"Whether we like it or not" - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15199323
ingliz wrote:In the stratosphere (15–50 km), changes in CO2 have only a minor effect on temperature in the troposphere. But increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere. Ozone generates heat in the stratosphere, both by absorbing the sun's ultraviolet radiation and by absorbing upwelling infrared radiation from the lower atmosphere.

All true.
The range of ozone responses to CO2 has the potential to induce significant radiative and dynamical effects on climate.

How? Blank out. Ozone, like CO2, only has significant effects well above the surface layers where climate is determined.
It is in the mesosphere (50–90 km) with increases in CO2 that cooling is likely to be significant.

So, another nothing burger. Check.
#15199329
late wrote:Reaching consensus is how science usually works.

No, science works by overturning the consensus.
This is a very old story, a new idea comes in, things change, and then the money and kids chase after what the new idea implies.

Sometimes the money and political pressure come first, and people follow them even when there is no actual valid idea behind them. See modern mainstream neoclassical economics.
You're a very good liar, but extraordinarily sleazy.

I thought calling other members liars was a violation of forum rules.
#15199337
Truth To Power wrote:How?

The troposphere is dynamically coupled to fluctuations in the speed of the circumpolar westerly jet that forms in the lower stratosphere. The relative strength or velocity of the jet stream is proportional to the intensity of the meridional thermal gradient.

The meridional temperature gradient between the equator and poles that gives rise to the jet stream also produces secondary atmospheric circulations or eddies. These baroclinic waves have a complex interaction with the jet stream. The eddies modify the distribution of temperature and kinetic energy within the atmosphere, a process that has a pronounced effect on the location and movement of the jet stream. And the jet stream itself interacts with these waves, not only as a transport or steering mechanism but also in the transfer of momentum and energy back to the waves.

Eddy feedbacks in the troposphere amplify the surface impacts.

The same dynamical relationships act at very different timescales, ranging from daily variations to longer-term climate trends.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 22 Nov 2021 17:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15199342
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are now arguing that the amount of heat lost by a body is irrelevant to whether or not the body is heating up.

No, I am stating the fact that if CO2 doesn't have any significant effect on IR absorption near the earth's surface, it can't be a significant contributor to climate change.
So a body that never loses heat heats ip just as much as a body that loses heat very quickly as long as they absorb heat the same way, according to you.

No, you made that up. According to me, if a given factor causes no significant difference in heat loss from a body, then if the body is heating up, that factor cannot be the cause of the heating.
Or do you agree with me that heat loss and heat absorption both affect how hot something is?

Many factors affect how hot something is. But a factor that does not cause a significant difference in heat loss or heat absorption cannot cause a significant difference in temperature.
#15199343
ingliz wrote:The troposphere is dynamically coupled to fluctuations in the speed of the circumpolar westerly jet that forms in the lower stratosphere.

The meridional temperature gradient between the equator and poles that gives rise to the jet stream also produces secondary atmospheric circulations or eddies. These baroclinic waves have a complex interaction with the jet stream. The eddies modify the distribution of temperature and kinetic energy within the atmosphere, a process that has a pronounced effect on the location and movement of the jet stream. And the jet stream itself interacts with these waves, not only as a transport or steering mechanism but also in the transfer of momentum and energy back to the waves.

Eddy feedbacks in the troposphere amplify the surface impacts.

The same dynamical relationships act at very different timescales, ranging from daily variations to longer-term climate trends.

So, nothing whatever to do with CO2. Check.
#15199348
Truth To Power wrote:So, nothing whatever to do with CO2. Check.

Increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere.

The range of ozone responses to CO2 has the potential to induce significant radiative and dynamical effects on climate.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 22 Nov 2021 17:45, edited 1 time in total.
#15199360
ingliz wrote:Increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere.

But not to any significant extent, and the greater heat in the stratosphere can't get back down to the surface.
The range of ozone responses to CO2 has the potential to induce significant radiative and dynamical effects on climate.

But there is no physically plausible reason to think such tiny effects could have a significant impact on climate. The ozone response "has the potential" to induce significant effects on climate only in the same sense that the flap of a butterfly's wing in the Andes has the potential to cause a tornado in Kansas three weeks later.
#15199370
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am stating the fact that if CO2 doesn't have any significant effect on IR absorption near the earth's surface, it can't be a significant contributor to climate change.


And for the third or fourth, time, you are still ignoring heat loss.

No, you made that up. According to me, if a given factor causes no significant difference in heat loss from a body, then if the body is heating up, that factor cannot be the cause of the heating.


Are you arguing that CO2 causes no significant difference in heat loss from Earth and its atmosphere?

Yes or no?

Many factors affect how hot something is. But a factor that does not cause a significant difference in heat loss or heat absorption cannot cause a significant difference in temperature.


Are you arguing that CO2 causes no significant difference in heat loss from Earth and its atmosphere?

Yes or no?
#15199371
@Truth To Power

A reduced meridional temperature gradient weakens the jet stream. Warm, dry planetary wave peaks in the jet stream can turn into enclosed high-pressure systems, which intensity and stall as wave meandering slows. These blocking highs prevent new storm tracks and low-pressure systems moving through with new jet stream meanders, causing more extreme weather - drought and flood.


:)
#15199378
Truth To Power wrote:No, you simply proved you know no atmospheric physics by posing a question that did not require any calculations to answer. You could try again, but it's really a little late to save face.


It did, though. If, on a college level physics exam, you are asked to determine the balance of forces for a ball sitting on a table, then you had better identify the force that the ball exerts on the table, the force that the table exerts on the ball, the force that the table exerts on the ground, and the force that the ground exerts on the table. If you just say the forces all sum to zero, your professor will give you zero credit. You would've known that if you'd ever even taken phys 101 at any university. But you didn't.

At least I studied enough to be certain that you don't know $#!+ about atmospheric physics.


But you didn't, TtP. You didn't.

You just love finding new ways to be wrong, don't you?


I'm right, though.
#15199477
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

A reduced meridional temperature gradient weakens the jet stream. Warm, dry planetary wave peaks in the jet stream can turn into enclosed high-pressure systems, which intensity and stall as wave meandering slows. These blocking highs prevent new storm tracks and low-pressure systems moving through with new jet stream meanders, causing more extreme weather - drought and flood.

So, nothing to do with CO2. Check.
#15199482
Truth To Power wrote:So, nothing to do with CO2. Check.


The polar front jet, known as "the jet stream", forms in the tropopause/lower stratosphere.

Image

Increased CO2 levels lead to a decrease in ozone concentrations in the tropical lower stratosphere and an increase over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere, heating the stratosphere, and reducing the meridional temperature gradient. A reduced meridional temperature gradient weakens the jet stream. Warm, dry planetary wave peaks in the jet stream can turn into enclosed high-pressure systems, which intensity and stall as wave meandering slows. These blocking highs prevent new storm tracks and low-pressure systems moving through with new jet stream meanders, causing more extreme weather - drought and flood.


:)

Reason for edits: To make it so simple even @Truth To Power understands
Last edited by ingliz on 24 Nov 2021 07:29, edited 6 times in total.
#15199490
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Are you arguing that CO2 causes no significant difference in heat loss from Earth and its atmosphere?

Yes or no?

I have stated the fact that additional CO2 can cause no significant difference in heat loss from the earth's surface, and that the difference in heat loss from the emission altitude merely shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature, and has no significant effect on the heat budget.
#15199492
Truth To Power wrote:I have stated the fact that additional CO2 can cause no significant difference in heat loss from the earth's surface, and that the difference in heat loss from the emission altitude merely shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature, and has no significant effect on the heat budget.


Then provide evidence for this claim.

Meanwhile, I will look for evidence that shows that CO2 has had a significant effect on heat loss from the Earth and its atmosphere.

This evidence would disprove your claim that CO2 does not lead to global warming and merely “shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature, and has no significant effect on the heat budget”.

And I found it:

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

    John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
    Nature volume 410, pages 355–357 (2001)

    ….
    Abstract
    The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

So CO2 not only “shifts the equilibrium emission altitude and temperature”, but also has a “significant effect on the heat budget”.
#15199512
Saeko wrote:It did, though.

No, it most certainly did not.
If, on a college level physics exam, you are asked to determine the balance of forces for a ball sitting on a table,

You have obviously never taken a college physics course. Such a question is completely trivial and would never be asked on a college physics exam because it requires no calculation or analysis. Just like your brain-dead "question" to me.
then you had better identify the force that the ball exerts on the table, the force that the table exerts on the ball, the force that the table exerts on the ground, and the force that the ground exerts on the table.

One could certainly identify such forces given the mass of the ball and table, but such a question would be suitable for at most an introductory high school physics course. You just think high school physics is college physics because you have never taken either.
If you just say the forces all sum to zero, your professor will give you zero credit.

Wrong. That is the correct answer. You obviously know nothing whatever about it.
You would've known that if you'd ever even taken phys 101 at any university. But you didn't.

Oh, but I did (Physics 115, actually, then Geophysics 210 and 310, planetary physics). It is you who did not. That is why you don't know anything about atmospheric physics and can't even ask a sensible question about it.
But you didn't, TtP. You didn't.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh, but I did. You, however, did not.
I'm right, though.

No, you are objectively wrong, and it is time you found a willingness to know that fact. You have proved you just don't know any atmospheric physics because you have no formal education in physics beyond the high school level, if that. None. You are now merely trying to save face by presuming to judge my physics bona fides, but are succeeding only in further humiliating yourself. Sad, really. You should quit while you're behind.
#15199547
At 22 Nov 2021 09:28, I posted this, and TtP has not replied by now = about 12:15 AM in Chicago.
. . . Has he failed to reply because he can't think of a way to refute this?
Below I argue that the sun heats the Earth only about 0.0001 deg.C/day to warm it 1.1 deg.C over 3 decades. This is somewhat less than what is predicted by the climate scientists models, but not what it has warmed over the last 3 decades because the warming is speeding up quite a bit.

Let me add here, that each day the sun warms the Earth by about 10 deg.C. This being the difference between the high temp and the low temp measured at many places in the fall.
. . . This means that of the total energy that reaches the surface only about 0.00001 or 0.001% of it is retained by the CO2 to warm the Earth by 0.0001 deg.C/day. This is about 1/100,000 of what reaches the surface. The other 99,999/100,000 of all incoming energy escapes out into space.
. . . This all it takes to heat up the Earth on average over each year, by about the amount of heating the models are predicting.

Steve_American wrote:I have chosen to start with TtP's reply to PoD, because it is just above so you can see what Pod said that TtP was replying to.
. . . One point of a fact I need to point out at the start is --- the reasons that climate scientists do not talk much about the effect of water vapor in the air are 1] The amount of water vapor can not be effected directly because the oceans are a huge source of more or less water vapor depending on things like the temp of the oceans and air above them. Warm water evaporates faster and warm air holds more water vapor, which is why it sometimes rains more than before and causes flooding. And, 2] The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the amount of CO2 in the air, which scientist believe heats the ocean & air, so scientists can calculate in their models the amount of water vapor by knowing the CO2 level.

TtP also replied to me on the last page. There he explained his analogy. He said his 40 wool blankets represent the effect of water vapor in the air because H2O is 40 times better at absorbing IR het/light than CO2 is. Therefore, here TtP is asserting correctly that water vapor is absorbing a lot of IR heat/light.
. . . Just above TtP asserts that only absorption CO2 matters, all the rest can be ignored, so he does ignore it. However, in his reply to me on the last page he didn't ignore water vapor. He said it absorbs 40 times more than current levels of CO2 do.

Now on to TtP's reply to me on the last page.
. . . I'll start with the part just above that I have put in yellow AND italics.
. . . There TtP wrote: "CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption."

I think that TtP hopes that you will accept that absorption of IR heat/light means that the IR heat/light is blocked. It seems like it because [while he also asserts that energy in = energy out] here he wants you to believe that because the IR heat/light is absorbed it can not later somehow escape into space.

Here he asserts that CO2's only effect is on absorption. If this was so, [so the CO2 does NOT reradiate the IR heat/light] then it follows that the CO2/air would be getting hugely hotter and would heat the air around it to millions of deg.C. This doesn't happen because the heat/light is (in fact) reradiated.

I'm sure that TtP knows this. So, why did he assert that only absorption matters?
. . . Is it because some is reradiated up and some down? This makes the description of the process very complicated. Too complicated to say it in a paragraph that a lay reader will be able to understand.

The short answer is that the amount of energy that escapes to space must be very, very close to amount of solar energy that comes into the lower atmosphere or reaches the surface. We know this because each day, month, or better averaged over a year, the Earth warms or cools only about 0.0001 deg.C/day. That is 0.0001 deg.C per day.
. . . OK, a lot of IR heat/light is escaping every day to space. You can feel on your skin on a sunny day the heat coming from the sun. Extend that over the whole land and water surface of the Earth and it is a huge amount that comes in from the sun every day, and so almost exactly that huge amount must escape back into space each day on average. My point here is that it is not blocked from escaping.
. . . When TtP says that the IR heat/light is all absorbed in the 1st many meters from the land or water surface he may be right. But, it is all reradiated, half up and half down. Now as I just said, almost all of it does somehow reach space after being absorbed and reradiated many times. It is not blocked in the lower atmosphere.
. . . Therefore, it doesn't matter if it is all absorbed near the surface. Almost all of the energy eventually reaches space. Scientists say that the Earth is being heated a tiny amount each day on average. This means scientists are asserting that some tiny percentage of the incoming solar energy is in fact absorbed by the air, water, rocks, and dirt of the Earth's surface, where we see it as a temp increase.
. . . This percentage is very tiny. So, tiny that every possible verbal argument will not be accurate enough to pick up the tiny change that adding more CO2 to the air causes. However, it adds up more and more as the days become decades. That is, if you add up 0.0001 deg.C /day over the 10,957.5 days in 3 decades it becomes 1.09575 deg.C over 3 decades. If the amount of heating per day is actually 0.0002 deg.C/day then over 3 decades that total amount of heating is 2.1915 deg.C, or about 1.461 deg.C over 2 decades.

BTW --- climate scientists' models have to include the increase in water vapor in the air that will cause more heating. This increased water vapor is caused by more heating caused by more CO2 in the air. There is nothing we can do about the increased water vapor, except reduce CO2 emissions.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 43

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

@annatar1914 do not despair. Again, el amor pu[…]

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]