceans can store energy. They have stored enough energy to heat them up to about +29 deg C, and the average temp (at a 40 deg lat.) is about +19 deg C. The Atmosphere has only stored enough energy to heat it up to -20 deg C! That's IT! You can't "accumulate" MORE Energy than what is available ! It's not "dodgy logic"....it is a FACT!...AND A LAW OF SCIENCE! ---------------------- Re: your mountain stream. The water coming down the Mountain Stream is ALL the water you have! You can Reduce the flow of water...that's all. What "extra water" are you talking about?
126925. chris at 06:05 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        #38 Not really Gord. The fact that the earth's temperature rises under the influence of an enhanced greenhouse effect requires neither a violation of the 2nd law (since the radiation of the atmosphere slows down the rate of energy dissipation from the surface without requiring a flow of heat from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface), nor the "creation of energy". The temporary slow down in the dissipation of thermal energy from the surface results in the accumulation of energy in the climate system (atmosphere, surface, oceans), until the elements of the system warm up sufficiently to re-establish equilibrium between solar radiation and dissipated radiation to space. So energy accumulates. Let's not pretend that you can overturn the laws of physics by dodgy logic and semantic confusion Gord! You like analogies, so here's one: Water flows down from a mountain stream to fill a reservoir, further flow from which occurs from an opening in the dam below the surface of the water. The flow of the stream is constant and an equilibrium situation is reached where inflow and outflow through a narrow cross section pipe is balanced and the reservoir level is constant. Now we reduce the cross sectional area of the outflow even further. The volume of water in the reservoir increases somewhat until a pressure is reached such that a new equilibrium is achieved, with inflow balanced by outflow. Where did that extra water come from? Was it "created"accumulated. It accumulated until a sufficient pressure was reached that the outflow again became equal to the inflow.
126926. Gord at 05:54 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Steve....re:Your Post #37 Yes, the Blanket traps warm air between the body and blanket....it DOES NOT INCREASE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BODY! The body DROPPED in temperature from +33 deg C to +28 deg C !...because the Body supplied energy to heat the blanket up! Just like the 2nd Law says will happen. The Atmosphere as a Blanket is foolish because the Blanket is -20 deg C ! Wrap that blanket around your +33 deg C body and see how much it heats you up! ------------------ Likewise, wrap a -20 deg Atmospheric Blanket around a -18 deg C Earth and just like the human body DROPPED in temperature from +33 deg C to +28 deg C, the Earth's temperature will DROP !.....not increase in temperature by 33 deg C to a whopping +15 deg C! It's called a violation of the 2nd Law and it requires Creation of Energy...a violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy! --------------------- Please explain how atmospheric CO2 (the atmosphere has a -20 deg C average temp) can cause the Earth's temperature of -18 deg C (caused by the SUN, the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE) to heat up by a whopping 33 deg C to +15 deg C? Please supply your explaination along with the Laws of Science that support your answer. Good Luck!
126927. RSVP at 05:28 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Thanks be to Gord!
126928. Gord at 05:28 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - re:your post #25 Chris said... "The pertinent point is that a body radiating thermal energy in the path of a hotter body will slow down the rate of loss of heat from the warmer body, even if it is cooler." Wrong. Radiating thermal energy is accomplished by Propagating Electromagnetic Fields. Electromagnetic Fields are Vector Fields and they travel at the speed of light. The warmer Earth radiates 390 w/m^2 and heats up the atmosphere to -20 deg C. The atmosphere radiates 324 w/m^2 in all directions. Between the Earth and Atmosphere the resultant EM field is (390-324) 66 w/m^2 in an upward direction. Past the atmosphere the Resultant EM field is 66 w/m^2 PLUS 324 w/m^2 for a total of 390 w/m^2 in an upward direction to cold space. ALL the 390 w/m^2 radiated by the Earth is radiated to cold space. There is no "slow down the rate of loss of heat". ------- Chris said... "The surface (and atmosphere) must warm to "pump up" the temperature such that thermal energy is dissipated at the same rate as solar energy impacts at the top of the atmosphere...thus equilibrium is re-established in a greenhouse-warmed earth... " Wrong. The Solar Energy available to heat the Earth is just 168 w/m^2.....that's ALL the Energy Available. The Earth can't "pump up" it's energy to 390 w/m^2 and the Atmosphere can't "pump up" it's energy to 324 w/m^2 !! Your "Pumping Up" is called "Creation Of Energy"....A violation of The Law of Conservation of Energy!
126929. Steve L at 05:02 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Very good Gord, now explain what happens next after the blanket is applied! The body loses heat slower! Wow. Who knew? For your next trick, calculate the temperature of the Earth from its size and its interception of solar radiation. Then compare that to the empirically measured temperature. Oh, what do you know -- that's already done for you on the wikipedia page you referenced. Maybe you should try to explain the discrepancy.
126930. Gord at 04:40 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ned - re: your post #32 Ned said... "Your idea ("describing energy 'coming back to the surface from CO2' as reflected or retained through a standing wave") is well-intentioned but also not very useful. Nothing is being reflected here, and there's no "standing wave"." Wrong. Blackbody Radiation "Blackbody radiation" or "cavity radiation" refers to an object or system which absorbs all radiation incident upon it and re-radiates energy which is characteristic of this radiating system only, not dependent upon the type of radiation which is incident upon it." The radiated energy can be considered to be produced by standing wave or resonant modes of the cavity which is radiating." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html#c1 -------------------------- Do you even realize that common 'interference' patterns produced by interacting EM waves is entirely explained by use of vector analysis and superposition?
126931. Gord at 04:29 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ned.... Let’s test your claim that Heat can flow from Cold to Hot with a simple heat transfer calculation. Example: Two bodies of different temperature 1) Assume the emissivity e = 1 for each of the two bodies and their thermal time constant is 0 (instantaneous). 2) Boltzmans Constant (BC)= 5.67 X 10^-8 3) Assume the Warmer body has a temp of T = 100 deg K. and is kept at this temperature by a constant energy source emitting 5.67 watts/m^2. The warmer body will also radiate an electromagnetic field of BC *(100^4)= 5.67 Watts/m^2 4) Assume the Cooler body has a temp of Tc = 50 deg K It will radiate an electromagnetic field of BC *(50^4)= 0.35 Watts/m^2 Now the resultant field between the two bodies is 5.67 – 0.35 = 5.32 Watts/m^2. The direction of the field is towards the cooler body. Notice that none of the radiation from the cooler body reached the warmer body and the warmer body remains at 100 deg. K. This conforms with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics since the warmer body is not “heated” by the colder body. Now, the colder body is receiving 5.32 Watts/m^2 from the resultant field, which it will absorb and increase in temperature. Once the colder body absorbs the 5.32 Watts/m^2 it will radiate the 5.32 Watts/m^2 PLUS the 0.35 Watts/m^2 it was already radiating = 5.67 Watts/m^2. So this means the colder body has warmed to 100 deg K and the two bodies are at the same temperature….and equilibrim is achieved. Now that both bodies are at 100 deg K and each will radiate 5.67 Watts/m^2. The resultant field between them is 5.67 – 5.67 = 0 Watts/m^2 so there is there is no energy transfer between them and they will remain at 100 deg. K. If the energy source is removed, both bodies will now cool at the same rate. If the energy source is increased, both bodies will now warm at the same rate. —- Now let’s see YOUR calculations with energy flowing from the colder body to the hotter body. Do the calculations until thermal equilibrium is achieved. Remember that there is ONLY one energy source emitting 5.67 watts/m^2 and the Law of Conservation of Energy says “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. GOOD LUCK!
126932. Gord at 04:18 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Steve... What really happens WITH BLANKETS: Radiation emitted by a human body "The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body So putting a colder blanket (20 deg C) on a warm Body (33 deg C) REDUCES the Body surface temp to 28 deg C!! Gee, looks like heat flowed from the WARMER Body to HEAT the blanket up! Just like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says...(Heat flows from warm objects to colder objects)!
126933. Gord at 04:14 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP - The answer to your question is that the Radio Transmitter produces a LARGER Electromagnetic Field than your warm kitchen. Review my Post# 18 when I reported the results of the Parbolic Mirror Solar Ovens used to transfer heat energy from the warmer water at it's focal point to a colder atmosphere. The Parbolic Mirror is used as a TRANSMITTING ANTENNA just like Parabolic Dishes are used to RECEIVE satellite signals from a Satellite in cold space or TRANSMIT signals to the Satellite. Parabolic reflector A parabolic reflector (or dish or mirror) is a reflective device used to collect or project energy such as light, sound, or radio waves. Its shape is that of a circular paraboloid, that is, the surface generated by a parabola revolving around its axis. The parabolic reflector transforms an incoming plane wave traveling along the axis into a spherical wave converging toward the focus. Conversely, a spherical wave generated by a point source placed in the focus is transformed into a plane wave propagating as a collimated beam along the axis. Parabolic reflectors are used to collect energy from a distant source (for example sound waves or incoming star light) and bring it to a common focal point[1], thus correcting spherical aberration found in simpler spherical reflectors. Since the principles of reflection are reversible, parabolic reflectors can also be used to project energy of a source at its focus outward in a parallel beam[2], used in devices such as spotlights and car headlights. The most common modern applications of the parabolic reflector are in satellite dishes, reflecting telescopes, radio telescopes, parabolic microphones, and many lighting devices such as spotlights, car headlights, PAR Cans and LED housings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector -------------------- Electromagnetic radiation "Electromagnetic radiation (sometimes abbreviated EMR) takes the form of self-propagating waves in a vacuum or in matter. EM radiation has an electric and magnetic field component which oscillate in phase perpendicular to each other and to the direction of energy propagation. Electromagnetic radiation is classified into types according to the frequency of the wave, these types include (in order of increasing frequency): radio waves, microwaves, terahertz radiation, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays. Of these, radio waves have the longest wavelengths and Gamma rays have the shortest." "Electric and magnetic fields do obey the properties of superposition, so fields due to particular particles or time-varying electric or magnetic fields contribute to the fields due to other causes. (As these fields are vector fields, all magnetic and electric field vectors add together according to vector addition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation ---------- "Power Density and Radiated Power The Poynting Vector P is defined as: P(vector) = (1/2) E(vector) X H(vector) which is a power density with units of W/m2. Figure 4.1.3 The w/m2 Varies with Position on the Surface of a Sphere "n = unit normal directed outward from the surface." "We now continue to calculate the total radiated power from an antenna. It is the number of watts per square meter that happens to be at a given point and the direction of the vector is the direction of the power flow." http://www.engr.psu.edu/cde/courses/ee497c/M4L1.pdf
126934. Ned at 03:56 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP writes: "Ned, It seems like the point Gord is making could be resolved by describing energy "coming back to the surface from CO2" as reflected or retained through a standing wave. A mirror reflecting heat does not warm. In this case, something more like a one way mirror. No?" No, with all due respect there's no way to salvage anything meaningful from Gord's inappropriate attempt to use thermodynamics. It's really just plain wrong. Your idea ("describing energy 'coming back to the surface from CO2' as reflected or retained through a standing wave") is well-intentioned but also not very useful. Nothing is being reflected here, and there's no "standing wave". Longwave IR emitted by the surface is partially absorbed by the atmosphere. This warms the atmosphere, which in turn emits more IR in both the upward and downward directions. The radiation emitted upwards escapes to space, keeping the planet in radiative balance. The radiation emitted downward contributes (slightly) to warming the surface.
126935. Steve L at 03:40 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Gord, I'm not going to waste my time reading your long and overly capitalized posts. Scanning a couple of them I think I got the gist and I recommend you go to any number of places and find your claims debunked. Or ask yourself: "when cold at night and pulling a blanket over myself, I get warmer -- but the blanket never gets as warm as my body, so how can this be?"
126936. RSVP at 03:36 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        To Gord According to the blank statement, "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". How then can a radio signal (energy) in my nice warm kitchen pick up a radio signal from the transmitter antenna of a freezing mountain peak? The question is rhetorical in order to illustrate that things are not always that simple, and blank statements may be a little incomplete in their descriptions. (In this case, neither antenna is the source or the load in the system, but only act as pathways for channeling energy.)
126937. chris at 03:34 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        re #27 Again, your attempt to "dsprove" planetary thermodynamics by a form of Aristotelian syllogism is based on a semantic mangling of "heat" and "radiation", Gord (see my post just above). You're right that the atmosphere doesn't heat the water (you don't even need shouty capital letters to transmit that truism). However the atmosphere does suppress the radiative loss of energy from the oceans to space. So the rate of loss of thermal energy is suppressed by a warmer atmosphere. The oceans are warmer than they would otherwise have been without the "thermal blanket" (!) of the atmosphere radiating downwards. However you can be happy and proud that this very basic truism certainly doesn't disobey the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Despite the suppression of the radiative loss of thermal energy from the oceans by the atmosphere, the nett flow of radiation (i.e. heat) is from the oceans to the atmosphere. Everyone is happy Gord! The natural world really does make sense.....
126938. Gord at 03:30 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Chris - Chris said... "You're mixing up heat and radiation Gord, and so you're silly attempt to disprove basic planetary thermodynamics is based on a semantic mangling. A body radiates electromagnetic radiation (largely in the UV/vis/IR region of the EM spectrum) according to its temperature. That occurs independently of the temperature of any other object in its vicinity." Each object will radiate according to it's temperature. (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). Electromagnetic Fields produced by EACH object will INTERACT. (Heat Transfer Physics) Thus we get the Equation: P/A = e*BC*T^4 – e*BC*Tc^4 (Watts/m^2) This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Fields !!! It also complies with the Vector subtraction of Electromagnetic Fields which are Vectors !!! The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field. There CAN ONLY BE ONE RESULTANT ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD VECTOR !!! There is absolutely no energy flow from cold to hot, complying with the 2nd Law. --------------- There is NO "NET" transfer with some heat energy flowing from cold to hot! The 2nd Law says "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow." If ANY heat energy flowed from Cold to Hot it would result in a VIOLATION of the Law of Conservation of Energy !!! (see my Clear Light Bulb example in my post #22) (see my "Greenhouse Effect" links example in my post #17) ------------------ This "cartoon" illustrates the "physics" behind heat flow from cold to hot. The only difference is that CO2 is not "reflective" it is a good absorber of IR but the Radiation back to the Chicken would be the same . The principle is still the same and more importantly, the Result would be the same. Free Energy Oven Based on the latest Climate Modeling Technology developed at NASA "Interior has a mirror finish which reflects black body radiated heat back to the chicken, increasing its temperature. Warmer chicken will then re-radiate more infrared energy to the reflecting surfaces with additional heating occurring in a rapid cascade effect. Chicken must be above absolute zero when initially started. (Warning: observe temperature rise carefully and remove when internal temperature reaches 185 degrees). No power required. UN IPCC approved. Chicken not included." http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html The source of heat energy only has to be above "absolute zero", the infinite energy CREATED will come about because of energy flowing from cold to hot.
126939. Gord at 03:03 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        RSVP.... Storage of energy is done by the Oceans. The storage of energy is a result of heat transfer by conduction to colder water. The Oceans, because of their Thermal Time Constant, will take about 800 years to fully reflect the surface temperatures. The mean Ocean temperature at the equator is about +29 deg C, and the average temp (at a 40 deg lat.) is about +19 deg C. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY See the Sea Surface Temperature (Mean)(2nd row first graph) for the Ocean temperature at the equator. (If you take the area under the curve with AutoCad the average temp occurs at a 40 deg latitude and the temperature is 18.7 deg C.) http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geology/hh1996/ocean.html ALL the energy released by the Oceans to the atmosphere is by conduction, convection and radiation. The energy released is determined by the OCEAN TEMPERATURES! The atmosphere is no different except that the ATMOSPHERE has only STORED ENOUGH ENERGY TO HEAT IT TO AN AVERAGE OF -20 DEG C ! The Oceans can heat the atmosphere but the atmosphere CANNOT heat the VERY MUCH WARMER Oceans or a Warmer Land Mass! The colder atmosphere does not "trap" heat energy and it CANNOT heat a warmer Earth. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". AGW theory relies on heat flowing from a colder atmosphere (-20 deg C average) to a warmer Earth (+15 deg C) and heating it. This is an obvious violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. ---------------------- Only the Oceans can store heat energy. The current Ocean temperature was caused by the Medieval Warm period. This is just like putting a large pot of water (Ocean) on a stove burner (Sun). As the water temperature rises it will heat the air (atmosphere) above the pot. The hot water heated by the SUN heated the atmosphere...the atmosphere DID NOT heat the water! You have to get Cause and Effect right!
126940. RSVP at 02:47 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ned, It seems like the point Gord is making could be resolved by describing energy "coming back to the surface from CO2" as reflected or retained through a standing wave. A mirror reflecting heat does not warm. In this case, something more like a one way mirror. No?
126941. Tom Dayton at 02:43 AM on 27 October 2009
        Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
        In my comment 237 I wrote the heat from the interior would have increased by only 0.18w/m^2. Wrong. The increase would be only 0.09--even smaller compared to the forcing from CO2.
126942. chris at 02:41 AM on 27 October 2009
        Working out climate sensitivity
        I don't think that's quite right RSVP. If you read the early sections of the review under discussion (Knutti and Hegerl, 2008), the authors make it clear up front that the climate sensitivity is broadly independent of its source. They state:

        Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosol precursors and other substances, as well as natural changes in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions, affect the amount of radiation that is reflected, transmitted and absorbed by the atmosphere. This externally imposed (naturally or human-induced) energy imbalance on the system, such as the increased long-wave absorption caused by the emission of anthropogenic CO2, is termed radiative forcing (F). In a simple global energy balance model, the difference between these (positive) radiative perturbations F and the increased outgoing long-wave radiation that is assumed to be proportional to the surface warming T leads to an increased heat flux Q in the system, such that...

        As I said above, there are hundreds of papers that describe the ongoing efforts to refine the specific contributions (parameterizations) of each of the forcings. Since there are examples of these in recent threads on this site, anyone who posts here should be aware of the fact that all of the sources of radiative forcings are considered in attribution of contributions to historical and contemporary warming. Scientific papers cannot be expected to regurgitate the entirety of a subject as background, although the work should be placed in context...a certain amount knowledge and undersanding is always assumed. One has to try to be aware of the broader subject when assessing every piece of science...
126943. chris at 02:35 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        re #22 You're mixing up heat and radiation Gord, and so you're silly attempt to disprove basic planetary thermodynamics is based on a semantic mangling. A body radiates electromagnetic radiation (largely in the UV/vis/IR region of the EM spectrum) according to its temperature. That occurs independently of the temperature of any other object in its vicinity. So a cooler body will radiate energy towards a warmer body. Obviously, heat which can be defined as the nett flow of thermal energy, can only pass spontaneously from a warmer to a cooler body, and not in the other direction. The pertinent point is that a body radiating thermal energy in the path of a hotter body will slow down the rate of loss of heat from the warmer body, even if it is cooler. This obviously doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Going back to the earth surface/atmosphere. The surface loses thermal energy by radiation of longwave IR towards space. The atmosphere, a cooler body, reradiates some of this energy back to earth slowing the net flow of thermal energy from the suface to space. This obviously doesn't disobey the 2nd law of thermodynamics since heat which is the nett flow of thermal energy, flows from the warmer (earth surface) to cooler (atmosphere) body. As one makes the atmosphere warmer, by increasing its absorption of long wave IR (by increasing the greenhouse gas concentration), so the rate of radiative heat loss from the surface is decreased. The surface (and atmosphere) must warm to "pump up" the temperature such that thermal energy is dissipated at the same rate as solar energy impacts at the top of the atmosphere...thus equilibrium is re-established in a greenhouse-warmed earth...
126944. RSVP at 02:19 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        To Gord I thought I was a hard core skeptic until I read your comment. There seems to be one item that you are overlooking, otherwise you would be correct. Please consider the idea that there is a balance between the energy that comes from the Sun and that which is radiated from the Earth out to infinity. (Light reflecting from the Moon for instance is energy that is radiating away from the Moon. The same thing happens for the Earth.) Depending on the surface and atmospheric conditions, the amount of energy reflected can be higher or lower. Eventually, all of it is lost into space, however some conditions allow energy to be stored and thus hold temperatures higher or lower. To get a "feel" of this, imagine standing barefoot in the summer, midday in a mall parking lot. Then compare this to standing on a white painted cross walk in the same parking lot. There would be a noticeable difference. Extrapolate that notion to variability that can occur to the entire Earth's surface topography and atmosphere. Big changes in the topography and atmosphere could conceivably make (over the course of time) the steady state temperature of the Earth to change. And yes, if the Sun suddenly turned itself off, the Earth would cool down rather quickly. At that point, both skeptics and non-skeptics would finally see eye to eye about how much difference CO2 makes.
126945. Gord at 02:16 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Ned - Re: your post #20 You said... "The downward IR component from the atmosphere is still smaller than the upward IR component from the surface, so there's no violation of the second law. But it's greater than zero, so it effectively reduces the net flux of longwave radiation from the surface to space. Thus, the surface and the atmosphere both warm. (In this case, the surface is about 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without a greenhouse effect)." ANY transfer of heat energy from cold to warm objects will VIOLATE the basic Laws of Science !!! I wonder why so many people, who have obviously heard of Laws of Science, will try to prove that they are somehow wrong. In case you don't know why they are called Laws of Science, it's because they have never been shown to be violated. Do you really think what you have posted is correct and therefore somehow disproves Laws of Science? Someone once posted this on another forum: "Consider a clear light bulb, turned off. You can see the filament because ambient room light is shining on it. When you turn the bulb on, light is still shining on the filament from the room, you just don't notice it because the filament radiates so much more than it recieves." ---------- Here was my response: Now, I will post these Laws of Science for use in analyzing what you have written: 1. The Law of Conservation of Energy basically states that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". 2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics basically states that "Energy can only flow from Hot to Cold objects". 3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law basically shows that "Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy it absorbed" ---------- OK, lets analyse: "Consider a clear light bulb, turned off. You can see the filament because ambient room light is shining on it."....CORRECT. "When you turn the bulb on, light is still shining on the filament from the room, you just don't notice it because the filament radiates so much more than it recieves."....WRONG It is wrong because it would violate the The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics AND The Law of Conservation of Energy. It violates the 2nd Law because the light energy from from the room comes from a colder body than the HOT filament. If the light from the room was absorbed by the filament it's temperature would have to increase and the filament would radiate more energy.(Stephan-Boltzmann Law). If the filament radiated more energy, the light in the room would increase and cause the filament temperature to increase even further. The filament would radiate more energy causing the light in the room to increase again, causing the filament to heat further, causing the light in the room to increase....etc. This violates the The Law of Conservation of Energy because energy has been created. In fact, the temperature of filament would increase to infinity and produce infinite energy. ---------- As you can see the Laws of Science are all connected. If you violate one Law you invariably violate other Laws of Science. Like I said....they are called Laws of Science because they have never been shown to be violated. ---------- Science Professionals accept Laws of Science as being "fundamental truths of Science" and they are used as "first principles" for evaluating the validity of any process. Perhaps your time could be better spent if you adopted a similar approach.
126946. Ned at 01:46 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        MP writes: "2. With reference to an article ‘Cyclones Spurt Water Into Stratosphere, Feeding Global Warming’ posted on Science Daily (21.04.2009), Romps and Kuang of Harvard’s Department of Arts and Sciences quoted data that suggests that water vapour has increased by 50 % during the last 50 years, commenting that “Scientists are currently unsure why this increase has occurred..”." Others can address the rest of your points, but I wanted to get at this one (briefly). The article you mention is referring only to an increase in stratospheric water vapor. The vast majority of water vapor in the atmosphere is near the earth's surface. Here's a convenient summary: "The uneven distribution of water vapor is even more pronounced in the vertical dimension. Water vapor concentrations (expressed as the ratio of the volume occupied by water vapor to the total volume of air, most of which is nitrogen and oxygen) decrease rapidly with height, varying over four orders of magnitude, from a few percent near the surface to a few parts per million in the lower stratosphere. Nearly half the total water in the air resides below an altitude of about 1.5 km. Less than 5% is in the upper troposphere (above 5 km), and less than 1% is in the stratosphere, nominally above 12 km." (Dian J Seidel, "Water Vapor: Distribution and Trends", http://www.wiley.co.uk/wileychi/egec/pdf/GB085-W.PDF). So a 50% increase in water vapor in the stratosphere is interesting, but corresponds to less than an 0.5% increase in the whole atmosphere.
126947. Ned at 01:33 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        There's no violation of the second law, nor of conservation of energy. This is really basic stuff and it's disconcerting to see somebody wasting our host's time (and my time, for that matter) with that kind of nonsense. The earth's surface is warmed by solar shortwave radiation, and is cooled by emitting longwave IR radiation outward into space. With no atmosphere, or an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases, the surface would have an average temperature of around -18 C. The presence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases intercepts some of the emitted IR radiation in the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere. This warmer atmosphere then radiates both upward and downward. The downward IR component from the atmosphere is still smaller than the upward IR component from the surface, so there's no violation of the second law. But it's greater than zero, so it effectively reduces the net flux of longwave radiation from the surface to space. Thus, the surface and the atmosphere both warm. (In this case, the surface is about 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without a greenhouse effect).
126948. MP at 01:26 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        As a layperson who reads your articles and comments with great interest may I make the following, probably very naïve, comments: 1. There appears to be consensus that the main greenhouse gases are water vapour, methane and CO2. 2. With reference to an article ‘Cyclones Spurt Water Into Stratosphere, Feeding Global Warming’ posted on Science Daily (21.04.2009), Romps and Kuang of Harvard’s Department of Arts and Sciences quoted data that suggests that water vapour has increased by 50 % during the last 50 years, commenting that “Scientists are currently unsure why this increase has occurred..”. 3. In your article ‘CO2 is not the only driver of climate’, you indicate that, based on ice core measurements, methane levels in the atmosphere has increased from “715 parts per billion (ppb”) to “1 774 ppb” between pre-industrial to current times which represents a staggering 148 % increase. 4. In the same article the CO2 levels are claimed to have increased from “280 parts per million (ppm)” to “384 ppm” between pre-industrial to current times which only represents a 37 % increase. 5. Although, based on the radiative forcing rates which are stated in your article as being +0.07 Wm², +0.48 Wm² and +1.66 Wm² for water vapour, methane and CO2 respectively, water vapour appears to have a more limited warming effect, one wonders why the 148% increase in methane, which is indicated as having a substantive 29 % of the radiative forcing rate of CO2, does not receive the same publicity in the media as CO2. 6. In this regard, one has to be sceptical as to why so much emphasis is being placed on only reducing CO2, notably the burning of fossil fuels, especially as the increase of the latter is merely a consequence of the increasing human population with the associated democratically driven demand for greater equality with respect to living standards and quality of life. 7. Peddling the myth that the process of climate change and global warming can be controlled by merely reducing CO2 emissions through the development and sale of so called ‘green products’ and the following of so called ‘green practices’ diverts attention away addressing other factors, such as methane levels and the influence of uncontrollable natural processes, and from confronting the substantive issue that the procreation of the human species at the current rate is unsustainable, especially in the face of climate change and the associated pressure on food and potable water supplies. 8. It is rather ironic that we now have protocols for the reduction of most things, including CO2, except in respect of the human population. It is also rather suspicious and farcical as to why the trading of carbon credits has been permitted via financial institutions when the supposed goal is a net reduction in the level of CO2 not a supposed offset via some scheme located in the developing world that may not prove to be effective, sustainable or appropriately monitored and audited. 9. Is this because the world’s decision makers privately admit that climate change is beyond human control and that the activities focused on reducing CO2 levels are merely designed to sustain complacency in order to maintain social order and the functioning of the world economic system which are predicated on the concept of a stable and controlled environment?
126949. Gord at 00:54 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        More on Back Radiation and Measurements that Dis-Prove the Greenhouse Effect The Kiehl and Trenberth's Earth's Energy Budget Diagram shows: - The Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth's surface is 168 w/m^2 + reflected by the Earth's surface 30 w/m^2 = 198 w/m^2 - The Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere that is absorbed by the warmer Earth's surface is 324 w/m^2 The Back Radiation exceeds Solar Energy and BACK RADIATION IS AVAILABLE DAY AND NIGHT. Solar Ovens are Parabolic Mirrors that can concentrate Solar Energy and IR Back Radiation at a focal point. If Back Radiation actually reached the Earth, Solar Ovens would produce heating at night !!! Here is an experiment done at Brigham Young Unversity that PROVES that Back-Radiation CANNOT heat the Earth. --------------- Solar Cookers and Other Cooking Alternatives "The second area of solar cookers I looked at was their potential use for cooling. I tested to see how effective they are at cooling both at night and during the day. During both times, the solar cooker needs to be aimed away from buildings, and trees. These objects have thermal radiation and will reduce the cooling effects. At night the solar cooker needs to also be aimed straight up towards the cold sky. During the day the solar cooker needs to be turned so that it does not face the Sun and also points towards the sky. For both time periods cooling should be possible because all bodies emit thermal radiation by virtue of their temperature. So the heat should be radiated outward. Cooling should occur because of the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat will flow naturally from a hot object to a cold object. The sky and upper atmosphere will be at a lower temperature then the cooking vessel. The average high-atmosphere temperature is approximately -20 °C. So the heat should be radiated from the cooking vessel to the atmosphere." http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht --------------- This link shows that heating of the Earth's surface cannot occur from the colder atmosphere. In fact, the article shows how to COOL items placed in the Solar Oven at NIGHT AND DAY! All you have to do is point the Oven away from the Sun during the Day and the Oven will transfer heat from the WARM object in the Oven to the COOLER atmosphere! It can even be used to produce ICE when the ambient air temp is +6 deg C! "If at night the temperature was within 6 °C or 10°F of freezing, nighttime cooling could be used to create ice. Previous tests at BYU (in the autumn and with less water) achieved ice formation by 8 a.m. when the minimum ambient night-time temperature was about 48 °F." And, this also confirms the validity of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics....heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects. ---------------------------------------------------- Summary: AGW theory and the Greenhouse Effect has been proven to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy. Actual measurements confirm this.
126950. Gord at 00:48 AM on 27 October 2009
        CO2 is not the only driver of climate
        Re: Energy Creation by the Atmosphere Tutorial on the Greenhouse Effect- University of Arizona “In this case, the Earth still gains 240 Watts/meter2 from the sun. It still loses 240 Watts/meter2 to space. However, because the atmosphere is opaque to infrared light, the surface cannot radiate directly to space as it can on a planet without greenhouse gases. Instead, this radiation to space comes from the atmosphere. However, atmospheres radiate both up and down (just like a fire radiates heat in all directions). So although the atmosphere radiates 240 Watts/meter2 to space, it also radiates 240 Watts/meter2 toward the ground! Therefore, the surface receives more energy than it would without an atmosphere: it gets 240 Watts/meter2 from sunlight and it gets another 240 Watts/meter2 from the atmosphere — for a total of 480 Watts/meter2 in this simple model.” http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html The Greenhouse Effect “Absorption of longwave radiation by the atmosphere causes additional heat energy to be added to the Earth’s atmospheric system. The now warmer atmospheric greenhouse gas molecules begin radiating longwave energy in all directions. Over 90% of this emission of longwave energy is directed back to the Earth’s surface where it once again is absorbed by the surface. The heating of the ground by the longwave radiation causes the ground surface to once again radiate, repeating the cycle described above, again and again, until no more longwave is available for absorption.” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html Both examples violate the 2nd Law because there is heat energy flowing from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth. The above Greenhouse Effect links describe a Perpetual Motion Machine, actually a Perpetual Motion Machine in a Positive Feedback Loop. The ultimate outcome is an infinite “creation” of energy and a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Sun is the ONLY energy source, the Earth and atmosphere are NOT energy sources. -------- With reference to Kiehl and Trenberth's Earth's Energy Budget Diagram: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html The diagram shows that the in-coming Solar Energy at the top of the atmosphere is 342 w/m^2. The reflected Solar radiation is 107 w/m^2. This leaves 235 w/m^2 to heat the Earth and atmosphere. 235 w/m^2 is ALL THE ENERGY AVAILABLE !!! and only 168 w/m^2 is AVAILABLE TO HEAT THE EARTH'S SURFACE !! The out-going Longwave Radiation at the top of the atmosphere is also 235 w/m^2 is also 235 w/m^2, so there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy at the top of the atmosphere. However, this is mis-leading because below the top of the atmosphere there are numerous violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Example: - The Earth's Surface Radiation (390 w/m^2) exceeds 235 w/m^2 and 168 w/m^2. - The Back Radiation from the atmosphere (324 w/m^2) exceeds 235 w/m^2 and 168 w/m^2. The diagram shows the total Solar Energy absorbed by the Earth's surface as 168 w/m^2. Trenberth clearly shows the colder Atmosphere Back Radiation of 324 w/m^2 being ABSORBED by the warmer Earth's surface. Anytime a body absorbes heat energy it's temperature has to increase, the warmer Earth's surface was warmed by the colder atmosphere. A CLEAR Violation of the 2nd Law. Remember, The Sun (THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE) only provides 168 w/m^2 of energy that is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Is the Earth an Energy source?...NO IT IS NOT! Is the Atmosphere an Energy source?....NO IT IS NOT! The 168 w/m^2 FROM THE SUN IS ALL THE ENERGY THAT IS AVAILABLE! Trenberth shows the Atmosphere Back Radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface is 324 w/m^2. Is 324 greater than 168? Conservation of Energy "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html ENERGY WAS CREATED IN ALL THE EXAMPLES.

Prev  2531  2532  2533  2534  2535  2536  2537  2538  2539  2540  2541  2542  2543  2544  2545  2546  Next