Scientific Forums


Pages: (3) 1 2 [3]   ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Final Statement On Ghg's And Gw, Irrefutable.
adoucette
Posted: Nov 9 2007, 06:11 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


Are you equally surprised that the Antarctic Sea Ice remains over 1 million sq miles over normal?

Are you equally surprised that the Arctic Sea Ice is now GROWING at a rate that has shrunk the Arctic anomaly by over 1.5 million sq miles in just over 40 days, bringing the Global anomaly to a relatively insignificant amount of ~ 0.5 million sq miles (its insignificant because its WELL within the normal range of annual variance as measured by satellites over the last 27 years).

I'm curious, do you think its MORE LIKELY that, given that ice is highly reflective and that 90% of sea ice is submerged that the melting of the Arctic sea ice is more likely to have been because of increased AIR temps or increased OCEAN temps?

Arthur



--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
adoucette
Posted: Nov 10 2007, 12:30 AM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (RealityCheck @ Nov 9 2007, 06:55 PM)
In the case of Arctic/Antarctic ice deposition rates/thicknesses, it should be mentioned that any TRANSITIONING increase in the temp differentials between poles and equatorial regions will ACCELERATE the ATMOSPHERIC convection/hydrologic driven flows from equator to poles....meaning that temporarily the ice/snow iat the poles will become MORE frequent/massive UNPREDICTABLY for some decades to come.


Except the TREND has been the OPPOSITE, its been to REDUCED differentials between the poles and the equatorial regions.

What is also evident, if you look at these many temp graphs,

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry271876

is that the amount of annual VARIATION is reduced in the latter half of the 20th century in comparison to the first half. Certainly an indication of a more STABLE climate.

Consider that in the US there has been a decline in the rate of landfalling storms in the later half of the 20th century compared with the first half.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/Deadliest_Costliest.shtml

Table 6 shows that during the forty year period 1961-2000 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply.

Based on 1901 - 1960 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1961- 2000 would have been 75 and 28, respectively but only 55 of the expected number struck the U.S. and only 20 were major hurricanes (71%).

Then there is this latest year, with an ACE index significantly below normal.

Arthur





--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
adoucette
Posted: Nov 11 2007, 03:33 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


Seems like nothing is "Final"

Found this the other day:

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

“This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”


http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Arthur



--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
MisterBelfry
Posted: Nov 11 2007, 03:46 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 11-June 07

Positive Feedback: 16.33%
Feedback Score: -169




Quotes gathered from an 'original' RC post. I was mainly seeing if biggie was defined well enough.
QUOTE

In my opinion, WHATEVER THE NATURAL CYCLE WAS BEFORE NOW, it is THE PRESENT STATE OF PLAY OF THESE 'BIGGIES' that will determine how much FASTER the trend will accelerate (whether natural and/or manmade causes are to blame for any one 'component' or 'period' in the short term.
I merely recognize historical/scientific facts going to the 'biggies' that are undeniable and self-evidently supportable...and THEN test the incomplete 'facts' against the conclusions I would draw from those 'biggies'.
Up to the last few centuries, the NATURAL cycle/loops/mechanisms have 'softened/prolonged the effects so that ecosystems can adapt. Where things go wrong is when the catastropHy is COMPRESSED in time/locations.



So, God hears prayers, so what? If people are not around, why softened the natural loop? Sinners do not have to be dealt with in one certain way, that is destroyed in the natural cycle of things, "scientifically" higher and higher entropy.

MrB.


--------------------
Oh, and btw, would _the Sir_ Isaac Newton fudge an error budget in his upper limit A.D. 2060 calculation for the Christ return event?
Yes, as it turns out, he would. And what good fudge it is!

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19128&st=315 Oh, btw, I forgot the zero year; so it is 167 B.C.
Top
John A
Posted: Nov 12 2007, 01:32 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 16-February 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


GW ALARMISM IS SCIENCE POLLUTION!
Top
sirfiroth
Posted: Nov 12 2007, 04:00 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 6-March 07

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -1


I thought this might be of interest to some out there. I did not see it posted on any other discussion.
7000 year old trees
What are trees doing that far north? Could this indicate the earth’s climate was much warmer 7000 years ago? Could this be indicative of natural cycles of the Earth heating and cooling?
Regards,
Jacob
Top
lengould
Posted: Nov 12 2007, 07:09 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 845
Joined: 7-August 04

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE (John A @ Nov 12 2007, 01:32 AM)
GW ALARMISM IS SCIENCE POLLUTION!

How would you know? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
We may confess that he had faults, while we deny that he tried to make them pass for merits. He disowned his errors by owning them; in the very defects of his qualities he triumphed, and he could make us glad with him at his escape from them -- from eulogy at Samuel Clemens funeral
Top
AEBanner
Posted: Jan 15 2008, 11:25 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I have recently been having a problem with accepting Real Climate’s “Saturated Gassy Argument”, which tries to explain the Enhanced GHG effect. As far as I can see, it is incomplete and so it is also misleading.

Please consider the following.

Let C = total number of carbon dioxide molecules in the pre-industrial atmosphere at 280ppmv
k = the increase factor in CO2 concentration relative to pre-industrial conc. of 280ppmv.
s = proportion of emitted photons escaping to space
win = total number of photons escaping to space through the “window” per unit time

For CO2 increase factor k, let
b = proportion of carbon dioxide molecules excited by absorption of photons, and
intermolecular collisions

Then, number of CO2 molecules excited by absorption/collision = kbC

All these molecules emit photons.

Let the following expressions apply for unit time, where p is the appropriate constant of proportionality.

Then in general, we have:
Number of photons escaping to space = pskbC + win ………………….. (Eqn 1)

Now consider the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere.
We can put k = 1 and b = b1.
Then, number of photons escaping to space = psb1.C + win …….....(Eqn 2)

Now in energy balance conditions, the number of photons escaping to space must be constant.
Therefore, from Eqn (1) and Eqn (2), we have pskbC + win = psb1.C + win
Hence, kb = b1

But b1 is a constant.

So as k increases, b must decrease for this relationship to be satisfied and energy balance to be maintained. That is, as the amount of carbon dioxide is increased, the proportion of the number of CO2 molecules participating in the process is reduced. This requirement can be accommodated by a fall in temperature from the pre-industrial value at high altitudes.

This means that increased CO2 produces extra COOLING at high altitudes.


What happens in the atmosphere?

In general,
Number of photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC ……....… (Eqn 3)


And for the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere, k = 1 and b = b1, as before.
So, the number of photons returning to the pre-industrial atmosphere = p(1 – s )b1.C …..(Eqn 4)

Therefore, the change in photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC – p(1 – s )b1.C
= p(1 – s )C(kb – b1)

But, in energy equilibrium, kb = b1.

Therefore, the change in the number of photons returning to the atmosphere = 0

This means that there is no change in the temperature of the atmosphere due to increasing the amount of CO2 present.

That is, there is no enhanced GHG effect.
Top
Corvidae
Posted: Jan 16 2008, 01:40 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 7-May 07

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE
Now in energy balance conditions, the number of photons escaping to space must be constant.

Energy balance isn't quite so easy an assumption to make.
Top
AEBanner
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 05:42 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


In my previous post, I tried to show that more carbon dioxide added to the Earth’s atmosphere would have no heating effect as in the Enhanced Greenhouse Gas Effect we hear so much about. Perhaps my message got lost in the maths in the post, so I should like to add a few words in further explanation.

I do not believe in the Enhanced GHG effect. I do not think that extra carbon dioxide will have any effect on the Earth’s temperature.

I do believe, however, that some other effect, not yet identified, could be causing global warming.

Firstly, I should like to refer Spencer Weart’s article on the Real Climate site entitled “A Saturated Gassy Argument”, SGA.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ument/#more-455

This work implicitly seems to accept that carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb 100% of the infrared radiation from the surface of the Earth. Most of this energy is radiated back to the surface. See Kiehl and Trenberth
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html
This is the natural GHG effect, and occurs at relatively low altitudes. No argument. For the purpose of easy discussion, let us consider the atmosphere to consist of three regions, lower and upper troposphere, and high altitude as in SGA.

The infrared which is not radiated back to the surface heats the troposphere by increasing the kinetic energy of the molecules by inter-molecular collisions.

Heat energy also leaves the surface as sensible heat, convection and latent heat, which rises to the upper troposphere where it too provides warming. Kiehl and Trenberth show that sufficient energy is provided to this region by these means for the necessary 165 Wm^-2 to escape to space in order to enable energy balance for the Earth’s system. ( Together with 30 Wm^-2 from the clouds and 40 Wm^-2 through the “window”. ) I suggest that the available energy is converted into the necessary photon form by inter-molecular collisions with CO2 in the upper troposphere and at high altitudes.

Some of the photons about to escape into space at high altitudes will be absorbed by CO2 molecules even at this height, as stated in the SGA, but it is at this point that my ideas diverge from the SGA.

The excited CO2 molecules will decay again to a lower rotational level, either spontaneously or by collision, so emitting photons. Some of these emitted photons will escape to space as required, and some will return to the atmosphere, but the temperature will be adjusted by the overall feedback system so that energy balance will be maintained.

It is important to understand that only a small proportion of the total atmospheric CO2 is involved in this process. The relevant actions are occurring at high altitudes “where the air is very thin”, after all, not throughout the whole atmosphere. This proportion is dependent on the temperature of that region. The number of CO2 molecules involved will be set at this temperature to provide the required number of outgoing photons to get energy balance.

If now, more CO2 is added, more photons will join in the process and escape to space, so tending to reduce the temperature, and upsetting the balance. Correction is provided by the emitting region moving to still higher altitudes, ( in line with the SGA ), where the temperature is lower, and so the emission rate is reduced, as required.

Note that the number of CO2 molecules involved must be constant, so that when more CO2 is added, the proportion involved is reduced accordingly. This is shown mathematically by the equation kb = b1 in my previous post.

I suggest that final escape to space occurs at higher and colder altitudes because the proportion of CO2 molecules participating must be less, not greater, when more CO2 is added, in order for equilibrium. The total number of CO2 molecules participating has to stay constant.

The problem with the SGA is that it stops too soon for the flaw to be seen. The crux of the SGA is where it refers to extra CO2 molecules absorbing photons at high altitudes. It neglects to say anything about the next, inevitable process, which is the following decay, with the “centralised energy packet” within the excited molecule distributing its energy into the various states available to it, in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Must not forget that!

So, no extra global warming from added CO2.
Top
Neil Farbstein
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 11:41 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1174
Joined: 25-October 05

Positive Feedback: 41.03%
Feedback Score: -65


QUOTE (AEBanner @ Jan 15 2008, 11:25 PM)
I have recently been having a problem with accepting Real Climate’s “Saturated Gassy Argument”, which tries to explain the Enhanced GHG effect. As far as I can see, it is incomplete and so it is also misleading.

Please consider the following.

Let C = total number of carbon dioxide molecules in the pre-industrial atmosphere at 280ppmv
k = the increase factor in CO2 concentration relative to pre-industrial conc. of 280ppmv.
s = proportion of emitted photons escaping to space
win = total number of photons escaping to space through the “window” per unit time

For CO2 increase factor k, let
b = proportion of carbon dioxide molecules excited by absorption of photons, and
intermolecular collisions

Then, number of CO2 molecules excited by absorption/collision = kbC

All these molecules emit photons.

Let the following expressions apply for unit time, where p is the appropriate constant of proportionality.

Then in general, we have:
Number of photons escaping to space = pskbC + win ………………….. (Eqn 1)

Now consider the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere.
We can put k = 1 and b = b1.
Then, number of photons escaping to space = psb1.C + win …….....(Eqn 2)

Now in energy balance conditions, the number of photons escaping to space must be constant.
Therefore, from Eqn (1) and Eqn (2), we have pskbC + win = psb1.C + win
Hence, kb = b1

But b1 is a constant.

So as k increases, b must decrease for this relationship to be satisfied and energy balance to be maintained. That is, as the amount of carbon dioxide is increased, the proportion of the number of CO2 molecules participating in the process is reduced. This requirement can be accommodated by a fall in temperature from the pre-industrial value at high altitudes.

This means that increased CO2 produces extra COOLING at high altitudes.


What happens in the atmosphere?

In general,
Number of photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC ……....… (Eqn 3)


And for the case of the pre-industrial atmosphere, k = 1 and b = b1, as before.
So, the number of photons returning to the pre-industrial atmosphere = p(1 – s )b1.C …..(Eqn 4)

Therefore, the change in photons returning to the atmosphere = p(1 – s )kbC – p(1 – s )b1.C
= p(1 – s )C(kb – b1)

But, in energy equilibrium, kb = b1.

Therefore, the change in the number of photons returning to the atmosphere = 0

This means that there is no change in the temperature of the atmosphere due to increasing the amount of CO2 present.

That is, there is no enhanced GHG effect.

what accounts for their escape from the earth's atmosphere?


--------------------
Life is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury; signifying nothing...Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes. -William Shakespeare.
Top
AEBanner
Posted: Jan 18 2008, 11:47 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


To Neil Farbstein

Please refer to my other post above.

AEB
Top
Corvidae
Posted: Jan 22 2008, 03:20 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 313
Joined: 7-May 07

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE
Note that the number of CO2 molecules involved must be constant, so that when more CO2 is added, the proportion involved is reduced accordingly. This is shown mathematically by the equation kb = b1 in my previous post.


Still assuming constants that don't exist I see.
Top
AEBanner
Posted: Jan 22 2008, 05:29 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 12-May 06

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


To Corvidae

Please read my posts again, but give your full attention next time.

Or perhaps you don't believe in Mathematics?

AEB
Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 2 [3] 

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use