"Whether we like it or not" - Page 13 - 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.
#15195388
@Truth To Power

Yes, you seem to finally understand.

Next step is for you to learn that GHGs impede the rate of heat loss from the planetary system, thereby increasing the equilibrium temperature slightly.

This we call “global warming”.
#15195427
Truth To Power wrote:Identifying facts that prove me right is somehow shooting myself in the foot...?

The fact that scientists don't focus on something is not evidence that it is irrelevant. They don't focus on the fact that the oceans are salty, either, but the fact that salt stops them from freezing is a major factor in determining the earth's climate.

<more irrelevancy snipped>

No. The atmosphere thins out -- becomes less dense -- with altitude, but the concentration of CO2 (and everything else) actually rises a few percent as water vapor condenses out.

CO2 becomes less dense with altitude, like every other component of the atmosphere. But its concentration -- the word you used -- rises.

In the winter, a cloudy day is not cooler, it is warmer.


Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

Except in the winter.

And as Angstrom showed over 100 years ago, adding CO2 to atmospheric air blocks only slightly more infrared.

No, it has enough WATER VAPOR to make added CO2 irrelevant to the IR absorption rate.

Right. And in effect, once the H2O all condenses out, there is so little GHG above that altitude that IR emissions become much more likely to escape to outer space. The effective emission altitude is not much above the altitude where air becomes extremely dry (which varies with latitude and season). This is not a coincidence. Adding CO2 just increases the emission altitude a bit and reduces the emission temperature a bit. It cannot have any significant effect on surface temperature, as Angstrom showed.

Nope. The IR can't get back down because it runs into water vapor as soon as it gets low enough for water vapor not to have condensed out.

My response is ---
TtP wrote: 1] No. The atmosphere thins out -- becomes less dense -- with altitude, but the concentration of CO2 (and everything else) actually rises a few percent as water vapor condenses out.

2] CO2 becomes less dense with altitude, like every other component of the atmosphere. But its concentration -- the word you used -- rises.

3] In the winter, a cloudy day is not cooler, it is warmer.
...snip...
4] And as Angstrom showed over 100 years ago, adding CO2 to atmospheric air blocks only slightly more infrared.

1] TtP, OK the water condenses out at high altitudes, meaning it isn't there to use its more than CO2's ability to absorb infrared light = heat energy leaving the Earth, incl. its air. This may not matter because it always is like this and adding CO2 to the air doesn't change this, except if (I mean if) all other tings are equal. Things like the interaction between the altitude at which the air becomes so thin that it lets (say) 50% of the infrared keep going up and out.

2] I corrected my word from 'concentration' to 'thins out'. When I 1st wrote that reply, to me, the 2 words have the same meaning. I clarified, abd like a troll, you didn't want to let me. [Lurkers this is important.]
So, I still claim that as we go up in altitude there are less and less molecules of CO2 in each cubic cm of the thinner air. So, I'm claiming that it is this num. of molecules/cm that matters. So, I'm claiming [building on my cloudy day analogy] that adding CO2 to the air will be fully mixed so that the CO2 is evenly mixed, and so at some point in altitude the infrared just keeps going.
And, that pushing this altitude higher is like adding more density to a cloud on a cloudy day, or keeping the density the same but increasing to distance from its bottom to its top. Or, adding another blanket to a bad in a bed analogy.

3] In winter cloudy days are warmer than sunny days because the sunny days are under high pressure domes and they have high pressure for 2 reasons; a] they are drier so have less of the light weight water molecules, and b] they just moved in from up north where it is colder.

This doesn't change that fact that in winter a cold sunny day will heat up more during the day than a cloudy day. The sunny day just starts out colder because of the above reasons and because during the previous night the sky was cloudless, and so more of the infrared heat light could radiate out into space. [This clear sky effect is also seen in deserts where they are hot in the day and freezing cold at light.]

4] TtP, you are relying a 100 year old paper, and ignoring the refutations of his work.
You said above somewhere that he was referring the sea level air. I have pointed out that the refutations brought in the idea that the air thins out as we go up in altitude. My source said that Angstrom didn't address this effect. And that later scientists have looked at this, and have shown that Angstrom was wrong only in that he didn't look at the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations that are fully mixed have on the infrared light in the upper atmosphere.
. . . TtP, you are trying to use HS debate club rules where any paper no matter how refuted can be used in one's evidence, because it is up to the otherside to know how the refute that info. I am refuting it and so far, you have not convinced the Lurkers or me that my refutation is not correct. You keep bringing it up. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession if he/she insisted on using refuted info without showing how the refutation was wrong. You are insisting on using refuted info from Angstrom's paper, and so far you have not groked the refutations and then shown how they are wrong.

[Fun fact --- I shoveled snow professionally for many years because the small comp. that I worked for had a snow removal div. and a carpet cleaning div.. So, I learned that the hard shadows on clear days meant that the shaded areas took much longer to melt away any remaining snow, than the un-shaded areas. But, on cloudy days, all else being close to equal, the clouds were scattering both the visible light and the infrared heat light, and therefore, the lack of shadows meant that the solar heat was also being evenly spread over the sidewalks; and so the remaining snow melts evenly.
. . . This shows that the sun does put out some infrared heat light. It has no effect on the GHG effect because the increased CO2 blocks the incoming infrared heat light just as much as it blocks the out-going heat light, the 2 effects are very close to cancelling out.]
#15195434
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Yes, you seem to finally understand.

Wish I could say the same...
Next step is for you to learn that GHGs impede the rate of heat loss from the planetary system, thereby increasing the equilibrium temperature slightly.

No, that is just another objectively false claim from you. I've known that fact far longer than you, having learned it when I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university almost 50 years ago.
This we call “global warming”.

Correct. Now the next step is for you to learn that there is a great deal of difference between a doubling of CO2 that causes global warming by raising the equilibrium temperature slightly by 3.0C (roughly the mid-range of the IPCC's estimates) and a doubling that raises it slightly by 0.3C (closer to what Angstrom's result implies). The two statements above that you falsely claimed I am unaware of are equally true at both numbers. But the implications are very, very different.
#15195441
Steve_American wrote:1] TtP, OK the water condenses out at high altitudes, meaning it isn't there to use its more than CO2's ability to absorb infrared light = heat energy leaving the Earth, incl. its air. This may not matter because it always is like this and adding CO2 to the air doesn't change this, except if (I mean if) all other tings are equal. Things like the interaction between the altitude at which the air becomes so thin that it lets (say) 50% of the infrared keep going up and out.

Good. It seems you are learning something from reading my posts.

The shift in the equilibrium average final emission altitude (EAFEA) caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere means conditions become somewhat different between that altitude and the previous ("pre-industrial") EAFEA, just not farther down. Doubling CO2 means its density is the same 3km higher than it was before, so the EAFEA will increase by about 3km. But there are also two countervailing effects: the temperature of the emissions will be lower, which makes the EAFEA higher, but the angular window of escape will be wider, which makes the EAFEA lower. It's not clear which of these effects is stronger, so we don't know if the EAFEA will be a little more than 3km higher or a little less than 3km higher.
2] I corrected my word from 'concentration' to 'thins out'. When I 1st wrote that reply, to me, the 2 words have the same meaning. I clarified, abd like a troll, you didn't want to let me. [Lurkers this is important.]

See above for my correct description of the fact you so clumsily tried to identify.
So, I still claim that as we go up in altitude there are less and less molecules of CO2 in each cubic cm of the thinner air. So, I'm claiming that it is this num. of molecules/cm that matters. So, I'm claiming [building on my cloudy day analogy] that adding CO2 to the air will be fully mixed so that the CO2 is evenly mixed, and so at some point in altitude the infrared just keeps going.
And, that pushing this altitude higher is like adding more density to a cloud on a cloudy day, or keeping the density the same but increasing to distance from its bottom to its top. Or, adding another blanket to a bad in a bed analogy.

This is all correct. Well done! You finally grasped my blanket analogy.
3] In winter cloudy days are warmer than sunny days because the sunny days are under high pressure domes and they have high pressure for 2 reasons; a] they are drier so have less of the light weight water molecules, and b] they just moved in from up north where it is colder.

Oh, what a shame. And you were doing so well...

No. Cloudy days are warmer than sunny days in the winter because the sun's low angle means little sunlight is absorbed by the earth's surface (especially if it is covered with snow!), and absent clouds, there is too little water vapor in the air to block IR heat loss from the earth's surface and the air layers immediately above it.
This doesn't change that fact that in winter a cold sunny day will heat up more during the day than a cloudy day.

A clear day will only heat up more because a clear night is so much colder than a cloudy one. Duh. You need to read a lot more of my posts to improve your critical thinking skills.
The sunny day just starts out colder because of the above reasons and because during the previous night the sky was cloudless, and so more of the infrared heat light could radiate out into space. [This clear sky effect is also seen in deserts where they are hot in the day and freezing cold at light.]

Because there is so little water vapor in the air that IR heat is easily lost to outer space. Right. The Romans found they could freeze food and water in the middle of the Sahara by covering a large area with half a meter of straw at dawn, uncovering it at sunset, and repeating that for a few days. That trick doesn't work where there is more water vapor in the air.
4] TtP, you are relying a 100 year old paper, and ignoring the refutations of his work.

There has been no refutation, which is why the HITRAN data set agrees with Angstrom. You or someone else here tried to post a putative refutation of Angstrom, and I demolished it.
You said above somewhere that he was referring the sea level air.

Yes, that is the standard atmosphere.
I have pointed out that the refutations brought in the idea that the air thins out as we go up in altitude.

That effect is irrelevant at the surface, as I already explained.
My source said that Angstrom didn't address this effect.

Because it is irrelevant to his results and to surface temperature.
And that later scientists have looked at this, and have shown that Angstrom was wrong only in that he didn't look at the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations that are fully mixed have on the infrared light in the upper atmosphere.

He wasn't wrong, and they showed only that they are trying to pretend an irrelevancy is relevant. THEY are wrong in claiming that the effect of CO2 at higher altitudes is relevant to Angstrom's results or to surface temperature.
. . . TtP, you are trying to use HS debate club rules where any paper no matter how refuted can be used in one's evidence, because it is up to the otherside to know how the refute that info. I am refuting it and so far, you have not convinced the Lurkers or me that my refutation is not correct.

No. I don't care if I have convinced you or anyone else. I have shown why your claimed "refutation" is no such thing. All it does is pretend that an irrelevancy is relevant.
You keep bringing it up. A scientist would be drummed out of the profession if he/she insisted on using refuted info without showing how the refutation was wrong.

Angstrom's result has not been refuted, which is why the HITRAN data agree with him, and I already explained why the putative refutation was no such thing. It was effectively nothing but a disingenuous attempt to change the subject.
You are insisting on using refuted info from Angstrom's paper, and so far you have not groked the refutations and then shown how they are wrong.

See above. Angstrom was never refuted, and I will thank you to remember it. I already proved the disgustingly disingenuous putative "refutation" you have trotted out was a gigantic nothing burger.
. . . This shows that the sun does put out some infrared heat light.

No, absorption of visible light will have the same effect. However, as it happens, the sun does put out a lot of IR. Just a lot less than the visible part of its output, and it is all absorbed by GHGs on its way down through the atmosphere.
It has no effect on the GHG effect because the increased CO2 blocks the incoming infrared heat light just as much as it blocks the out-going heat light, the 2 effects are very close to cancelling out.]

No. CO2 absorbs incident solar IR high in the atmosphere, above where H2O condenses out. Below that level, the H2O makes the atmosphere almost totally opaque to IR. It's not "very close to cancelling out" because incident solar IR never gets anywhere near the surface, while IR from the surface does end up escaping to outer space.
#15195458
Truth To Power wrote:
It's nice to see you choosing to be objectively wrong. Increases my confidence that I'm objectively right.



Company shills don't get to rewrite science.
#15195468
Truth To Power wrote:Wish I could say the same...

No, that is just another objectively false claim from you. I've known that fact far longer than you, having learned it when I was studying atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university almost 50 years ago.

Correct. Now the next step is for you to learn that there is a great deal of difference between a doubling of CO2 that causes global warming by raising the equilibrium temperature slightly by 3.0C (roughly the mid-range of the IPCC's estimates) and a doubling that raises it slightly by 0.3C (closer to what Angstrom's result implies). The two statements above that you falsely claimed I am unaware of are equally true at both numbers. But the implications are very, very different.


Please provide evidence that more CO2 does not lengthen the time it takes for energy to be emitted into space.
#15195511
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that more CO2 does not lengthen the time it takes for energy to be emitted into space.

Why would I do that when it obviously does, and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary??

Don't you ever get tired of having your disingenuous strawman fallacies so cruelly exposed?
#15195512
Truth To Power wrote:…. it obviously does, and I have never said or implied anything to the contrary….


If CO2 significantly lengthens the time it takes for heat energy to escape into space, and this means the Earth and its atmosphere lose heat less rapidly than the system absorbs heat, this means that CO2 is a significant factor in global warming.
#15195553
Truth To Power wrote:
False and unsupported personal accusations are the opposite of science.



This is politics, not science, as you well know.

Btw, the things you say were mostly shot down, by scientists, before the new millennium started...
#15195582
Pants-of-dog wrote:If CO2 significantly lengthens the time it takes for heat energy to escape into space,

It doesn't. Near the earth's surface, its effect is insignificant compared to water vapor; and above the altitude where water vapor condenses out, heat escapes into space rapidly anyway.
and this means the Earth and its atmosphere lose heat less rapidly than the system absorbs heat,

No it doesn't, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently. How long it takes incident solar energy absorbed by the earth's surface to reach outer space is completely irrelevant to how much of it does. When 1m^3 of water enters a city water system from a reservoir, it doesn't matter if it takes 1hr for that m^3 of water to flow out of someone's tap or 1 month; it doesn't somehow make the pipe system hold more water if it sits in the system longer.
this means that CO2 is a significant factor in global warming.

No, I just proved above that it doesn't.
#15195584
late wrote:This is politics, not science, as you well know.

It is on your side, anyway. That is why you feel you have to resort to false and unsupported attacks on my character.
Btw, the things you say were mostly shot down, by scientists, before the new millennium started...

No they weren't, which is why you can't shoot them down either.
#15195587
Truth To Power wrote:It doesn't.



Provide evidence for this claim.

When 1m^3 of water enters a city water system from a reservoir, it doesn't matter if it takes 1hr for that m^3 of water to flow out of someone's tap or 1 month; it doesn't somehow make the pipe system hold more water if it sits in the system longer.


I see.

In this analogy, the sun shuts off and does not add more heat energy after the Earth warms up, like the reservoir stops filling up the pipe system when the required pressure is reached.

The sun does not shut off in real life, by the way.
#15195629
Truth To Power wrote:
No they weren't,

which is why you can't shoot them down either.



The science reached consensus 20 years ago. Btw, in the word amateur, ama means love. Professional trolls are here to make a buck, and don't get passionate. Don't add to my disappointment in you by trying to fake that.

This isn't about you or me, in the slightest. That's one of your many lies. Scientists determine what a science says, and it's been finding that humans cause warming for almost half a century. You are using the classic propaganda tactic of trying to create the appearance of controversy when there is none...

You don't belong here. Try the swamps.
#15195637
Truth To Power wrote:Good. It seems you are learning something from reading my posts.

The shift in the equilibrium average final emission altitude (EAFEA) caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere means conditions become somewhat different between that altitude and the previous ("pre-industrial") EAFEA, just not farther down. Doubling CO2 means its density is the same 3km higher than it was before, so the EAFEA will increase by about 3km. But there are also two countervailing effects: the temperature of the emissions will be lower, which makes the EAFEA higher, but the angular window of escape will be wider, which makes the EAFEA lower. It's not clear which of these effects is stronger, so we don't know if the EAFEA will be a little more than 3km higher or a little less than 3km higher.

See above for my correct description of the fact you so clumsily tried to identify.

This is all correct. Well done! You finally grasped my blanket analogy.

Oh, what a shame. And you were doing so well...

No. Cloudy days are warmer than sunny days in the winter because the sun's low angle means little sunlight is absorbed by the earth's surface (especially if it is covered with snow!), and absent clouds, there is too little water vapor in the air to block IR heat loss from the earth's surface and the air layers immediately above it.

A clear day will only heat up more because a clear night is so much colder than a cloudy one. Duh. You need to read a lot more of my posts to improve your critical thinking skills.

Because there is so little water vapor in the air that IR heat is easily lost to outer space. Right. The Romans found they could freeze food and water in the middle of the Sahara by covering a large area with half a meter of straw at dawn, uncovering it at sunset, and repeating that for a few days. That trick doesn't work where there is more water vapor in the air.

There has been no refutation, which is why the HITRAN data set agrees with Angstrom. You or someone else here tried to post a putative refutation of Angstrom, and I demolished it.

Yes, that is the standard atmosphere.

That effect is irrelevant at the surface, as I already explained.

Because it is irrelevant to his results and to surface temperature.

He wasn't wrong, and they showed only that they are trying to pretend an irrelevancy is relevant. THEY are wrong in claiming that the effect of CO2 at higher altitudes is relevant to Angstrom's results or to surface temperature.

No. I don't care if I have convinced you or anyone else. I have shown why your claimed "refutation" is no such thing. All it does is pretend that an irrelevancy is relevant.

Angstrom's result has not been refuted, which is why the HITRAN data agree with him, and I already explained why the putative refutation was no such thing. It was effectively nothing but a disingenuous attempt to change the subject.

See above. Angstrom was never refuted, and I will thank you to remember it. I already proved the disgustingly disingenuous putative "refutation" you have trotted out was a gigantic nothing burger.

No, absorption of visible light will have the same effect. However, as it happens, the sun does put out a lot of IR. Just a lot less than the visible part of its output, and it is all absorbed by GHGs on its way down through the atmosphere.

No. CO2 absorbs incident solar IR high in the atmosphere, above where H2O condenses out. Below that level, the H2O makes the atmosphere almost totally opaque to IR. It's not "very close to cancelling out" because incident solar IR never gets anywhere near the surface, while IR from the surface does end up escaping to outer space.

Lurkers, he makes so many unsupported assertions I'm not going to comment on any but the 1 I highlighted.
He asserts that all the IR is absorbed high in the atmosphere. My experience on a sunny day is that I can feel the heat of the sun on my skin. Doesn't this prove him wrong? He seems to ignore the fact that after a molecule absorbs IR it will re-radiate it in a random direction. Some always being down, some of the sun's IR will reach the surface.
I asserted that, as CO2 was added to the air it absorbs and blocks some of the IR of the sun coming in, and also IR going out. And the amounts are close to the same. They cancel out. It is the visible light coming in that all gets through to heat the Earth, and the IR that results is blocked some as it leaves, so the Earth heats up a little more every day than it did last year, and this small amount raises the temp so more IR is radiated up & out. Over the years it slowly adds up. Slowly compared to how fast the sun heats up metal in direct sun light.

Again, TtP seems to think that his assertions, all by themselves, should convince you. However, he also seems to assert that my assertions should not convince you, even though I do provide some argument to support mine.
Late may be right about TtP.
.
#15195650
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.

I just did. You merely don't know enough science to understand it.
In this analogy, the sun shuts off and does not add more heat energy after the Earth warms up, like the reservoir stops filling up the pipe system when the required pressure is reached.

No it doesn't. You simply made that up. As water is effectively incompressible, the pipe system is always "full," just like the earth's atmosphere is always full of solar energy. The difference is that the earth rotates, so half the atmosphere is always heating up and half is always cooling down. So to extend the analogy, if in our hypothesized city water system everyone is only allowed to use water for twelve hours a day, and which twelve hours you get to use water is determined by your address modulo 12, then people fill their bathtubs, toilets, etc. in their 12-hour window and then draw down the supply when their water is shut off, just as half the earth is always being heated by the sun and half is losing heat to space. As with the night-time loss of absorbed solar heat from the atmosphere, it doesn't matter how long any given m^3 of water is in the system, it doesn't increase or decrease the volume of water in the system.
The sun does not shut off in real life, by the way.

Neither does the city water supply. It's just that like the sun, it is only available at any given location half the time.

See how easily I always demolish and humiliate you for your ignorant, fallacious, and disingenuous nonscience?
#15195661
@Truth To Power

You have agreed that CO2 significantly increases the time it takes for heat to leave the planetary system.

This means that there is a net effect of more heat staying in the system for longer.

This means that CO2 is a driver of global warming.
#15195666
late wrote:The science reached consensus 20 years ago.

Science is always reaching consensus. It just never reached the consensus you claim it reached.
Btw, in the word amateur, ama means love. Professional trolls are here to make a buck, and don't get passionate. Don't add to my disappointment in you by trying to fake that.

:roll: I would urge you (and lurkers) to read my posts in the economics-related forums. You will learn something, and it might make you wonder who on earth could possibly be paying me to write such stuff.
This isn't about you or me, in the slightest.

Then why are you constantly trying to make it about me by accusing me of being a paid shill, and talking about nothing else? Watch:
That's one of your many lies.

See?
Scientists determine what a science says, and it's been finding that humans cause warming for almost half a century.

That is not in dispute. You just have to pretend I have said humans do not cause any warming because you need a strawman to attack in order to have anything to say at all.
You are using the classic propaganda tactic of trying to create the appearance of controversy when there is none...

No, you are using the classic propaganda tactic of trying to create the appearance that no reasonable person could doubt your claims.

You don't belong here. Try the swamps.
#15195667
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

You have agreed that CO2 significantly increases the time it takes for heat to leave the planetary system.

No, I stated explicitly that it doesn't.
This means that there is a net effect of more heat staying in the system for longer.

To the extent that there is a transient effect as the heat content of the atmosphere increases (like people standing slightly closer together in a queue when the queue's progress slows), its effect on surface temperature would be immeasurably small.
This means that CO2 is a driver of global warming.

I have never disputed that CO2 is a driver of global warming. It just isn't a significant one.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 36

liberal compassionate forgiving laws cannot ult[…]

It's not about punishing the mom, it's about not […]

Personally I don’t get the anxiety about working w[…]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-eng[…]