"Whether we like it or not" - Page 14 - 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.
#15195668
Truth To Power wrote:No, I stated explicitly that it doesn't.

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.

I have never disputed that CO2 is a driver of global warming. It just isn't a significant one.


Provide evidence that the effect of CO2 is small.

This means a link to a peer reviewed study that explicitly discusses heat loss from the atmosphere to space.

Quote the relevant text.
#15195669
Steve_American wrote:He asserts that all the IR is absorbed high in the atmosphere.

Depends what you mean by "high." It is not all absorbed until it encounters significant water vapor in the upper troposphere, because CO2's IR absorption spectrum has substantial gaps.
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?

:roll: No, because what you are feeling is the energy in the visible (and UV) spectrum that your skin is absorbing. You can feel the same thing to a lesser extent by putting your hand in front of an LED light, which produces very little IR.
He seems to ignore the fact that after a molecule absorbs IR it will re-radiate it in a random direction.

No, I do not, and I have stated that fact a number of times.
Some always being down, some of the sun's IR will reach the surface.

Of course, in theory. But it mixes with outgoing IR from the earth's surface, which is far greater, and there is no way to separate them out.
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.

They can't, because the outgoing IR is many times greater than the incident IR from the sun.
It is the visible light coming in that all gets through to heat the Earth,

Except what is reflected. Google "albedo" and start reading.
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.

No, IR loss reaches a new equilibrium very quickly. What takes years or even centuries is heating and cooling of the oceans and the melting and growth of glaciers.
Slowly compared to how fast the sun heats up metal in direct sun light.

Except for the oceans and glaciers, the IR loss reaches its new equilibrium within each annual cycle.
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.

No, that is false. I support my statements with facts, most of them common knowledge. If I say that an assertion of yours does not support the claim you say it supports, I explain why.
#15195670
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence that the effect of CO2 is small.

As you know, but are disingenuously pretending not to, I already did: the Angstrom paper.
This means a link to a peer reviewed study that explicitly discusses heat loss from the atmosphere to space.

No it doesn't, because at the altitude where heat is lost from the atmosphere to space, there is almost no water vapor, and the effect of CO2 is consequently far greater. It's just irrelevant to the effect lower down, where the atmosphere is far denser, water vapor is orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2, and consequently almost all the IR absorption and re-emission occur. I have explained this to you, very clearly and patiently, multiple times.
Quote the relevant text.

The "information" you are asking for is irrelevant, so by definition, there can't be any relevant text about it.
#15195671
Truth To Power wrote:As you know, but are disingenuously pretending not to, I already did: the Angstrom paper.

No it doesn't, because at the altitude where heat is lost from the atmosphere to space, there is almost no water vapor, and the effect of CO2 is consequently far greater. It's just irrelevant to the effect lower down, where the atmosphere is far denser, water vapor is orders of magnitude more abundant than CO2, and consequently almost all the IR absorption and re-emission occur. I have explained this to you, very clearly and patiently, multiple times.

The "information" you are asking for is irrelevant, so by definition, there can't be any relevant text about it.


You continue to not read my posts properly.

I dp not care about irrelevant things like IR absorption near the surface. It does not change the fact that CO2 keeps the atmosphere from bleeding heat out to space as quickly as the atmosphere absorbs heat.

It is simple math:

The same amount of energy in a given amount of time keeps coming in at the same rate. The amount of energy going out of the system decreases because of some factor. This means that the system warms up.

CO2 is one of the factors that is causing the rate of heat loss to be reduced.

Now, provide evidence that I am wrong in the form of peer reviewed study from which you need to quote the relevant text.
#15195672
Truth To Power wrote:

I would urge you (and lurkers) to read my posts in the economics-related forums.



Big Oil only cares about it's propaganda, you can say pretty much anything on any topic that doesn't impact them.

Big Oil started doing this a quarter century ago. It was crude back then, they'd have guys cruising old folks homes trying to get signatures from retired scientists.

Since then they have taken propaganda to never before seen levels of sophistication. You know, like you.
#15195716
Truth To Power wrote:Depends what you mean by "high." It is not all absorbed until it encounters significant water vapor in the upper troposphere, because CO2's IR absorption spectrum has substantial gaps.

:roll: No, because what you are feeling is the energy in the visible (and UV) spectrum that your skin is absorbing. You can feel the same thing to a lesser extent by putting your hand in front of an LED light, which produces very little IR.

No, I do not, and I have stated that fact a number of times.

Of course, in theory. But it mixes with outgoing IR from the earth's surface, which is far greater, and there is no way to separate them out.

They can't, because the outgoing IR is many times greater than the incident IR from the sun.

Except what is reflected. Google "albedo" and start reading.

No, IR loss reaches a new equilibrium very quickly. What takes years or even centuries is heating and cooling of the oceans and the melting and growth of glaciers.

Except for the oceans and glaciers, the IR loss reaches its new equilibrium within each annual cycle.

No, that is false. I support my statements with facts, most of them common knowledge. If I say that an assertion of yours does not support the claim you say it supports, I explain why.

The equilibrium TtP speaks of is a result of the surface of the Earth heating a tiny amount each day, that adds up over the year to about 0.1 deg. C. This then adds over each decade to about 1 deg. C. If these numbers are taken as a basis to calculate from (it may be 0.05 deg.C to 0.15 deg. C; which becomes 1 deg. C per 20 years to 1 deg. per 6.667 years) then the average daily increase in temp is just the tiny 0.000274 deg. C per day. [Actually, because the Earth over the whole area is heating up about 0.000274 deg. C per day it is not correct to say that the Earth (on the average over its whole area) (let alone the daily and seasonal changes) is in equilibrium, the average temp is changing a tiny amount every day. The Earth is constantly chasing that new equilibrium state but as long as we keep adding CO2 it will never reach it.]

So, TtP if your *new*equilibrium is not the result in a daily average temp increase of about 0.000274 deg. C; then it is up to you to explain why the amount of IR light being radiated up from the surface has increased to reach the new equilibrium amount that you claim is happening.

Also, like me you only support some of your assertions with evidence or arguments; AND much the evidence you assert is also just false. For example, your "new equilibrium" thing is very vague. My new almost equilibrium results from the 0.000274 deg. C average daily temp increase that has resulted from the CO2 in the air slowing the heat lost by the Earth which heats the Earth, which then results in more IR that then almost matches the incoming energy from the sun. Until you explain how your new equilibrium is created, it is just an example of an assertion without evidence.

Lukers, IR light can be seen as being like water in a glass. We don't need to separate the water that was in the glass from the water we just added. It is still in the glass. In the same way IR light coming in and going out is all being absorbed and re-radiated all day long. Some up and some down. We know that some of the IR heat going up reaches space. So, we should also know that some IR heat from the sun reaches the surface.

Lurkers, if we put 2 snakes in the refrig and cool them.
Then put the 2 snakes under a heat lamp to warm them,
with one under very thin cloth, and the other under a down blanket;
then the one under the down blanket will take longer to heat up to room temp, tight?
In the same way at night the Earth's surface is warm and it radiates IR heat up toward space, that is
in 1 case we are trying to get the heat down to the snake, and in the other case we are trying to get the heat out into space.

So, the added by humans CO2 acts like the down blanket to slow the rate at which the heat reaches the cold thing (the snake or the void of space).

Now, as PoaDog said, (or was it Late?), if it takes longer to rediate X amount of heat by IR out to space and the same X amount of light energy is reaching the Earth each day, then some tiny amount of heat will not have been lost to space each day (over the whole Earth, N. & S. hemispheres, and 24 hours), before the next day starts. Therefore, each day there will be a little more heat in the Earth's surface, and this will heat the surface (land and water, etc.), and then this increase in temp. will increase the IR energy being up by the surface. This increased IR heat will be enough to cause enough IR heat to be sent back into space (even though the blanket is thicker each day) to be close to the new equilibrium that TtP speaks of.

.
#15195728
Most of the planet is warming, glaciers are melting, ecosystems are suffering and species are going extinct.

According to NASA and thousands of scientists, we did it.

Or you can believe Big Oil bullshit.
#15195745
late wrote:Most of the planet is warming, glaciers are melting, ecosystems are suffering and species are going extinct.

According to NASA and thousands of scientists, we did it.

Or you can believe Big Oil bullshit.

Something weird is clearly happening. The climate is not behaving like a typical Ice Age interstadial. The most likely explanation is the presence of human industrial civilisation, which seems to be the main difference from previous interstadials. And if our activities have created a problem, then it stands to reason that our activities can ameliorate or even solve it.
#15195776
late wrote:Big Oil only cares about it's propaganda, you can say pretty much anything on any topic that doesn't impact them.

:lol: You clearly know nothing about it.
Big Oil started doing this a quarter century ago. It was crude back then, they'd have guys cruising old folks homes trying to get signatures from retired scientists.

Since then they have taken propaganda to never before seen levels of sophistication. You know, like you.

:roll: And you accuse me of conspiracy theories?
#15195777
Potemkin wrote:Something weird is clearly happening.

You mean the perversion of science in service of a political agenda? Yes, that is weird. But not unprecedented: see modern mainstream neoclassical economics.
The climate is not behaving like a typical Ice Age interstadial.

Sure it is.
#15195823
Pants-of-dog wrote:You continue to not read my posts properly.

Perhaps. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that their posts make some sort of sense. That is not always the case, and can lead me to interpret their posts as making more sense than they actually do:
I dp not care about irrelevant things like IR absorption near the surface.

See? IR absorption near the surface is the only thing that is relevant to the effect of CO2 on surface temperature, which is the only reason to worry about CO2.
It does not change the fact that CO2 keeps the atmosphere from bleeding heat out to space as quickly as the atmosphere absorbs heat.

That is not a fact. It is unscientific nonsense. The loss of heat to space from the atmosphere is and must be in equilibrium with absorption of heat from the sun. The relevant factor is how increased CO2 affects the equilibrium, and how that change affects surface temperature.
It is simple math:

Oh, dear...
The same amount of energy in a given amount of time keeps coming in at the same rate.

No, because both the earth's albedo and the sun's output are subject to change. Which is kinda the point. But even leaving that aside:
The amount of energy going out of the system decreases because of some factor. This means that the system warms up.

Yes, but that is only a transient effect. The system has to move to a new equilibrium where energy out equals energy in. That is why the key parameter is equilibrium climate sensitivity, or ECS.
CO2 is one of the factors that is causing the rate of heat loss to be reduced.

No, it only changes the equilibrium conditions, as I have already explained to you, very clearly and patiently, multiple times. CO2 doesn't change the rate of heat loss, only the equilibrium conditions under which all the heat that is absorbed is subsequently lost.
Now, provide evidence that I am wrong in the form of peer reviewed study from which you need to quote the relevant text.

No peer-reviewed study would ever address your bizarre misapprehension of the relevant mechanisms of atmospheric radiative heat transfer.
#15195825
Its a good thing that these idiots are usually just keyboard warriors. Imagine if one of them starts rushing into the Plane's cabin to tell the pilot "you are not doing your job right, I read it on an internet website, get out of the seat I'll do the your job for you", or if they go up to the crane operator and "your crane is not balanced, get out of your seat, I will do it myself, I learned on this website...". This is basically what they are doing, the weather scientist doesn't know shit, the physicist doesn't know shit, the doctor does not know shit. Foking tinfoil flat earthers.
#15195834
@Truth To Power

Please do not bother responding to my posts any longer.

I Googled it, and found studies supporting my claim.

Satellite observations of energy emissions from the outer atmosphere show clear indication of reduced heat loss from CO2 as well as other GHGs.
#15195856
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Please do not bother responding to my posts any longer.

<yawn>
I Googled it, and found studies supporting my claim.

In your imagination.
Satellite observations of energy emissions from the outer atmosphere show clear indication of reduced heat loss from CO2 as well as other GHGs.

No reference? That's pretty funny coming from a guy who always demands peer-reviewed references from other people.
#15195860
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn>

In your imagination.

No reference? That's pretty funny coming from a guy who always demands peer-reviewed references from other people.


I am happy to provide a link, a quote, and an explanation.

But you have to ask nicely.
#15195925
Truth To Power wrote:Which won't support your claim. I get it.

<yawn>


Your posts are often written in a very rude manner. It would behoove you to try to be polite.

A simple sentence including the word “please” would suffice.
#15195933
Steve_American wrote:The equilibrium TtP speaks of is a result of the surface of the Earth heating a tiny amount each day, that adds up over the year to about 0.1 deg. C.

You just made that number up.
This then adds over each decade to about 1 deg. C. If these numbers are taken as a basis to calculate from (it may be 0.05 deg.C to 0.15 deg. C; which becomes 1 deg. C per 20 years to 1 deg. per 6.667 years) then the average daily increase in temp is just the tiny 0.000274 deg. C per day. [Actually, because the Earth over the whole area is heating up about 0.000274 deg. C per day it is not correct to say that the Earth (on the average over its whole area) (let alone the daily and seasonal changes) is in equilibrium, the average temp is changing a tiny amount every day. The Earth is constantly chasing that new equilibrium state but as long as we keep adding CO2 it will never reach it.]

You merely assume the earth's surface is warming because of CO2, but Angstrom showed over 100 years ago that no significant surface warming by CO2 is possible.
So, TtP if your *new*equilibrium is not the result in a daily average temp increase of about 0.000274 deg. C; then it is up to you to explain why the amount of IR light being radiated up from the surface has increased to reach the new equilibrium amount that you claim is happening.

No, it has nothing to do with the amount of IR radiated up from the surface.
Also, like me you only support some of your assertions with evidence or arguments; AND much the evidence you assert is also just false.

No it isn't, and you have yet to identify any such.
For example, your "new equilibrium" thing is very vague. My new almost equilibrium results from the 0.000274 deg. C average daily temp increase that has resulted from the CO2 in the air slowing the heat lost by the Earth which heats the Earth, which then results in more IR that then almost matches the incoming energy from the sun. Until you explain how your new equilibrium is created, it is just an example of an assertion without evidence.

I already explained it: the increased CO2 above the altitude where water vapor condenses out increases the altitude of the average final IR emission to outer space, and thus also the angular size of the escape window, while reducing its temperature. There is no significant effect at the surface.
Lukers, IR light can be seen as being like water in a glass. We don't need to separate the water that was in the glass from the water we just added. It is still in the glass. In the same way IR light coming in and going out is all being absorbed and re-radiated all day long. Some up and some down. We know that some of the IR heat going up reaches space. So, we should also know that some IR heat from the sun reaches the surface.

The difference is that WE KNOW the earth has to lose as much energy to space as it absorbs from sunlight, and WE KNOW that at a certain altitude, IR emitted upward won't be blocked by anything higher up. That is not true in the other direction.
So, the added by humans CO2 acts like the down blanket to slow the rate at which the heat reaches the cold thing (the snake or the void of space).

True.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 36

This is a Federal/State thing. States are alrea[…]

December 5, Saturday Fighting takes place at W[…]

There are some people, men and women who do belie[…]

Can the state not cultivate such a social love, P[…]