"Whether we like it or not" - Page 15 - 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.
#15195987
Truth To Power wrote:You just made that number up.

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.

No, it has nothing to do with the amount of IR radiated up from the surface.

No it isn't, and you have yet to identify any such.

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.

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.
True.


Lurkers, reread what TtP wrote there.
As I read it , he just agreed that adding CO2 to the air will reduce the amount of IR heat that escapes into space each day, compared to the day before. This because reducing the temp of the TR radiation is saying reducing the energy of each photon if IR light. He provided no evidence that the angular size of the escape window is significant. I doubt that it is because the increase is mostly in the part that is close to the horizon and so has to penetrate the most air before it escapes to space.
. . . As I showed above, the effect in any day is very small, it is just that the change over the whole Earth is always in the same direction (less IR escaping all else being equal, which it isn't because the Earth is slightly warmer each day) and these small differences add up over the 3652.5 days in a decade.

Yes, TtP is right I made up that number just to show you how tiny the change in heat loss needs to be to add up over decades to what is being predicted by climate scientists.
. . . I estimated 1 deg. C per decade, this gave me the number of 0.000274 deg. C per day.
. . . If you want to change that to 1 deg. C over 3 decades, then 3x 0.000274 = 0.000822 deg. C per day. This number is still 20% less than 1/1,000 deg. C per day.

He also seemed to agree that increasing CO2 levels will act like a blanket to reduce the heat that escapes out into space, just like the snake will take longer to heat up when it is under a down blanket.
.
#15196086
Steve_American wrote:As I read it , he just agreed that adding CO2 to the air will reduce the amount of IR heat that escapes into space each day, compared to the day before.

Just as adding a teaspoon of water to a leaky bathtub will increase the pressure and thus the rate of leakage. The question is HOW MUCH CO2 reduces the amount of IR escaping into space, and more importantly, the amount escaping the region immediately above the surface higher into the atmosphere.
This because reducing the temp of the TR radiation is saying reducing the energy of each photon if IR light.

The average energy. Right.
He provided no evidence that the angular size of the escape window is significant.

It should be obvious as a matter of geometric intuition. The average emission altitude is currently ~9km, and doubling CO2 will increase it to ~12km. If you have ever flown at that altitude, you may have noticed that the daylight sky near the horizon gets significantly darker. That is because the atmosphere, and thus the GHG density, gets significantly thinner. You can think of the escape window as a cone extending above each GHG molecule. It is mathematically certain that increasing the emission altitude will significantly widen that cone and the escape window.
I doubt that it is because the increase is mostly in the part that is close to the horizon and so has to penetrate the most air before it escapes to space.

That is exactly why increasing the altitude is so significant.
. . . As I showed above, the effect in any day is very small, it is just that the change over the whole Earth is always in the same direction (less IR escaping all else being equal, which it isn't because the Earth is slightly warmer each day) and these small differences add up over the 3652.5 days in a decade.

But exactly how much do they add up to?
He also seemed to agree that increasing CO2 levels will act like a blanket to reduce the heat that escapes out into space, just like the snake will take longer to heat up when it is under a down blanket.

Yes, CO2 acts like a blanket: doubling CO2 is like adding a cotton blanket to a bed that already has a cotton blanket and 40 wool blankets on it.
#15196122
CO2 is not the only issue either. Breathing shit that is burned is not a good idea. In fact, other than the mixture of “normal air” which is composed of about 21% O2 and 78% nitrogen, almost anything else you breathe is bad. You breathe burned trash? Bad, burned plastics? Bad, products of combusted gas, petroleum, coal and other hydrocarbons release many chemicals other than CO2, not to mention particulate matter in many cases.
This is not great anyway you analyze it.
#15196142
XogGyux wrote:CO2 is not the only issue either. Breathing shit that is burned is not a good idea. In fact, other than the mixture of “normal air” which is composed of about 21% O2 and 78% nitrogen, almost anything else you breathe is bad. You breathe burned trash? Bad, burned plastics? Bad, products of combusted gas, petroleum, coal and other hydrocarbons release many chemicals other than CO2, not to mention particulate matter in many cases.
This is not great anyway you analyze it.

That's a good argument to ban the internal combution engine. My God! I'm agreeing with @QatzelOk about something.... :eek:
#15196151
XogGyux wrote:But I am not him :hmm:

I didn't say you were. But you sound strangely disappointed not to be @QatzelOk.... :eh:
#15196153
Potemkin wrote:I didn't say you were. But you sound strangely disappointed not to be @QatzelOk.... :eh:

You are weird, why are you quoting me then? :lol: My notification warned me! I cannot leave any post unanswered!
#15196164
Truth To Power wrote:1] Just as adding a teaspoon of water to a leaky bathtub will increase the pressure and thus the rate of leakage. The question is HOW MUCH CO2 reduces the amount of IR escaping into space, and more importantly, the amount escaping the region immediately above the surface higher into the atmosphere.

2] The average energy. Right.

3] It should be obvious as a matter of geometric intuition.
3a] The average emission altitude is currently ~9km, and doubling CO2 will increase it to ~12km.
b] If you have ever flown at that altitude, you may have noticed that the daylight sky near the horizon gets significantly darker.
c] That is because the atmosphere, and thus the GHG density, gets significantly thinner. You can think of the escape window as a cone extending above each GHG molecule.
d] It is mathematically certain that increasing the emission altitude will significantly widen that cone and the escape window.

4] That is exactly why increasing the altitude is so significant.

5] But exactly how much do they add up to?

6] Yes, CO2 acts like a blanket: doubling CO2 is like adding a cotton blanket to a bed that already has a cotton blanket and 40 wool blankets on it.


1] Lurkers, we know how much IR energy must escape the lower atmosphere to reach the higher atmosphere. It obviously must be just just about exactly the amount of energy the sun sends out that reaches the Earth's surface. TtP is claiming that the Earth is NOT heating up because of CO2 in the air. IIRC, he is claiming that it is cooling off, or at least not heating up. You and I know that if the Earth is heating up and does continue to do so, that it will heat up until it reaches a 4 deg. C increase from the ave. temp now.
. . . So, the question TtP seems to be asking vaguely is; is the IR escaping more or less than the incoming energy from the sun? Here he doesn't give his answer.

2] OK, he agrees that the ave. "temp." of the IR light that is going up, is less because the average energy is less. However, he makes no assertion of how many photons are still going up. You and I know that the amount of energy going up at every level must be the same as the amount that came up to that level (plus any stopped at that level), otherwise the air at that level would be heating up. AFAIK, the air at higher altitudes is not heating up much.
. . . 1st, for example, if the average energy of the photons of IR light is 5/6 of the energy at lower altitudes, then if there are the same number of photons of IR there will be less energy sent up and out to space. However, if there are 1.3 times more photons then more energy going up and out to space will be increased.
. . . 2nd, so, TtP, has never explained why the ave. temp of the outgoing IR light is reduced. I would have thought that it would not be changed much because as a molecule absorbs a photon it gains energy, and then later it loses the exact same energy as it reradiates an IR photon in a random direction. This is quantum mechanics.
. . . Until TtP explains why the ave. temp of the IR light is reduced and why the number of photons doesn't change to almost exactly balance this out, we don't need to believe his unsupported assertion that a reduction in the ave. 'temp' of the IR is significant.

3] OK, let's see.
. a] Just an assertion, but OK (for now) I'll assume it's correct. BTW -- 12km = 38,000 ft. as high as airliners fly.
. b] I have not seen this, but again, OK, for now.
. c] Or, it is because the sun is above you and so less of its light is scattered at a 95+ deg. angle back up toward you.
. d] TtP wrote, "It is mathematically certain that increasing the emission altitude will significantly widen that cone and the escape window."
So, finally, he gets to his point. The escape window is widened a lot. If this is true, then all else being equal (I know it isn't), it follows that a wider window means more of the IR photons escape. Then, it follows that more energy is escaping. Then it follows that the Earth is cooling a lot. OK, we can all agree that the Earth is not cooling a lot, why?
. . . OK, I accepted for now much of what he asserted. I never saw him assert the number of photons being created at each level of the atmosphere. Without this number the argument is incomplete. However, if the ave. energy of the IR photons is less then to have about the same energy escaping there must be more of them. If he asserts that both numbers (change in IR energy and number of photons exactly cancel out except for the exact amount of energy that is escaping to space to give exactly his exact change in the Earth's ave. temp), then it seems to me that he has just made another unsupported assertion.

So, for me his #3 and #4 is just a bunch of word salad without meaning.

5] This asks a question, implying 'not enough or not much'. So, I can't reply.

6] Again, just an unsupported assertion if you lurkers agree that his #3 is just word salad.

________________.________________________

BTW --- I made an error in an above reply.
I said that 0.000274 deg C of heating per day adds up to 1 dec. C. over a decade. This is correct. However,
I said that to change it so it takes 3 decades to add 1 deg. C I did it wrong.

To change it to 3 decades the calculation becomes => 0.000274 / 3 = 0.0000913 deg. C/day for the 10957.5 days in 3 decades. [To double check it; 0.0000913 x 10957.5 = 1.00042 = 1.000.]

TtP never addressed this point. My point here is to show you lurkers just how tiny the climate scientists are claiming the Earth as a whole on average will heat up each day, to total 1 deg or 1/3 deg. per decade of heating.

.
#15196167
XogGyux wrote:You are weird, why are you quoting me then? :lol: My notification warned me! I cannot leave any post unanswered!

One of the unintended consequences of being a medical doctor is that you become conditioned to reflexively respond to every notification you are sent. Paging Dr @XogGyux.... :excited:

It's @QatzelOk who has said he wants to ban the internal combustion engine, not you. I was therefore agreeing with @QatzelOk, not with you, as I said. What is the problem? You just finished another 40 hour shift or something? :eh:
#15196178
Truth To Power wrote:HOW MUCH CO2 reduces the amount of IR escaping into space

The way I see it. When I die, my/the world dies with me. Seeing as I will be dead soon enough in any case, global warming or not, why should I give a toss.

For you young uns who'll have to live through it

According to the experts/spokesmen for the environmental NGOs, the earth has reached the tipping point, and worrying about it won't change anything. Whatever we do now is unlikely to make any difference.

So eat, drink, and be merry while you can.


:|
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Oct 2021 17:40, edited 2 times in total.
#15196198
Potemkin wrote:One of the unintended consequences of being a medical doctor is that you become conditioned to reflexively respond to every notification you are sent. Paging Dr @XogGyux.... :excited:

It's @QatzelOk who has said he wants to ban the internal combustion engine, not you. I was therefore agreeing with @QatzelOk, not with you, as I said. What is the problem? You just finished another 40 hour shift or something? :eh:

So snippy :lol:
#15196214
Pollution mitigating strategies so far

1. "Let's work with the stakeholders in the Auto and Oil industries, and try to find a solution that works for everyone. :) "

2. **Things continue to deteriorate**

3. "Let's invest in new experimental technologies that some of our stakeholders can sell us at exorbitant prices. :) "

4. **Someone writes a thread about removing CO2 with new tech**

5. **Others suggest working with big stakeholders, like the Auto and Oil sectors**

6. ** ? ***

Potemkin wrote:...you sound strangely disappointed not to be @QatzelOk.... :eh:

It's really not all it's cracked up to be.
#15196219
ingliz wrote:
According to the experts/spokesmen for the environmental NGOs, the earth has reached the tipping point, and worrying about it won't change anything. Whatever we do now is unlikely to make any difference.



Crude, inaccurate, and conveniently allows you to dodge responsibility...
#15196221
ingliz wrote:According to the experts/spokesmen for the environmental NGOs, the earth has reached the tipping point, and worrying about it won't change anything.

But they are actually wrong, and the tipping point -- where positive feedback takes over -- is toward cooling, producing ice ages, not warming.
#15196222
Pants-of-dog wrote:Satellite observations confirm that less heat is escaping into space, and that CO2 is one of the reasons why.

But probably a very minor reason. The main reason is probably that the sun has become less active over the last 10 years, and produces much less UV. UV is absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere (which is the main reason the upper atmosphere is so hot) and then released as IR, so reduced solar UV output reduces IR heat escaping into space.
#15196223
XogGyux wrote:CO2 is not the only issue either. Breathing shit that is burned is not a good idea. In fact, other than the mixture of “normal air” which is composed of about 21% O2 and 78% nitrogen,

That's dry air. Water vapor accounts for 1%-4% of sea level air, which declines with temperature (i.e., with increasing altitude and latitude). ~1% at all altitudes is argon.
almost anything else you breathe is bad. You breathe burned trash? Bad, burned plastics? Bad, products of combusted gas, petroleum, coal and other hydrocarbons release many chemicals other than CO2, not to mention particulate matter in many cases.
This is not great anyway you analyze it.

It's true that burning fossil fuels produces chemicals other than CO2 and H2O -- which are harmless -- and many of those chemicals are toxic. That is one reason why anti-CO2 hysteria is so misguided and harmful: it diverts attention from the real problems with fossil fuels, such as emissions of NOx and particulates from inefficient vehicle engines, mercury and arsenic from burning coal, toxic chemicals used in oil drilling and fracking, etc.
#15196224
@Truth To Power

Ah yes, the warming melts the ice, that fucks up the ocean conveyor, and without that, you get 'Snowball Earth' for 10 million years.

What's the difference in practice? You're still fucked, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.


:)
#15196227
Truth To Power wrote:But probably a very minor reason. The main reason is probably that the sun has become less active over the last 10 years, and produces much less UV. UV is absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere (which is the main reason the upper atmosphere is so hot) and then released as IR, so reduced solar UV output reduces IR heat escaping into space.


If you have evidence for this speculation, present it.

If not, it is dismissed as mere speculation.
#15196233
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you have evidence for this speculation, present it.

If not, it is dismissed as mere speculation.

You will have to do better than blanket, unsupported denialism. Which statement of my description do you claim is untrue? Do you dispute that ozone absorbs UV? That the sun's UV output has decreased? That UV heats the upper atmosphere? That the heat from absorbed UV is radiated out as IR? I have given you the relevant facts. If you have evidence that any of them is incorrect, please present it. Otherwise, you are just a climate science denier.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 37

But we don't hesitate to go after offshore crooks[…]

@B0ycey Road deaths? :roll: Don't start par[…]

Actually, men in my country are still drafted. Th[…]

On Christian Zionism

I feel that a key reason has to do with white Ame[…]