okie wrote:parados wrote: The sun is presently radiating more energy however it is not enough to account totally for the increased warming on either planet.
Do you have a source or scientific opinion / proof / calculation for your statement?
Did you miss the IPCC report?
Can you cite the scientific research or calculation in the report or cited by the report?
By the way, I have posted on this thread more than once a simple mathematical calculation that I did in 15 minutes or so on my calculator, absolutely free of charge, without any government grants costing millions, that the solar factor may contribute around 0.3 C increase in temperature. Lo and behold, not far off from current warming data. I would like to see data that refutes this, not speculation, but scientific reasoning and data. I found at least one paper that supports my calculation, this published July, 2007.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d78522x2qw55544t/
parados wrote:georgeob1 wrote:parados wrote: The Earth doesn't get much "heat" from the sun because we are so far away. We get LIGHT from the sun which CO2 does NOT reflect. The LIGHT is turned to heat in an easily understood change in energy. The HEAT is then reflected by the CO2.
This is an interesting and novel distortion of elementary physics. Where did you get it? How then do you suppose radiant heat transfer works in the absence of visible light?
Have you ever heard of the Stephan Boltzman law?
It is you, in this case, who doesn't know what he is writing about.
Forgive me for feeling I could provide a silly answer to a stupid question but since you feel so strongly that the correct science should be explained in all its detail please feel free to do so. I would love to see your treatise on the wavelengths radiated by the sun compared to the earth and how CO2 and other green house gasses respond to the various wave lengths. We certainly wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that CO2 will always block as much energy across the spectrum from the sun as it reflects back to the earth.
While you are at it you could explain how glass works with those various wavelengths. After all, we wouldn't want someone to think you could stop the green house effect by simply scratching off the dark side of a piece of glass or the dark side of a green house gas. Science is science and we wouldn't want anyone to misuse it or explain it incorrectly now would we?
You might also want to explain how LIGHT is restricted to "visible light."
It is you who so patronizingly rebuked another poster with your silly distinction between heat and light - done, in addition, with repeated alternations of wave and particle metaphors. If it was precision you were after, you could easily have written "photons" or "radiation" for light.
You followed this up with a self-contradictory reference to the "Heat" "reflected" by the CO2 in the atmosphere. That completed the comedy for me.
georgeob1 wrote:
It is you who so patronizingly rebuked another poster with your silly distinction between heat and light - done, in addition, with repeated alternations of wave and particle metaphors. If it was precision you were after, you could easily have written "photons" or "radiation" for light.
You followed this up with a self-contradictory reference to the "Heat" "reflected" by the CO2 in the atmosphere. That completed the comedy for me.
Parados should stick to the legal profession where 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5 if so desired, instead of venturing into the scientific world.
georgeob1 wrote:parados wrote:georgeob1 wrote:parados wrote: The Earth doesn't get much "heat" from the sun because we are so far away. We get LIGHT from the sun which CO2 does NOT reflect. The LIGHT is turned to heat in an easily understood change in energy. The HEAT is then reflected by the CO2.
This is an interesting and novel distortion of elementary physics. Where did you get it? How then do you suppose radiant heat transfer works in the absence of visible light?
Have you ever heard of the Stephan Boltzman law?
It is you, in this case, who doesn't know what he is writing about.
Forgive me for feeling I could provide a silly answer to a stupid question but since you feel so strongly that the correct science should be explained in all its detail please feel free to do so. I would love to see your treatise on the wavelengths radiated by the sun compared to the earth and how CO2 and other green house gasses respond to the various wave lengths. We certainly wouldn't want to leave anyone with the impression that CO2 will always block as much energy across the spectrum from the sun as it reflects back to the earth.
While you are at it you could explain how glass works with those various wavelengths. After all, we wouldn't want someone to think you could stop the green house effect by simply scratching off the dark side of a piece of glass or the dark side of a green house gas. Science is science and we wouldn't want anyone to misuse it or explain it incorrectly now would we?
You might also want to explain how LIGHT is restricted to "visible light."
It is you who so patronizingly rebuked another poster with your silly distinction between heat and light - done, in addition, with repeated alternations of wave and particle metaphors. If it was precision you were after, you could easily have written "photons" or "radiation" for light.
You followed this up with a self-contradictory reference to the "Heat" "reflected" by the CO2 in the atmosphere. That completed the comedy for me.
I see.. so you aren't interested in getting the REAL science out. You are only interested in "rebuking other posters".
okie wrote:georgeob1 wrote:
It is you who so patronizingly rebuked another poster with your silly distinction between heat and light - done, in addition, with repeated alternations of wave and particle metaphors. If it was precision you were after, you could easily have written "photons" or "radiation" for light.
You followed this up with a self-contradictory reference to the "Heat" "reflected" by the CO2 in the atmosphere. That completed the comedy for me.
Parados should stick to the legal profession where 2 + 2 can be made to equal 5 if so desired, instead of venturing into the scientific world.
Good ole okie.. jumping in to the deep end when he still can't swim..
By the way.. your own calculation would show that the warming can't all be coming from solar radiation. Do you not trust your own calculation? The earth has warmed .78 celsius. Your calculation is for .3 C. Where does the other .48 +-.18 come from?
If your goal is to clear the science up georgeb1 then just answer Ican's third question. If your goal is to promote an ideology even when people that share that ideology are wrong on the science then don't answer his question and don't correct him on his explanation of glass used in a green house.
I never said my use of the term "heat" equates to my use of the term HEAT. That was your interpretation. I also never said that LIGHT is the same as your term "visible light." Sometimes LIGHT and HEAT share common properties for a reason. :wink: I saw no reason for "precision" in my answer since the question itself was silly. You george are the one that is demanding "precision" so then provide that precision if it means so much to you. I don't think it does. I think you just are being an ideological numbskull.
parados wrote:
Good ole okie.. jumping in to the deep end when he still can't swim..
By the way.. your own calculation would show that the warming can't all be coming from solar radiation. Do you not trust your own calculation? The earth has warmed .78 celsius. Your calculation is for .3 C. Where does the other .48 +-.18 come from?
Where do you get 0.78? The latest numbers I see are much less than that, more like 0.3 to 0.5., depending upon whether you look at the ocean, lower atmosphere, troposphere, etc.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
okie wrote:Where do you get 0.78? The latest numbers I see are much less than that, more like 0.3 to 0.5., depending upon whether you look at the ocean, lower atmosphere, troposphere, etc.
And when you look at the coldest, most remote spots which have warmed much more ...
okie wrote:parados wrote:
Good ole okie.. jumping in to the deep end when he still can't swim..
By the way.. your own calculation would show that the warming can't all be coming from solar radiation. Do you not trust your own calculation? The earth has warmed .78 celsius. Your calculation is for .3 C. Where does the other .48 +-.18 come from?
Where do you get 0.78? The latest numbers I see are much less than that, more like 0.3 to 0.5., depending upon whether you look at the ocean, lower atmosphere, troposphere, etc.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm
That's interesting considering you are only using the satellite numbers from 1978 on and shows an increase of .3 to .5 in that 28 year time period and your link that you said supported your numbers uses a 120 year time period.
Quote:Abstract The effect of changes in the total solar irradiance and intensity of galactic cosmic rays on the increase in the global temperature of the Earth over the last 120 years was investigated using a one-dimensional energy-balance climate model. It is shown that the joint effect of solar and cosmic factors during this periodcan lead to an increase in the average temperature of the northern hemisphere by 0.25-0.35°C
Lookie there - okie is in over his head. Can you post your numbers okie? Let's see which time frame you used.
parados wrote:I never said my use of the term "heat" equates to my use of the term HEAT.
I can understand why some folks might be confused by this Parados.
parados wrote:... You george are the one that is demanding "precision" so then provide that precision if it means so much to you. I don't think it does. I think you just are being an ideological numbskull.
A good example of the distractions and inverctive required by one who has been found out in a flawed attempt to bully another, and who lacks the courage to deal with the truth.
TWO THEORIES, NEITHER OF WHICH AS OF NOW HAVE BEEN PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE
(1) CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm MORE than it otherwise would if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm LESS than it otherwise would if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere.
The earth's surface receives the radiation of the sun that passes completely through the earth's atmosphere to the earth's surface. The result of that radiation is more rapid vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface, and thus the surface warms. More rapid vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface, causes the earth's surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be, and less rapid vibration causes it to be cooler than it otherwise would be.
The moleculer vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface itself generates light radiations--much of which consists of infrared radiations invisible to the human eye.--back into the atmosphere. Some of that radiation passes completely through the earth's atmosphere into space, and some causes the molecules in the atmosphere to increase their vibrations thereby heating up the earth's atmosphere. Some of that molecular vibration of the earth's atmosphere radiates light back to the earth and some radiates light out of the atmosphere into space.
Because H2O exists in the atmosphere in greater concentration than does CO2 and is more regenerative of radiation than is CO2, it is as yet undetermined what the relative effects of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere actually are. Consequently, there is no more justification for CO2-hysteria than an H2O-hysteria or even say a methane-hysteria.
Walter Hinteler wrote:okie wrote:Where do you get 0.78? The latest numbers I see are much less than that, more like 0.3 to 0.5., depending upon whether you look at the ocean, lower atmosphere, troposphere, etc.
And when you look at the coldest, most remote spots which have warmed much more ...
The arctic is warming more and the anarctic is cooling more.
For anyone that might have missed it..
parados wrote:Forgive me for feeling I could provide a silly answer to a stupid question
I know what I wrote george.. I also know that you accused me of not using the actual science. I NEVER claimed I did use the "actual science." Yet, when you were presented the opportunity to provide that science you have persisted in attacking me for giving a silly answer that I knew was silly and never intended to be the "actual science." I was obtuse. I did so on purpose. I also seperated my statements by changing the word usage because I knew that they were NOT the same. I know they aren't the same. You know they aren't the same. But you don't want to give us the science when you can spend time pretending I was trying to be "scientific" and got it wrong.
Ican's question was wrong scientifically. My answer was certainly not a "scientific" answer. But rather than looking at the science in BOTH our statements you have decided to concentrate on mine. As i said.. You are an ideological numbskull.
ican711nm wrote:TWO THEORIES, NEITHER OF WHICH AS OF NOW HAVE BEEN PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE
(1) CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm MORE than it otherwise would if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere.
(2) CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm LESS than it otherwise would if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere.
The earth's surface receives the radiation of the sun that passes completely through the earth's atmosphere to the earth's surface. The result of that radiation is more rapid vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface, and thus the surface warms. More rapid vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface, causes the earth's surface to be warmer than it would otherwise be, and less rapid vibration causes it to be cooler than it otherwise would be.
The moleculer vibration of the molecules in the earth's surface itself generates light radiations--much of which consists of infrared radiations invisible to the human eye.--back into the atmosphere. Some of that radiation passes completely through the earth's atmosphere into space, and some causes the molecules in the atmosphere to increase their vibrations thereby heating up the earth's atmosphere. Some of that molecular vibration of the earth's atmosphere radiates light back to the earth and some radiates light out of the atmosphere into space.
Because H2O exists in the atmosphere in greater concentration than does CO2 and is more regenerative of radiation than is CO2, it is as yet undetermined what the relative effects of CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere actually are. Consequently, there is no more justification for CO2-hysteria than an H2O-hysteria or even say a methane-hysteria.
So george.. care to point out the errors in science in this post?
No, that one is pretty good - and accurate. I hadn't read the preceeding posts very carefully and mistook your attempt at irony for bullying.
My apologies.
ican711nm wrote:The arctic is warming more and the anarctic is cooling more.
The antarct isgetting colder in the middle while it's warming up around the edge.
If you're going to discuss something, ican, it helps if you have some knowledge of what you're discussing. And you apparently don't.
There is simply no question that the greenhouse effect exists (and it is a metaphor--it does NOT work the same as a terrestrial greenhouse. The mechanism is different, tho the end result is similar. So do NOT try to discuss it with reference to the glass of a greenhouse, since that is meaningless).
I suggest you go to wikipedia and read the article on the greenhouse effect, since you are misinterpreting what's going on. Notice particularly the graphs of incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. Notice they are different wavelength bands. Note that incoming radiation is not subject to absorption by greenhouse gasses, whereas outgoing radiation is. Notice that H2O and CO2 affect different bands. The effects of water vapor and CO2, contrary to your post are well-known and measurable. That increasing concentrations of CO2 trap more heat is also basic physics and is well-known and not disputed, even by the most contrarian of the denialists. Except apparently by you, gods know why.
I did notice one night last week, Tuesday I think, or it could have been Wednesday, I'm not sure, it wasn't Saturday, I'm sure of that, Saturday is tits nite, that my beer got warmer in inverse proprotion to the tension torque in the muscles just beneath my elbow, assuming it is agreed that finger tips are lower, in space/time I mean, than shoulders, and I did wonder if this strange effect, and effects cannot happen without causes, was due to activities on the sun, over which, unfortunately, we have no control, or to all these silly sods who have a mass transportation fetish.
