Yes, and a lot of experts say the hysteria is a hoax. The UN (Useless Nuisance) Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) had legal action taken against them some time back to force them to drop a lot a scientist's names from their climate warming report endorsement. Their names were tacked on without permission even when they disagreed with the report's conclusion. Anyway, numbers don't count. Correct interpretation of the facts do. So far, I haven't seen any total correlation with what is happening to why it is happening. Mostly the proponents are saying "trust us, we know better".
Ratch
Infrared can be related to heat, but it is not heat. When objects absorb infrared, they heat up because they convert the radiant electromagnetic energy to molecular kinetic energy.
Without greenhouse gases, far more of the infrared light energy would go directly to outer space, without conversion to heat energy. Hence, it is CO2's absorption properties, not its insulation properties that matter.
Definition of Heat: Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. Such energy transfer can occur in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection.
Yes, later, after the temperature rises. This is black-body radiation theory.
Hello again,
Ok, then in your opinion what do you think we should right NOW, if anything?
Lets say you are the overseer of man made global warming in the USA. What do you tell the president to do, knowing he will implement whatever policies you say should go into effect right now without question?
It must be based on what you know now not sometime in the future, because that's all you have.
Yes, this one is correct. Did you think I didn't know that? Is it in any way relevant to the issue here? Anyway, correct for whatever it is worth to you.Yes, and not just infrared. All electromagnetic radiation including radar frequencies, like microwaves.
OMG Ratch. I didn't say CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly from the sun. Certainly, it can, but that's not the concern. The primary energy from the sun is not in the infrared (> 1000 nm wavelength) initially incoming. Visible light and some infrared (< 1000 nm wavelength) is absorbed at the surface and converted to infrared light (> 1000 nm) in a down-conversion process. The re-radiation of infrared back would go back to space, and does go back to space. However, green-house gases absorb some of the infrared that is trying to go back to space, which then heats the atmosphere. This is the basic description I've heard. Insulation is not the prime consideration here. Heat conduction is not how the earth cools and I don't see how GH people would ever argue that small amounts of CO2 would significantly change the insulation due to air. It is primarily a black-body radiation cooling which depends on absolute temperature. If more heat is trapped in the atmosphere (through infrared absorption), the equilibrium requires the temperature of the earth go up so that black-body radiation can match the net incoming absorbed radiation.Well, that is not the way GH gas is described. The conventional description is that the visible light is first absorbed by the planetary mass and converted into infrared, which gets trapped by the CO2's insulation properties. You say that CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly. OK, then it would be a shield to incoming EM radiation from the Sun, and it helps cool down the Earth. If CO2 can absorb heat, doesn't that make it an insulator, too? After all, it prevents heat from transferring as fast as it normally would.
This is not correct. In thermodynamics, the measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass is called "internal energy". Heat is the amount of energy transferred.Definition of heat: A measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass. Heat can transfer, but the transfer process itself is not heat.
Not quite right here too. Blackbody radiation does not depend on temperature differential, it is dependent on absolute temperature. Hotter objects radiate more energy and at higher frequency. If more photons are absorbed in the atmosphere, then the earth needs so be hotter so that black-body radiation can maintain an equilibrium.Yes, heat transfer is dependent on a temperature differential.
First and foremost, recognize the facts. Look at where the money flows. Do inexpensive fact finding research. Don't get stampeded into expensive programs and policies. Be skeptical of every lobbying effort on both sides of the issue.
Ratch
Ratch,
I don't know what to say here. Maybe you are spouting all this small stuff now to cover your blunder that you completely missed the mark. You argued that this subject is easy to figure out, after I mentioned that I think that it takes a lot of time to understand the theories and data. Yet, you don't get the most important point about GH which relates to infrared absorption.
The bottom line here is not these details. The bottom line is that you have totally misrepresented the GH effect. You argued that CO2 cant possibly matter because small amounts of CO2 can't create a significantly different insulation effect. The GH worry is based on the principle that small amounts of green-house gas most certainly have a significant effect. Their effect is to create the wonderful earth climate we have. Without that effect the earth surface would be very much cooler. Some GH effect is definitely a good thing. Insulation of CO2 does not explain the effect but infrared absorption of CO2 does.
Yes, this one is correct. Did you think I didn't know that? Is it in any way relevant to the issue here? Anyway, correct for whatever it is worth to you.
OMG Ratch. I didn't say CO2 absorbs EM radiation directly from the sun. Certainly, it can, but that's not the concern. The primary energy from the sun is not in the infrared (> 1000 nm wavelength) initially incoming. Visible light and some infrared (< 1000 nm wavelength) is absorbed at the surface and converted to infrared light (> 1000 nm) in a down-conversion process. The re-radiation of infrared back would go back to space, and does go back to space. However, green-house gases absorb some of the infrared that is trying to go back to space, which then heats the atmosphere. This is the basic description I've heard. Insulation is not the prime consideration here.
Heat conduction is not how the earth cools and I don't see how GH people would ever argue that small amounts of CO2 would significantly change the insulation due to air. It is primarily a black-body radiation cooling which depends on absolute temperature. If more heat is trapped in the atmosphere (through infrared absorption), the equilibrium requires the temperature of the earth go up so that black-body radiation can match the net incoming absorbed radiation.
This is not correct. In thermodynamics, the measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of a mass is called "internal energy". Heat is the amount of energy transferred.
Not quite right here too. Blackbody radiation does not depend on temperature differential, it is dependent on absolute temperature. Hotter objects radiate more energy and at higher frequency. If more photons are absorbed in the atmosphere, then the earth needs so be hotter so that black-body radiation can maintain an equilibrium.
Hi,
But all that suggests research, i am not talking about research because we all know we need more of that. What i am talking about is what you would do in the hear and now, right one this very day, about pollution control lets say on automobiles. For example:
1. Tighten restrictions on automobile emissions
2. Make them more flexible (ie reduce the restrictions)
3. Eliminate them entirely
We need an answer today because we have to put them into law as soon as tomorrow.
Note i am not saying you are wrong about your opinion i am just asking that now that you've established that opinion what would you do if you could manage the government control. You could be entirely correct, or wrong, but i am not judging your decision i just want to know what your implementation would be, in simple terms.
OK, feel free to make your easy deductions about what is true or not and get the physics all wrong in the process. It's fine with me if you find it easy to figure out the theory is false without even understanding the theory.What blunder are you talking about, and how did I miss the mark? When I said the subject was easy to figure out, I meant whether it was true or not. Not the details of all the theories that have been proposed.
I think the laughing comes when people go in talking nonsense and using nonsense to argue that there is no problem.
OK, feel free to make your easy deductions about what is true or not and get the physics all wrong in the process. It's fine with me if you find it easy to figure out the theory is false without even understanding the theory.
And proof that your physics explanation is a blunder came when you talked about "insulation factor" as if it had any importance. The insulation factor of air and it's dependence on CO2 (which I expect is insignificant by the way), has no bearing on anything in GH explanations. Perhaps the value of the factor shows up in some simple computer models, but CO2 concentration will not affect the number. Sorry ratch, it's wrong physics you describe.
Anyway, carry on with your view. I just point out these things for the benefit of others.
OK, I never really saw the laughing and what it is all about. Basically, I like to do science in a reasonable way. I sometimes go to PF, but not often lately. I think I'll do a search there and see what goes on with this subject.Actually its the other way around. The people questioning if there even is a problem are not he ones being laughed at. I'ts the one siteing any and every possible excuse or event that can be even most remotely weakly linked as proof it's real are who get laughed at.
As is generally said in these debates there are two camps. Those who believe and those who are deniers.
According the believers anyone who is not on their side is a denier being there is no room for question and anyone who is sceptical need not speak.
I don't know what will happen but I do know that when certain groups cite that thousands of scientists say they are right yet thousands more scientists have asked to have their names taken off of official documents because they do not believe and want to have nothing to do with the claims I have to doubt the people who are claiming its real likely are lying about a lot more than just who is supposedly on their side.
That and if politicians are all over it for taxation purposes anyone who knows anything about world history should know better than to believe them or their agendas without question.
I am not a believer and I am not a denier. I am a sceptic that sees both sides and fits into the third unspoken about group that has a pile of reasons to want the changes to come. Not try and stop them even though I know full well that mathematically my efforts are for the most part pointless.
No, you are not getting the point. Insulation is present no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. Once the energy is absorbed, it is in the atmosphere and basically insulated because there is no conduction of heat to space. and it has to be radiated away which can only happen if the temperature goes up. The amount of energy absorbed is determined by the GH effect. You keep saying CO2 concentration is too low and hence it can't be important. You say this all over this thread and then have one post talking about "insulation factor" and it's dependence on CO2 concentration, as if it matters. It's just wrong physics. CO2 has 10-25 % contribution to GH effect. It is not a small amount. You say double or tripling does not matter, but if we have 10-25% now, what will happen if we double or triple the CO2? I really don't know, but neither do you and I don't believe you when you say it will not matter.If insulation has no importance, then neither does adsorption. They are two facets of the same thing. If a gas is absorbing heat, then it is impeding the heat's transfer path and the heat will accumulate. That is what insulation does, right? I thought I explained that in my previous post. Isn't that what the CO2 controversy is all about?
Any question should be valid to ask, and skepticism is a key ingredient in science. There are many questions I would like to ask a real climatologist that has worked on computer models and tried to make sense of this question. I'm too skeptical of books and on-line articles. There are too many extremists dealing with this subject. It's not the way science is supposed to be done. But, a face to face conversation with a true scientist working on climate modeling and well versed in all the literature on the subject, would be a useful thing to me.
No, you are not getting the point. Insulation is present no matter what the concentration of CO2 is. Once the energy is absorbed, it is in the atmosphere and basically insulated because there is no conduction of heat to space. and it has to be radiated away which can only happen if the temperature goes up. The amount of energy absorbed is determined by the GH effect. You keep saying CO2 concentration is too low and hence it can't be important. You say this all over this thread and then have one post talking about "insulation factor" and it's dependence on CO2 concentration, as if it matters. It's just wrong physics. CO2 has 10-25 % contribution to GH effect. It is not a small amount. You say double or tripling does not matter, but if we have 10-25% now, what will happen if we double or triple the CO2? I really don't know, but neither do you and I don't believe you when you say it will not matter.
But, your physics is wrong. Insulation is not different for different levels of CO2, but optical absorption of infrared radiation coming from the earth and heading back to space is highly dependent on CO2 concentration.
tcm,
There were quite a few "earthquakes" in nearby Irving, TX this year. Some were adamant about blaming fracking. The news reported within the last few days there was a previously unknown fault line in the area of the "earthquakes" and it wasn't related to fracking after all.
I wonder how the cities that banned fracking feel now, but, were acting out of "fear" or was it "prudence" as the cause of those recent earthquakes were unknown.
OK, I'll take you at your word for this. But, what I find strange is that you are the one always telling us to use correct terminology and phrasing and pointing out language that is imprecise. You mentioned "insulation factor" which as far as I can tell would mean R-factor or K-factor that is discussed with insulators, and which relates to thermal conduction. I've never heard "insulation" or "radiation insulation" or "insulation factor" used to mean optical absorption, and I worked for 20 years in the optical communications field, attending conferences and reading and publishing papers.But, I also aver that the optical absorption is equivalent to a insulating effect. Not a conductive insulation, instead a radiation insulation or shield that keeps the infrared from going out to space as fast as it normally would. It is all a matter of perspective.
Ratch
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?