Just a brief interjection: it has struck me that I might not have been as good as I should have been at proving CO2 remains in the atmosphere for enormously long periods compared to water vapor; tens or hundreds of thousands of times in fact. I provided a link, but I should explain it.
The reason is simple: it doesn't rain CO2. It really is just that simple. There's no way to get it out of the atmosphere fast. The only things that do it are a) dissolution into water and b) chemical reactions. Both happen only very slowly, especially compared to the enormous amount of water that rains onto the Earth every day. Methane of course is no more water soluable, and doesn't rain out any more than CO2.
Climate II
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
Last edited by Schneibster on Sat Oct 19, 2013 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
And so now we come to the fourth reason these global warming gases are a problem. And that is, quite simply, because they're always there. Water vapor comes and goes; humidity is weather. But whether the water vapor is there or not, the CO2 and all the other warming gases are; they don't just go away like water vapor does. They're there all the time. And the more of them we put into the atmosphere, the warmer it's going to get.
Furthermore, this means that the higher their concentration the more heat they trap, regardless of what water vapor does. Because whatever water vapor does it will be doing something different tomorrow. And if they weren't trapping heat because of water vapor yesterday, they are today.
Furthermore, this means that the higher their concentration the more heat they trap, regardless of what water vapor does. Because whatever water vapor does it will be doing something different tomorrow. And if they weren't trapping heat because of water vapor yesterday, they are today.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
So now lets sum up: Only a few of the gases in the atmosphere have much global warming potential. The most powerful of the natural ones (there are some artificial chlorofluorocarbons and so forth that have really high potentials, but they're rare enough that they're not worth worrying about now) are methane, CH4, water, H2O, and carbon dioxide CO2.
These gases are very common in the universe, and also in our solar system. They have a fourth partner, ammonia, NH3, but in Earth's atmosphere ammonia is extremely active and is rarely found in large concentrations in the atmosphere. It has a tendency to dissolve quickly into water droplets in the atmosphere, which methane and carbon dioxide do not do. Most of the comets are made of these four gases, and most of Jupiter and Saturn as well. (Likely also Uranus and Neptune, but Jupiter and Saturn make my point and we don't know Uranus and Neptune that well yet.) These gases are common in giant molecular clouds where stars form; we can see this clearly in hundreds of galaxies close to ours, and of course in many regions of our own galaxy like the Lagoon Nebula and the Sword Nebula, M8 and M42.
Now, the character of H2O is unique. It is responsible for most (30°C out of the 33°C) of the global warming on Earth. But if H2O were the only global warming gas, the Earth would be an iceball. In fact, the last time most of the CO2 was not in the atmosphere on Earth, it was; this was called the Cryogenian for obvious reasons. Geophysicists believe this represented one of the strange attractors in Earth's climate, when there is no CO2 or methane; they call it "snowball Earth."
Now, Earth has also developed two clades of life: animal and vegetable. The first consume sugar and fat with oxygen and water and excrete CO2; the second consume CO2 and water and produce sugar, fat, and oxygen. To put this another way the plants consume CO2 and water, and produce oxygen, and store fats and sugars; the animals consume fats, sugars, oxygen, and water, and produce CO2 that nourishes the plants. Meanwhile the plants and animals both steal enough from their sides of the cycle to reproduce. This is how nature works.
When humans release enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than the plants on Earth can consume it, we create an environmental imbalance. This imbalance is going to create extreme temperatures; similar imbalances in the past have produced both ice ages and climates so hot hominids cannot survive close to the equator. How large the excursions will be depends upon how much carbon is released and not somehow re-absorbed and sequestered.
Now, my opinion is that the fix will be technological and that it will suck carbon out of the atmosphere, using power from the Sun, and make gasoline and diesel so we don't have to drill for oil any more. The technology to do these things already exists. I think it's footless to argue against global warming; it will be reduced to a minor threat in a few decades.
However, that doesn't mean there isn't going to be catastrophic climate change. I think it's already inevitable. I'm glad I don't expect to live long enough to see it. Good luck. You're probably lucky that 2.5-3.5 billion people will die of this; if they didn't it would be even worse. And I hate to tell you but that's the most optimistic future I can see.
OTOH, David Brin predicted 10 years ago that we'd have rampant skin cancer, blindness, and animal exterminations due to destruction of the ozone layer, and we actually managed to get the really destructive gases limited and reprocessed. And I think fiction writers are restricted in this manner; obviously ozone-destroying chemicals are dwindling, and the Montreal Protocol has worked. I look forward to the Kyoto Protocol, or whatever protocol we need to follow it, working as well. I'm actually quite optimistic.
Let the record show that I shared Brin's pessimism; I never expected the Montreal Protocol to be obeyed, much less to make a fix to the problem. I was no better than him. Still, that a futurist as good as Brin should be shown up, however mildly, tells us we must never assume that people will not act altruistically WRT the environment. Actually there are enough of us who care that it won't go completely to crap. We just have to stick together and be smart.
OTO, OH, there are still those 2.5-3.5 giga dead ones.
These gases are very common in the universe, and also in our solar system. They have a fourth partner, ammonia, NH3, but in Earth's atmosphere ammonia is extremely active and is rarely found in large concentrations in the atmosphere. It has a tendency to dissolve quickly into water droplets in the atmosphere, which methane and carbon dioxide do not do. Most of the comets are made of these four gases, and most of Jupiter and Saturn as well. (Likely also Uranus and Neptune, but Jupiter and Saturn make my point and we don't know Uranus and Neptune that well yet.) These gases are common in giant molecular clouds where stars form; we can see this clearly in hundreds of galaxies close to ours, and of course in many regions of our own galaxy like the Lagoon Nebula and the Sword Nebula, M8 and M42.
Now, the character of H2O is unique. It is responsible for most (30°C out of the 33°C) of the global warming on Earth. But if H2O were the only global warming gas, the Earth would be an iceball. In fact, the last time most of the CO2 was not in the atmosphere on Earth, it was; this was called the Cryogenian for obvious reasons. Geophysicists believe this represented one of the strange attractors in Earth's climate, when there is no CO2 or methane; they call it "snowball Earth."
Now, Earth has also developed two clades of life: animal and vegetable. The first consume sugar and fat with oxygen and water and excrete CO2; the second consume CO2 and water and produce sugar, fat, and oxygen. To put this another way the plants consume CO2 and water, and produce oxygen, and store fats and sugars; the animals consume fats, sugars, oxygen, and water, and produce CO2 that nourishes the plants. Meanwhile the plants and animals both steal enough from their sides of the cycle to reproduce. This is how nature works.
When humans release enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere far faster than the plants on Earth can consume it, we create an environmental imbalance. This imbalance is going to create extreme temperatures; similar imbalances in the past have produced both ice ages and climates so hot hominids cannot survive close to the equator. How large the excursions will be depends upon how much carbon is released and not somehow re-absorbed and sequestered.
Now, my opinion is that the fix will be technological and that it will suck carbon out of the atmosphere, using power from the Sun, and make gasoline and diesel so we don't have to drill for oil any more. The technology to do these things already exists. I think it's footless to argue against global warming; it will be reduced to a minor threat in a few decades.
However, that doesn't mean there isn't going to be catastrophic climate change. I think it's already inevitable. I'm glad I don't expect to live long enough to see it. Good luck. You're probably lucky that 2.5-3.5 billion people will die of this; if they didn't it would be even worse. And I hate to tell you but that's the most optimistic future I can see.
OTOH, David Brin predicted 10 years ago that we'd have rampant skin cancer, blindness, and animal exterminations due to destruction of the ozone layer, and we actually managed to get the really destructive gases limited and reprocessed. And I think fiction writers are restricted in this manner; obviously ozone-destroying chemicals are dwindling, and the Montreal Protocol has worked. I look forward to the Kyoto Protocol, or whatever protocol we need to follow it, working as well. I'm actually quite optimistic.
Let the record show that I shared Brin's pessimism; I never expected the Montreal Protocol to be obeyed, much less to make a fix to the problem. I was no better than him. Still, that a futurist as good as Brin should be shown up, however mildly, tells us we must never assume that people will not act altruistically WRT the environment. Actually there are enough of us who care that it won't go completely to crap. We just have to stick together and be smart.
OTO, OH, there are still those 2.5-3.5 giga dead ones.
Last edited by Schneibster on Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
It's really all about who the ones are who do the dying, right?
If I was Muslim I'd want some nukes too. Better than starving to death. "Better to burn out than fade away."
If I was Muslim I'd want some nukes too. Better than starving to death. "Better to burn out than fade away."
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
Oh and one more thing to remember:
In the gas column, if one gas does not absorb a frequency completely because its concentration is too low, then any other gas that absorbs that frequency still contributes, though in lesser amount because there is less remaining radiation for it to work on. This however does not mean less radiation is absorbed; in fact it means more is, contrary to the lies of climate denier cranks.
It's these kinds of mathematical tricks that make me call them cranks.
And if the climate deniers eject these undeniable cranks (come on, does the CO2 just disappear somehow because there's H2O there? Are you high?) there are like ten of them. And all are certified contrarians, precisely the people science is meant to protect from denial of research funds because their views are unpopular. These funds are not intended for UFO believers; they're for legitimate questions about the mainstream of scientific thought. And the misuse of these legitimate contrarians hurts all of science, as they are driven to the fringe rather than having their hypotheses be something all the mainstream scientists know about and are watching for.
The contrarians aren't advertising. They're not trying to get rich. Usually the orthodoxies they challenge are minor, but important to our understanding of things. A very few of them are famous, like Tesla. Some of them are only famous in engineering, like Lin; no one outside audio amplifier design has ever heard of him, despite the fact that all the famous transistor guitar amps and huge numbers of "stereo receivers" and other audio amplifiers are built using his topology.
And it's just those sorts of inventions that the Republicans are stifling by making science political.
ETA: For the curious, the Lin topology has a differential amplifier coupled to the input, which amplifies the signal on the hot wire of the source and anti-amplifies the signal on the shield/ground (i.e. anti-amplifies the noise; neat trick, huh?
). The output of this diff amp goes to a Class A voltage amplifier of appropriate range to avoid distortion. Finally, the output of this voltage amplifier is sent to a Class B push-pull amplifier, using Darlington pairs for high current amplification. Tonal modifications appropriate to different "sounds," and to the tone characteristics of certain well-known speaker brands and types, are undertaken in the production of instrumental amplifiers; stereo and public address amplifiers are tailored to deliver a flat curve; and RIAA preamps are used to conform record players to that curve. CD players are superior because they do not have a frequency "curve;" it's a flat line with edges wider than the hearing range of human ears.
The last thing to remember is that if you want to instrumentally vary the sound tubes give a much more pleasing harmonic content when overdriven into clipping than transistors; you should therefore use them in your preamps, to give your sound the desirable "growl" which can be controlled rather than the sharp-edged shriek of transistors. Unless, of course, you're trying to be harsh. Some stories require harsh.
The best distortion is provided by foot boxes with 12AX7 tubes mounted on top of them; the next best by digital boxes like the Digitech Bad Monkey and Rocktron Cyborg. The Marshall "sound" is next, followed by the Fender Twin Reverb. The Fender Tweed provides the sort of preamp distortion I favor but isn't versatile enough to do much else. Next come the Buddha and the Mesa breeds. If I'm rich and famous I'll buy one of those; for now I'll stick with my homebrew upgraded Ampeg SS-140C. (I replaced the B-class drivers with the next higher set of transistors in the series; the top-most actually. This about doubled the output power. I also replaced the Darlington drivers to ensure a reasonable drive on the preamps would push it that high; I used transistors from the next higher series for those. I had to spend an afternoon drilling holes in the heatsink, and a few days designing a toroidal transformer power supply, and I had to find room for a fan, but with those additions it could probably send 500 W or more, though I never intend to test it. It sounds too good to trash.) It's basically the Roland JC-140's big brother, as I've modified it. It gives around 250 W. I have two dual speaker cabinets.
I can tell you lots more about audio and music too but we're talking about climate.
Frankly most people find my stereo intimidating. And they don't even know what to make of my guitar synthesizer.
In the gas column, if one gas does not absorb a frequency completely because its concentration is too low, then any other gas that absorbs that frequency still contributes, though in lesser amount because there is less remaining radiation for it to work on. This however does not mean less radiation is absorbed; in fact it means more is, contrary to the lies of climate denier cranks.
It's these kinds of mathematical tricks that make me call them cranks.
And if the climate deniers eject these undeniable cranks (come on, does the CO2 just disappear somehow because there's H2O there? Are you high?) there are like ten of them. And all are certified contrarians, precisely the people science is meant to protect from denial of research funds because their views are unpopular. These funds are not intended for UFO believers; they're for legitimate questions about the mainstream of scientific thought. And the misuse of these legitimate contrarians hurts all of science, as they are driven to the fringe rather than having their hypotheses be something all the mainstream scientists know about and are watching for.
The contrarians aren't advertising. They're not trying to get rich. Usually the orthodoxies they challenge are minor, but important to our understanding of things. A very few of them are famous, like Tesla. Some of them are only famous in engineering, like Lin; no one outside audio amplifier design has ever heard of him, despite the fact that all the famous transistor guitar amps and huge numbers of "stereo receivers" and other audio amplifiers are built using his topology.
And it's just those sorts of inventions that the Republicans are stifling by making science political.
ETA: For the curious, the Lin topology has a differential amplifier coupled to the input, which amplifies the signal on the hot wire of the source and anti-amplifies the signal on the shield/ground (i.e. anti-amplifies the noise; neat trick, huh?
). The output of this diff amp goes to a Class A voltage amplifier of appropriate range to avoid distortion. Finally, the output of this voltage amplifier is sent to a Class B push-pull amplifier, using Darlington pairs for high current amplification. Tonal modifications appropriate to different "sounds," and to the tone characteristics of certain well-known speaker brands and types, are undertaken in the production of instrumental amplifiers; stereo and public address amplifiers are tailored to deliver a flat curve; and RIAA preamps are used to conform record players to that curve. CD players are superior because they do not have a frequency "curve;" it's a flat line with edges wider than the hearing range of human ears. The last thing to remember is that if you want to instrumentally vary the sound tubes give a much more pleasing harmonic content when overdriven into clipping than transistors; you should therefore use them in your preamps, to give your sound the desirable "growl" which can be controlled rather than the sharp-edged shriek of transistors. Unless, of course, you're trying to be harsh. Some stories require harsh.
The best distortion is provided by foot boxes with 12AX7 tubes mounted on top of them; the next best by digital boxes like the Digitech Bad Monkey and Rocktron Cyborg. The Marshall "sound" is next, followed by the Fender Twin Reverb. The Fender Tweed provides the sort of preamp distortion I favor but isn't versatile enough to do much else. Next come the Buddha and the Mesa breeds. If I'm rich and famous I'll buy one of those; for now I'll stick with my homebrew upgraded Ampeg SS-140C. (I replaced the B-class drivers with the next higher set of transistors in the series; the top-most actually. This about doubled the output power. I also replaced the Darlington drivers to ensure a reasonable drive on the preamps would push it that high; I used transistors from the next higher series for those. I had to spend an afternoon drilling holes in the heatsink, and a few days designing a toroidal transformer power supply, and I had to find room for a fan, but with those additions it could probably send 500 W or more, though I never intend to test it. It sounds too good to trash.) It's basically the Roland JC-140's big brother, as I've modified it. It gives around 250 W. I have two dual speaker cabinets.
I can tell you lots more about audio and music too but we're talking about climate.
Frankly most people find my stereo intimidating.
And they don't even know what to make of my guitar synthesizer.We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
I have been meaning to write this for a couple days now, and it came out on another thread. I don't think that's the right thread so I'm moving it here where I always intended it, and will link to it on the other thread.
The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more photons get absorbed, and when they're absorbed one of two things happens:
1. If it lasts long enough, it re-radiates the photon in a random direction; that means there's a 50% chance the new photon is going up, thus only a 50% chance it escapes to space, where there was 100% (it was going up). But...
2. If the molecule strikes another molecule of any kind, it almost certainly doesn't hit it at the right angle to pass the photon (actually now a phonon, a virtual photon's worth of kinetic energy), and so part of the phonon gets passed on as a "kick" that alters both molecules' velocities. But now it's not a phonon any more; it's been broken in half (more or less, at random) and can no longer be radiated. It exists as part of the kinetic energy of two molecules, and is therefore part of the heat of the gas they're in. And this is almost always what happens, far more often than re-radiating the photon. But of course, that's only "almost always after it was absorbed." Because...
3. The average 11µm photon will not be absorbed until it's encountered 137 CO2 molecules. And...
4. How long it takes to encounter them-- called the "mean free path"-- depends upon how common they are; if there aren't many (260 ppmv CO2) then most photons of the correct wavelength will nevertheless escape; whereas if there are a lot (7000 ppmv CO2) then most photons of the correct wavelength will be captured and heat the atmosphere up, which will slowly heat the land and ocean (because of their relatively huge specific heats compared to air).
And that's global warming from the point of view of CO2 molecules and photons. And I bet you learned something new: what phonons are. Very important in solid state physics.
Like for example semiconductor design.
Which happens to be on my resume.
It really is that simple.
Oh, and why 1/137? Because it's the most important number in the universe: the fine structure constant. Look it up. It determines the strength of the electromagnetic force.
The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more photons get absorbed, and when they're absorbed one of two things happens:
1. If it lasts long enough, it re-radiates the photon in a random direction; that means there's a 50% chance the new photon is going up, thus only a 50% chance it escapes to space, where there was 100% (it was going up). But...
2. If the molecule strikes another molecule of any kind, it almost certainly doesn't hit it at the right angle to pass the photon (actually now a phonon, a virtual photon's worth of kinetic energy), and so part of the phonon gets passed on as a "kick" that alters both molecules' velocities. But now it's not a phonon any more; it's been broken in half (more or less, at random) and can no longer be radiated. It exists as part of the kinetic energy of two molecules, and is therefore part of the heat of the gas they're in. And this is almost always what happens, far more often than re-radiating the photon. But of course, that's only "almost always after it was absorbed." Because...
3. The average 11µm photon will not be absorbed until it's encountered 137 CO2 molecules. And...
4. How long it takes to encounter them-- called the "mean free path"-- depends upon how common they are; if there aren't many (260 ppmv CO2) then most photons of the correct wavelength will nevertheless escape; whereas if there are a lot (7000 ppmv CO2) then most photons of the correct wavelength will be captured and heat the atmosphere up, which will slowly heat the land and ocean (because of their relatively huge specific heats compared to air).
And that's global warming from the point of view of CO2 molecules and photons. And I bet you learned something new: what phonons are. Very important in solid state physics.
Like for example semiconductor design.
Which happens to be on my resume.
It really is that simple.
Oh, and why 1/137? Because it's the most important number in the universe: the fine structure constant. Look it up. It determines the strength of the electromagnetic force.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Re: Climate II
Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high
As long as there are no extraneous error in the carbon dating:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/easte ... -1.2251709
As long as there are no extraneous error in the carbon dating:
Radiocarbon dating can only be used to determine when an organism had been alive within the past 50,000 years. In the case of the moss, the researchers hit the 50,000-year limit, which meant that the moss had been buried since the middle of the last ice age. And since the ice almost certainly didn't melt during the ice age, it had probably been there since the beginning of the ice age, 120,000 years ago.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/easte ... -1.2251709
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Re: Climate II
I think a rule-of-thumb about radioactive dating is that it is only accurage to about 10X times the half life of the particular isotope you are using. In the case of Carbon 14, I believe the half life (without looking it up) to be about 5500yrs. So 10X times would be about 55K yrs, about what you said above. For older dating I believe they use different radioactive isotopes than Carbon.Stubby wrote:Eastern Arctic temperatures likely at 120,000-year high
As long as there are no extraneous error in the carbon dating:Radiocarbon dating can only be used to determine when an organism had been alive within the past 50,000 years. In the case of the moss, the researchers hit the 50,000-year limit, which meant that the moss had been buried since the middle of the last ice age. And since the ice almost certainly didn't melt during the ice age, it had probably been there since the beginning of the ice age, 120,000 years ago.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/easte ... -1.2251709
Re: Climate II
Not disputing the 50 000 year limit for carbon dating.
In some circumstances, carbon dating returns some extraordinary errors in dating.
Such as living animals being dated to thousands of years old.
In some circumstances, carbon dating returns some extraordinary errors in dating.
Such as living animals being dated to thousands of years old.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
There shouldn't be. In the case of something over 50,000 years dead, there simply isn't any more carbon-14 left. It's very hard to miss; we're very good at detecting radiation. Your source is almost certainly correct.Stubby wrote:As long as there are no extraneous error in the carbon dating:
One minor flaw, and it's theirs not yours: by the dates, that's the last glaciation, not the last ice age. The current ice age has been going on for a couple million years. 125,000 years ago was the beginning of the Würm/Wisconsonian glaciation. Before that was an interglacial much like this one, but shorter; it was only 20,000 years long, ours will be nearer 45,000 years when all is said and done, and that's assuming we don't take control of the climate, and compensate for it, 35,000 years from now when it's due to happen.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
All correct.williatw wrote:I think a rule-of-thumb about radioactive dating is that it is only accurage to about 10X times the half life of the particular isotope you are using. In the case of Carbon 14, I believe the half life (without looking it up) to be about 5500yrs. So 10X times would be about 55K yrs, about what you said above. For older dating I believe they use different radioactive isotopes than Carbon.
And with plants there's not anything else radioactive to date it with. If it's in rock you can date the rock sometimes, if it has trace radioactivity in it.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
And now it's time to talk about the clincher: the satellite evidence.
Astrophysicists talk about satellites or telescopes "measuring temperature." Actually, they can't do that. To measure temperature you have to measure emitted heat, and then either assume the object of measurement is a blackbody or quantify how it varies from a blackbody (for example the Sun exhibits spectral lines, but these are not sufficient to cause its emissions to deviate strongly from blackbody behavior). So remotely, it's only possible to quantify how much heat is coming out; any temperature or other estimates beyond this are dependent upon models.
Remember that: satellite heat measurements are direct data; all others are estimates based on that data.
The Sun is under continuous surveillance, because it can cause magnetic storms that can short out the power of an entire continent. There's even a site called spaceweather.com that tracks every sunspot and every flare. There's no question about measuring the Sun's input to Earth; it's simple arithmetic. So many W/m², and it's not like the Earth is growing and shrinking all the time, so we have a stable number of square meters. Therefore we know how many watts. It's a simple straightforward calculation. I suppose you could call that a "model" but most people would laugh at you.
Then there's the satellites measuring Earth's output. They actually integrate pictures of half the whole Earth's output using wide-angle lenses. And since they're in orbit they can take many pictures a day. You might have heard of these satellites; they're generally referred to as "weather satellites." So the total Earth heat output (including everything reflected from the clouds and the icefields) is visible all the time too.
And now it's just simple arithmetic. Is the heat going in greater, lesser, or equal to the heat coming out? Well, it's greater.
OK, well then Earth is gonna get hotter no matter what else happens. Period. Conservation of energy.
The most amusing thing is climate denier weathermen are getting their "satellite pictures" without realizing they're the very evidence that proves them fools about global warming.
No models. No estimates. Hard data. Physics conservation laws. No where to run. No where to hide.
Astrophysicists talk about satellites or telescopes "measuring temperature." Actually, they can't do that. To measure temperature you have to measure emitted heat, and then either assume the object of measurement is a blackbody or quantify how it varies from a blackbody (for example the Sun exhibits spectral lines, but these are not sufficient to cause its emissions to deviate strongly from blackbody behavior). So remotely, it's only possible to quantify how much heat is coming out; any temperature or other estimates beyond this are dependent upon models.
Remember that: satellite heat measurements are direct data; all others are estimates based on that data.
The Sun is under continuous surveillance, because it can cause magnetic storms that can short out the power of an entire continent. There's even a site called spaceweather.com that tracks every sunspot and every flare. There's no question about measuring the Sun's input to Earth; it's simple arithmetic. So many W/m², and it's not like the Earth is growing and shrinking all the time, so we have a stable number of square meters. Therefore we know how many watts. It's a simple straightforward calculation. I suppose you could call that a "model" but most people would laugh at you.
Then there's the satellites measuring Earth's output. They actually integrate pictures of half the whole Earth's output using wide-angle lenses. And since they're in orbit they can take many pictures a day. You might have heard of these satellites; they're generally referred to as "weather satellites." So the total Earth heat output (including everything reflected from the clouds and the icefields) is visible all the time too.
And now it's just simple arithmetic. Is the heat going in greater, lesser, or equal to the heat coming out? Well, it's greater.
OK, well then Earth is gonna get hotter no matter what else happens. Period. Conservation of energy.
The most amusing thing is climate denier weathermen are getting their "satellite pictures" without realizing they're the very evidence that proves them fools about global warming.
No models. No estimates. Hard data. Physics conservation laws. No where to run. No where to hide.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
A favorite dumbass climate crank argument: "The satellites say the Earth is cooler so we must be having global cooling!"
The satellites don't say the temperature is lower; they say less heat is coming out. And those are two very, very different things.
The satellites don't say the temperature is lower; they say less heat is coming out. And those are two very, very different things.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
And last but not least, the most common climate denier mistake:
The channel that solar energy moves to the Earth's surface is different from the channel that it leaves by. Specifically one is in the visible spectrum and one in the infrared. The transparency of the atmosphere is different in visible and infrared; specifically, it's mostly transparent in visible, but obscured, and moreso the thicker the water vapor and CO2 and methane are, in the infrared. So the heat coming in experiences one thing, and the heat going out another. This differential experience results in the retention of some of the heat as long as the temperature is too low to radiate all the heat that comes in. The temperature will rise until the outgo equals the income; but even then, the temperature will be higher.
The Earth-system is extremely complex; heat percolates through complex systems in the ocean, in lakes, in the atmosphere, in the dirt, in the ice at the poles, in the clouds, in storms, and in many other ways both well-known and obscure. But no matter how complex it is no heat ever disappears. That's not physically possible. Therefore, if the Earth-system is collecting more heat than it is radiating, it's getting hotter somewhere somehow period.
And the satellites say it is collecting more than it is radiating. The end.
The channel that solar energy moves to the Earth's surface is different from the channel that it leaves by. Specifically one is in the visible spectrum and one in the infrared. The transparency of the atmosphere is different in visible and infrared; specifically, it's mostly transparent in visible, but obscured, and moreso the thicker the water vapor and CO2 and methane are, in the infrared. So the heat coming in experiences one thing, and the heat going out another. This differential experience results in the retention of some of the heat as long as the temperature is too low to radiate all the heat that comes in. The temperature will rise until the outgo equals the income; but even then, the temperature will be higher.
The Earth-system is extremely complex; heat percolates through complex systems in the ocean, in lakes, in the atmosphere, in the dirt, in the ice at the poles, in the clouds, in storms, and in many other ways both well-known and obscure. But no matter how complex it is no heat ever disappears. That's not physically possible. Therefore, if the Earth-system is collecting more heat than it is radiating, it's getting hotter somewhere somehow period.
And the satellites say it is collecting more than it is radiating. The end.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
-
Schneibster
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:21 am
- Location: Monterey, CA, USA
Re: Climate II
So far there has been no serious challenge to global climate change, AKA global warming. As a reminder here are the precepts:
A majority of the climate geophysicists working in the field today have written a report for the United Nations IPCC, stating that:
a) The climate is getting warmer.
b) CO2 is going up.
c) a is the result of b.
d) Human burning of fossil fuel and deforestation is causing b.
e) The certainty of these four assertions is 95%, enough in court to convict a murderer "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I am prepared to present evidence confirming all five of these facts, in exhaustive detail. Is there anyone here who thinks they can successfully deny it?
So far the answer is "no."
A majority of the climate geophysicists working in the field today have written a report for the United Nations IPCC, stating that:
a) The climate is getting warmer.
b) CO2 is going up.
c) a is the result of b.
d) Human burning of fossil fuel and deforestation is causing b.
e) The certainty of these four assertions is 95%, enough in court to convict a murderer "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I am prepared to present evidence confirming all five of these facts, in exhaustive detail. Is there anyone here who thinks they can successfully deny it?
So far the answer is "no."
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.