"Whether we like it or not" - Page 35 - 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.
#15200328
Truth To Power wrote:The troposphere has the highest density of air molecules.

The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere. You again prove that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spewing whatever nonscience you make up on the sopt.

No, the stratosphere does.


If your only criticism is that I wrote troposphere instead of thermosphere, then you are ignoring the point I made.

Again, the thermosphere is not the hottest part of the atmosphere. It has the highest temperature, but heat and temperature are not the same thing.

And I see that you have dropped your incorrect Angstrom argument entirely.
#15200337
Steve_American wrote:I'm replying to just the part I highlighted.

1] Lurkers, did you follow how TtP got from a "change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas" to "A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006"? I could see no connection between those 2 statements that are back-to-back in his reply.

2] Lurkers, TtP seems to totally fail to grok that changes in IR absorption cause a tiny amount in cooling or heating each day for centuries. This goes on until a new equilibrium temp is reached. So, a tiny change can cause a large temp change over many decades.

3] Lurkers, TtP above wrote, "A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because". I have not seen any attempt by TtP to support his claim that a 1% change in absorption is insignificant.
. . . This is my attempt to show that he is wrong using his own words. TtP asserts that the 280 ppm (IIRC) of CO2 in the air in 1850, will absorb all the IR light/heat in a few hundred meters. This is a lot of absorption. Yet TtP admits that IR light/heat still escapes into space, when he says energy in = energy out. Then he asserts that a 1% increase in the absorption of IR light/heat is insignificant.
. . . Well, remember we are not talking about an amount of a 'thing', we are talking about a rate of change of a 'thing'. Here the 'thing' is the amount of heat energy retained in a sample of air near the surface. We see this amount of heat energy retained as the temp of the air.
. . . An analogy might be wealth, income, and spending. Here wealth = the energy in the air measured as its temp. Income is the rate at which the IR energy is absorbed. And spending = the rate at which the energy of that sample of air loses its energy by reradiating IR light/heat. OK, here we are talking about what effect changing the rate of change in the income has on wealth. That is, does a 1% increase in the rate of change in income have a significant effect on the accumulated wealth of the person? We know that there is a time lag between increasing the CO2 ppm and the temp of the air. That is the air takes time to increase its temp. You know this because when you cook and boil water, turning up the fire under the pot does not immediately make it boil. This means that the temp of our air below slowly heats up, and because the amount of IR being reradiated depends on the temp of the air the amount of IT reradiated lags behind the amount of IR absorbed. We need to assume that she was spending the same as her income, because before in 1850 the temp was not increasing much due to the CO2 in the air.
. . . Suppose, the person's income was $100K/yr. Her wealth was $0, and her spending was $100K. this means her wealth was not changing because she spent all her income. [In 1850 we are assuming that the temp was constant. We do this because we need to eliminate all other reasons why the temp will change to see the effect a 1% change will have if all other factors are equal.]
. . . OK, her income was $100K. A 1% increase would make her earn $101K/yr. There is a lag in her increased spending. I'll assume for illustration here, that her spending increases by 0.06%, so 1.006 x 100k = $100.6k.
. . . Now, in the 1st year her wealth will increase by $101K - 100.6K = $0.4K. If her wealth is assumed to be 0 just for simplicity, then her wealth is now $0.4K.
. . . In the next year her income was $101K and it again increases by 1% so now her income is 101 x 1.01 = $102.01k. This year we'll illustrate by assuming her spending also increases by 0.06%, so she spends 1.006 x 100.6k = 101.20K. So, her wealth is now 0.4K + 102.01k - 101.20k = 1.21k

In each following year we multiply by the same 1% income increase and the same .6% spending increase, we get her wealth increased to $2.426k. After 7 years her wealth is now $11.564k. If we extend this to 100 years we can see that it is significant.

I redid the spread sheet and assumed that all her increased income was spent, but with a 1 year lag. In this case her wealth after 7 years was $12.365k. So, it was larger.

We all know that TtP will reject this analogy. I hope the Lurkers can grok the point, that is "changing the rate of something is never insignificant if the time is long enough.

Before, I have shown that adding just 0.0001 deg.C each day over 3 decades adds just about 1 deg.C to the temp. Obviously, adding more per day makes the 1 deg.C increase happen sooner.

TtP might have thought that adding just 0.0001 deg.C to the temp per day was insignificant. But, you can see that it isn't.

Also, because of the time lag of temp increase, if we stopped adding CO2 to the air today, by removing all of what we add, the temp would keep increasing. And worse, this would add more water vapor to the air, which is a much stronger GHG, so it would heat the Earth more & faster. In this wonderfully rosy case, it would take decades for the temp to reach the new equilibrium temp, and it might be a 2 or 3 deg.C increase on top of our current 1.15 deg.C increase from 1850 temps. This will be very bad. Even a 1 deg.C increase from now is very bad.
.


I quote myself to ask TtP to reply to my points here.

I think that I have totally destroyed Angstrom's proof that changes in CO2 levels would not change the rate at which IR light/heat escapes into space significantly enough to warm the Earth.
. . . I showed that even a tiny change will have an effect over decades.
. . . I showed that changing the rate of change in a rate of doing something adds up.
. . . I showed and TtP agreed that Angstrom didn't measure the temp of the CO2 in the tube to see where the energy was going. If the temp went up even a *tiny* amount, then he would have found that when IR light/heat is absorbed and reradiated, it does heat up the gas in the tube.
.
#15200346
Truth To Power wrote:Extreme weather would more likely be driven by higher gradients, not lower ones.

You'd think so.

But studies show lower, weaker jet streams cause a rise in deadly weather events as they lock weather systems into place, stalling them over regions.

Counterintuitively, studies have also linked the warming Arctic with more severe winter weather in the northern United States.
#15200390
ingliz wrote:But studies show lower, weaker jet streams cause a rise in deadly weather events as they lock weather systems into place, stalling them over regions.

Counterintuitively, studies have also linked the warming Arctic with more severe winter weather in the northern United States.

Yeah, I saw that study. It was called, "Too hot? CO2. Too cold? CO2. Too wet? CO2. Too dry? CO2. Too windy? CO2. Too calm? CO2."
#15200392
Truth To Power wrote:Yeah, I saw that study. It was called, "Too hot? CO2. Too cold? CO2. Too wet? CO2. Too dry? CO2. Too windy? CO2. Too calm? CO2."


The veracity of a study’s claims is independent of an observer’s feelings about how often it mentions CO2.
#15200396
Truth To Power wrote:
Yeah, I saw that study. It was called, "Too hot? CO2. Too cold? CO2. Too wet? CO2. Too dry? CO2. Too windy? CO2. Too calm? CO2."



It's never hard to tell when you're rolling your own, instead of parroting Big Oil propaganda.

Global circulation is well known, and thoroughly studied, it's called climate change because 30 years ago we knew the Wheat Belt was moving North into Canada, and that warming would move weather patterns around, making some places (like the Arctic) warmer, and other places colder.
#15200431
Pants-of-dog wrote:If your only criticism is that I wrote troposphere instead of thermosphere, then you are ignoring the point I made.

You didn't make a point.
Again, the thermosphere is not the hottest part of the atmosphere.

Sure it is. That's actually why it's called the thermosphere.
It has the highest temperature,

That makes it the hottest.
but heat and temperature are not the same thing.

That is not an argument or evidence, only a confession of your confusion. We measure how hot things are by temperature, not heat content. In what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," a bucket of ice water is hotter than a candle flame because its heat content is greater. Hard to imagine how any amount of ridicule I could heap on such claims would make them look any more absurd and risible than they already are on their face.
And I see that you have dropped your incorrect Angstrom argument entirely.

There is nothing incorrect about my Angstrom argument. There's just no point in repeating it in every post merely to remind you of the fact that neither you nor anyone else has ever shown it was incorrect.
#15200437
Truth To Power wrote:You didn't make a point.

Sure it is. That's actually why it's called the thermosphere.

That makes it the hottest.

That is not an argument or evidence, only a confession of your confusion. We measure how hot things are by temperature, not heat content.

In what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," a bucket of ice water is hotter than a candle flame because its heat content is greater. Hard to imagine how any amount of ridicule I could heap on such claims would make them look any more absurd and risible than they already are on their face.


Sometimes. It depends on the context.

But you agree that there is more heat down here where we live. More thermal energy.

And you agree that the thermosphere is the coldest part of the atmosphere since the lowest temperatures can be found there.


There is nothing incorrect about my Angstrom argument. There's just no point in repeating it in every post merely to remind you of the fact that neither you nor anyone else has ever shown it was incorrect.


Then you should address the arguments and rebuttals that you have ignored.

Let me know when!
#15200453
Truth To Power wrote:You didn't make a point.

Sure it is. That's actually why it's called the thermosphere.

That makes it the hottest.

That is not an argument or evidence, only a confession of your confusion. We measure how hot things are by temperature, not heat content. In what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," a bucket of ice water is hotter than a candle flame because its heat content is greater. Hard to imagine how any amount of ridicule I could heap on such claims would make them look any more absurd and risible than they already are on their face.

There is nothing incorrect about my Angstrom argument. There's just no point in repeating it in every post merely to remind you of the fact that neither you nor anyone else has ever shown it was incorrect.


Actually, context matters. For example, steam at 100 deg.C is or feels much hotter than water at 100 deg. C.
And ice at 0 deg. C is or feels much colder than water at 0 deg.C. We think this way when we ice down beer in a cooler and don't just pour ice-cold water into the cooler.
That is, in some cases or contexts, we do think in terms of heat content and not temp.

Also, you say (in the bold part) you have given up defending your support for Angstrom's experiment.

OK, fine. I claim that I won. And you lost.
I just wish that the Lurkers were able to vote. Then we could see who won.

I'll post some links to refutations of his experiment.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... t-part-ii/

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

This one is clearer. => http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/ ... t-climate/
I'll quote some of this one. =>
This paper says,
"Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem. In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth. Plass (1956b) wrote a popular article on the subject and the article happens currently to be freely accessible for everyone. In this article, there are answers to above-mentioned arguments. First the overlapping of the water vapour and carbon dioxide:"

Plass wrote:The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor.


The paper continued, "And then the saturation of the carbon dioxide absorption band:"

Plass wrote:One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.

So the change in carbon dioxide affects the temperature because with closer inspection the absorption of carbon dioxide is not overlapping with the absorption of water vapour and water vapour is absorbing more strongly only in the lower atmosphere, and the saturation of certain parts of carbon dioxide absorption bands are already taken into consideration in the calculations which still result in the warming of the Earth’s surface when more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.


The paper continued, "This problem was solved in 1956, over 50 years ago."

BTW --- I still want to know what happens to the energy of the IR light/heat that is being absorbed in the tube containing the CO2. Conservation of energy says it must still be there or go somewhere.
. . . 1] If it is in the air then it will heat up a lot each day. So, this can't be true.
. . . 2] It might be heating the glass of the tube. In this case the IU has been reradiated sideways. This keeps the IR in the air of the Earth. So, we know it is finally absorbed because we don't measure vast amounts of IR going sideways. So, this can't be true.
. . . 3] It can be reradiated down to Earth's surface. This would heat the surface a lot. So, this can't be true.
. . . 4] It can be reradiated up. I just read that satellites have measured the IR coming up at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and there is very, very little escaping to space at these wavelengths.
. . . I can't think of another place the energy could be.
. . . Therefore, I'm going to postulate that it is reradiated up and out into space at some different wavelength.


IMHO, almost all the energy of all wavelengths of light from the sun must averaged over a year be reradiated back into space. The sun heats the surface over land areas by about 10 deg.C each day and it cools at night the same amount. My back of the envelope calculation is that ACC is warming the Earth by about 0.0002 deg.C per day on average over a year. This about 1 deg. C per 15 years.
. . . Taken together these 2 numbers mean that during the day the Earth heats up 10 deg.C, and the at night it cools off 9.9998 deg. C. 10 / 9.9998 = 1.0002. This means that only 0.0000002% of the heat coming in each day is retained each day.

This a really tiny percentage. Is it any wonder that we can't measure it anywhere?

It follows from what we all know that the air itself glows in IR light/heat.
How much does it glow? Not much at all. A really tiny amount.
It might be about 0.0000002% as much energy as we have hitting us from the sun on a clear day.
Maybe this explains how IR can be radiated into space, and we can't directly measure it.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 02 Dec 2021 02:29, edited 3 times in total.
#15200462
Pants-of-dog wrote:the thermosphere is the coldest part of the atmosphere

Image
It's both the coldest and the hottest.
#15200524
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sometimes. It depends on the context.

Not really.
But you agree that there is more heat down here where we live. More thermal energy.

<yawn> And even more underground. So what?
And you agree that the thermosphere is the coldest part of the atmosphere since the lowest temperatures can be found there.

It would be more accurate to say the thermosphere includes the coldest part of the atmosphere.
Then you should address the arguments and rebuttals that you have ignored.

I don't have unlimited time, so I answer the arguments that seem most relevant and most likely to mislead others. If a post doesn't quote mine or mention me by name, I don't get a notification, and may not read it. Maybe you could quote the arguments you claim I have ignored, as SA does, rather than just claim I have ignored them.
#15200528
Truth To Power wrote:Not really.


If you want to make the ridiculous claim that heat is irrelevant to climate change, feel free.

I doubt you will, but please try!

<yawn> And even more underground. So what?


So, depending on how you define "hottest", your claim is possibly incorrect.

It would be more accurate to say the thermosphere includes the coldest part of the atmosphere.


Sure. And your claim would be more correct and clearer if you said the thermosphere includes the part of the atmosphere with the highest temperature.

I don't have unlimited time, so I answer the arguments that seem most relevant and most likely to mislead others. If a post doesn't quote mine or mention me by name, I don't get a notification, and may not read it. Maybe you could quote the arguments you claim I have ignored, as SA does, rather than just claim I have ignored them.


So you concede the fact that air convection would negate IR saturation.

And I make sure to notify you each time!

But to be on the safe side:
@Truth To Power
#15200547
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to make the ridiculous claim that heat is irrelevant to climate change, feel free.

I'd rather make the objectively correct claim that you are wrong when you claim the word, "hot" does not refer to temperature.
So, depending on how you define "hottest", your claim is possibly incorrect.

Right. If you define "hottest" as "at a lower temperature," which you apparently want to do, then my claim would be incorrect.
So you concede the fact that air convection would negate IR saturation.

No, you simply made that up because you do not know any science, let alone climate science, let alone atmospheric physics.
#15200601
Truth To Power wrote:I'd rather make the objectively correct claim that you are wrong when you claim the word, "hot" does not refer to temperature.


This is not my claim.

My criticism was that you have confused heat and temperature.

Right. If you define "hottest" as "at a lower temperature," which you apparently want to do, then my claim would be incorrect.


This is not my claim.

My actual claim, that you seem to have no disagreement with, is that the thermosphere has significantly less heat energy than other layers of the atmosphere.

No, you simply made that up because you do not know any science, let alone climate science, let alone atmospheric physics.


If that is what you believe, then it probably really bothers you that I seem to disprove so many of your claims.

So now that we have seen that convection negates IR saturation, and we know Angstrom was shown to be wrong by E. O. Hulburt in 1931, and we have the study by Harries et al providing direct evidence of GHG impact on radiation, it is difficult to accept your argument.
#15200602
Steve_American wrote:@Truth To Power,
You have had time to reply to PoG twice now, and have not yet replied to me.

I have other responsibilities that take priority over trying to educate scientific ignorami on the Internet. I may have time to respond on the weekend.
Did I win?

No.
Do you concede that Andstrom's experiment has been refuted by later experiments?

No.
#15200605
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not my claim.

Then why did you make it?
My criticism was that you have confused heat and temperature.

But in fact, it is you who have done so.
This is not my claim.

Oh? Then why did you claim that lower-temperature air is hotter than higher-temperature air?
My actual claim, that you seem to have no disagreement with, is that the thermosphere has significantly less heat energy than other layers of the atmosphere.

Which while true, seems to be an attempt to evade and obscure the relevant facts.
If that is what you believe, then it probably really bothers you that I seem to disprove so many of your claims.

That has not happened.
So now that we have seen that convection negates IR saturation,

We have seen that that claim is so false and absurd as to be near-meaningless.
and we know Angstrom was shown to be wrong by E. O. Hulburt in 1931,

No, we know that that claim is false.
and we have the study by Harries et al providing direct evidence of GHG impact on radiation,

Which turns out to be such a weak claim as to be irrelevant.
it is difficult to accept your argument.

I don't expect you to accept logic, evidence, reality or the truth.
#15200609
Steve_American wrote:Do you concede that Andstrom's experiment has been refuted by later experiments?


Truth To Power wrote:No.


Studies, experiments, papers, and articles that refute Angstrom:

Harries, J., Brindley, H., Sagoo, P. et al. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355–357 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35066553

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS
J. A. Griggs1 and J. E. Harries
Space and Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Print Publication: 01 Aug 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
Page(s): 3982–4001

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.
Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona, Bruno Dürr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, Martin Wild
First published: 06 February 2004 https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018765

The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth
E. O. Hulburt
Phys. Rev. 38, 1876 – Published 15 November 1931

GILBERT N. PLASS
American Scientist
Vol. 44, No. 3 (JULY 1956), pp. 302-316

I will gladly explain how any of these refute the CO2 saturation claim, if anyone asks politely.

———————-

Truth To Power wrote:Then why did you make it?

But in fact, it is you who have done so.

Which while true, seems to be an attempt to evade and obscure the relevant facts.

That has not happened.

We have seen that that claim is so false and absurd as to be near-meaningless.

No, we know that that claim is false.

Which turns out to be such a weak claim as to be irrelevant.


This is written poorly. Please rewrite in a clear way. Thanks.

I don't expect you to accept logic, evidence, reality or the truth.


Your rudeness is also not relevant.

Oh? Then why did you claim that lower-temperature air is hotter than higher-temperature air?


I pointed out that the troposphere has more heat energy than the thermosphere. And this is correct.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 43

Yes. He just used a different term on that occas[…]

So much for the 'carbon tax', then -- back to t[…]

Boris Johnson is done

Some hardliners have defected as well. They are […]

Yeah, the tech from the video is admittedly mor[…]