[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

In the mixture of gasses? Or just in terms of pressure? It's drier and doesn't have as many ground produced particulate matter, but it's not hugely different in what it's made out of.

The mixture of gases at sea level is a lot different than that of the stratosphere. There's far fewer water molecules at higher altitudes. And the molecular denisty is a lot lower. There's also chmistry differences (e.g. more ozone in some bands) and more high energy particles as well. So it is, in fact, "hugely different" from a spectral physics perspective.

Xort Xort:

If the absorbtion specturm is saturated higher up doesn't have anything to absorb as the sorce of energy is reflected energy from the ground. If ground level grabs 99% of the energy, all you might capture at higher levels is the remaining 1%.

No, this shows a misunderstanding of the basics of the physical process. A carbon dioxide (or water, or other GHG) molecule doesn't merely absorb infrared--it also emits in the infrared. So a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon headed up from the surface, but it then re-emits it. The direction the photon is re-emitted is random. It might go up (net effect: zero, since that's the way the phton was headed anyway) or it might go down (resulting in global warming). 50/50. So if that first level captures 99% of the incoming energy, some 49.5% (0.99/2) of that energy will be re-emitted upwards and the rest down.

$1:

You have mixed up what becomes saturated with what. The gas isn't saturated in how much it can absorb. IE well it has 100 Watts anything extra is going to get by. But rathert it is absorbing 99% of the energy in that wavelenght, it's abosorbtion is saturated.

I'm not sure at all what you are talking about here.

edit--ah, I'm talking about radiation physics bandwidth saturation and you are referring to how the atmosphere near the surface is "optically thick" at a given wavelength. Same argument applies though.

Xort Xort:

At the wave lenghts that CO2 absorbs it's already sucking up almost 100% of the energy. Overall the atmosphere could absorb a lot more energy at a lot more wavelenghts, which is why we can see, and use radio and RADAR for example, but CO2 doesn't change those absorbtion wavelenghts.

Or here...Sucking up 100% of what energy? All energy? And why wouldn't water vapour and other moelcues be sucking up some of the energy? We're not talking about all energy, we're talking about about infrared energy...heat. The atmosphere near the surface may absorb 100% of the thermal energy, but it reemits a lot of that upward. If what you said were true then no longwave energy would be reradiated to space and the planet would be about...oh...a million degrees right about now.

$1:

Venus has an atmosphere so thick it's close to water at the surface. Saying Venus has a high temperature because it has a high percent of CO2, is stupid.If you reduced the amount of atmosphere to a lower overall amount you would get a much lower overall temperature. For example, if ultra high amounts of CO2 drove run away greenhouse effects, then surely Mars with it's near pure CO2 atmosphere would be an oven. It's not.

I didn't say that Venus had a high temperature because it has a high percent of CO2. I said your theory does not correlate with the situation we see on Venus.

$1:

Some models have ignored all negitive forcing, as well as all other positive forcing in order to get changing the amount of CO2 to have any power to raise or lower the temperature.

None that I've seen in the IPCC. Many of the assumptions on forcing are simply wild-ass guesses anyways. The radiation physics is relatively starightforward (and strong enough, in my opinion, to warrant action in and of itself). Trying to predict the response of a complex ecosystem with any degree of specificty is beyond us at this point. But I appreciate the effort. One day we will be able to accurately model the ecosystem. Unfortunately, it's probably a chaotic system so the model will be of limited utility unless you the exact initial conditions at t=0, which, of course, we can't.

$1:

I don't think that's well supported. If anything the people that have market trade with the largest number of climate regions would be the most negitively affected. If you believe the prediction that AGW will only cause negitives.

Negative and positive are subjective. Global warming in BC is awesome if you're a pine beetle; not so good if you're a pine. What there will be is an adaptation cost to move things around, change agricultural practices. Maybe, for a given population, this will yield an ultimate economic advantage, but they still have to bear the adaptation cost to get there. If you can't pay that cost, then you can't adapt to take advantage of opportunity.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That isn't a by product of solar power generation.

[/quote][/quote]

And plastics and fertilizers are not byproducts of coal-fired power plants.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Aside from energy? Is that not enough?

Well that was disappointing. Here I was expecting to be enlightened with facts. You suggested that it does more than provide energy.
Oil provides energy as well as by-products used to make over 6000 consumer/commercial goods, hundreds of which are used daily by the average person.
Might I suggest you sell your current computer and buy one made from the by-products of wind or solar. What's that? There's no such thing? Well I'll be sheep dipped.
C'mon Gunny, just name ONE consumer good that can be produced/manufactured with the by-products of wind or solar, just one.

Well, I'm trying to understand here why you would be disappointed. Solar and wind make power - that's their point. If you want by products, one can look at the manufacturing jobs they create.

What's the byproduct of diesel fuel outside of its use as a fuel?

I know what your point is but it's an apples and oranges argument. The position you appear to be taking is that since the only thing you can get from wind and solar is energy, we shouldn't bother. We need a panacea energy source that provides heat, fuel, and icecream.

No, my point is why bother pointing out how much more subsidy fossil fuels get after it was mentioned how much the green energy sector gets. The by-products you mentioned are no different than a fraction the by-products already gained through fossil fuels; manufacturing jobs.
As for the by-product of diesel, really? Diesel is a by-product of oil.
However if you want to use the economy as a by-product, well hell, in the US over 94% of ALL freight shipped in the US is shipped by diesel powered trucks, trains and boats. Pretty much all heavy equipment used in contruction and mining are diesel powered. And in case of blackouts, diesel generators provide power for hospitals, hotels, manufacturing plants, commercial facilities, etc.

My position isn't that we shouldn't bother, it just looked like you were lamenting the fact that oranges don't get subsidized at the same level as apples.
And now, after inferring that green energy is good for more than energy generation, you provide one small example and head straight for the strawman.
And let's look at that one example, it provides jobs. Yeah maybe, but in Ontario it's proven to be negative job creation. Ontario's green energy act promised 50,000 new jobs in the green sector. The number of ACTUAL jobs are in the hundreds. Meanwhile, Ontario has lost almost 60,000 manufacturing jobs since Ontario's green energy act came into effect, much of the loss due to skyrocketing hydro rates. Windsor, which at one time was one of the largest manufacturing centres in Canada now has an unemployment rate of almost 14%, despite the green energy promise of thousands of new jobs.

Eclipsall Energy was one of those promises. Before idling their facility, their employees were paid 20% above minimum wage. Yet a study of the Green Energy Act concluded there would be a taxpayer subsidy of $179,000 per job/per year for those employed as "green collar" workers. That's a lotta subsidy to pay someone a couple of bucks over minimum wage.

In 2010 McGuinty exclaimed that a wind tower plant in Windsor would provide 700 jobs. In September 2011 a grand total of 50 people were employed there.
In Tillsonburg, where a plant that makes turbine blades was credited by the Mcnugget govt with creating 900 jobs in a Dec. 2010 report, had a whopping 30 employees when he went to visit 20 months later.
That's 1600 jobs he claimed were created just between those two facilities when the reality is there are less than 100 jobs.
Based on that pattern, only 2500 of those 50,000 jobs McNuggets promised have become reality. Hardly worth the cost in exhorbitant hydro rates and the tens of thousands of jobs lost due to those same exhorbitant hydro rates.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well that was disappointing. Here I was expecting to be enlightened with facts. You suggested that it does more than provide energy.
Oil provides energy as well as by-products used to make over 6000 consumer/commercial goods, hundreds of which are used daily by the average person.
Might I suggest you sell your current computer and buy one made from the by-products of wind or solar. What's that? There's no such thing? Well I'll be sheep dipped.
C'mon Gunny, just name ONE consumer good that can be produced/manufactured with the by-products of wind or solar, just one.

Ooooh. Over 6000! Here's another interesting number--combustion of fossil fuels (i.e to create energy) accounts for over 95% of anthropgenic CO2 emissions. Indeed if you cut down the amount of oil you burned, you'd have even more oil available for those important petroleum-based products, and still reduce CO2 emissions.

As for by-prducts, hmmm, let me think. You can make 6000 things out of oil...now what can we make out of sunlight? Hmmm...how about photosynthesis, the basis of all life on the planet?

Who's this "we" yer talking about? "We" don't make photosynthesis out of sunlight. The real irony in your response is if I take those plants and utilize the power of the sun within them for heat and light, I'll be producing carbon emissions.

[fifeboy]

desertdude desertdude:

.

Gunnair Gunnair:

If so, you and Bart have at least one thing in common, if not, then your point begins it's way to being moot.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, although I dunno what his exacts beliefs are in this matter, nor do I really care.

Actually DD, I believe Bart's on military time, therefore he is only right one time a day.

[Foxer]

$1:

Actually DD, I believe Bart's on military time, therefore he is only right one time a day.

I am SO going to steal that line

[Gunnair]

fifeboy fifeboy:

desertdude desertdude:

.

Gunnair Gunnair:

If so, you and Bart have at least one thing in common, if not, then your point begins it's way to being moot.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, although I dunno what his exacts beliefs are in this matter, nor do I really care.

Actually DD, I believe Bart's on military time, therefore he is only right one time a day.

[desertdude]

fifeboy fifeboy:

desertdude desertdude:

.

Gunnair Gunnair:

If so, you and Bart have at least one thing in common, if not, then your point begins it's way to being moot.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, although I dunno what his exacts beliefs are in this matter, nor do I really care.

Actually DD, I believe Bart's on military time, therefore he is only right one time a day.

Hahaha....and that time is 00.00

[kilroy]

Here is another indication that people are happy with the way the climate is changing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... coast.html

'Most of the time, the windowless building with the dome-shaped roof will be a typical high school gymnasium filled with cheering fans watching basketball and volleyball games.

But come hurricane season, the structure that resembles a miniature version of the famed Houston Astrodome will double as a hurricane shelter, part of an ambitious storm defence system that is taking shape along the Texas Gulf Coast.'

'FEMA is paying for 75 per cent of the dome structures, with local communities picking up the remaining cost.

The funding is part of the agency's initiative to help homeowners and communities build hardened shelters that provide protection from extreme weather.

Nationwide, more than $683 million has been awarded in 18 states, including Texas, Alabama, Michigan and South Carolina.'

I think we can rely on the fact of more extreme weather, and part of our adaptive strategy is apparently building storm shelter. And they thought preventing climate change was going to be expensive...

[N_Fiddledog]

I'm not sure why the manner FEMA chooses to throw its money around is representative of what the people are thinking. I do know every time they poll for issues Americans are concerned about Global Warming, or what they're now calling climate change is on the bottom of the list.

I do know global hurricane activity has decreased to the lowest level in 30 years using 24 month running sums in the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index or ACE.

Even if there were an increase in Hurricane activity, which there's not, I'm not sure why it would matter. There's been no global warming since the peak of the last little 20 year warming spurt 15 years or so ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z29E78OR9H

So even if you could show an increase in hurricane activity, how could you blame warming if there's been no warming during the period you're theorizing for?

Doesn't hurt to prepare for natural disasters though. They build earthquake resistant structures in Vancouver even though there hasn't been a major earthquake there since I can remember.

If you want to prepare for possible disasters based on any current freaky incidence of weather though, wanna know what you should be getting ready for based on the freakiest current global weather incident?

Ukraine cold snap claims 133 lives

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/29 ... 133-lives/

[Caelon]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Doesn't hurt to prepare for natural disasters though. They build earthquake resistant structures in Vancouver even though there hasn't been a major earthquake there since I can remember.

We can predict volcanic eruptions and most weather events, but we cannot reliably preict when or where the next earthquake will happen. The map will give you an inkling of the most probable areas.
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/sv/3stand_files/image008.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/sv/3stand.htm&h=410&w=575&sz=61&tbnid=FGf8RoV9RdwpgM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=122&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Bearthquake%2Bpatterns%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=global+earthquake+patterns&usg=___bl9XlJXacgA-9MQBuNRxjTG5SE=&docid=1twYL4pXBiJDhM&sa=X&ei=IVjjULqmOdGvigKE3oCoDg&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg&dur=1280

The other part about earthquakes is an earthquake by itself does not result in large number of deaths. If you were in the middle of a field near the epicentre you might not be able to remain standing, but you are unlikely to die. It is the associated events like collapsing buildings or tsunamis that cause the loss of life.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The mixture of gases at sea level is a lot different than that of the stratosphere. There's far fewer water molecules at higher altitudes. And the molecular denisty is a lot lower. There's also chmistry differences (e.g. more ozone in some bands) and more high energy particles as well. So it is, in fact, "hugely different" from a spectral physics perspective.

It's almost identical other than the amount of water vapor. Ozone isn't realy important as far as green house gasses go. If you want to claim hugely different for less than a tiny fraction of a percent you can.

$1:

No, this shows a misunderstanding of the basics of the physical process. A carbon dioxide (or water, or other GHG) molecule doesn't merely absorb infrared--it also emits in the infrared. So a CO2 molecule absorbs an infrared photon headed up from the surface, but it then re-emits it. The direction the photon is re-emitted is random. It might go up (net effect: zero, since that's the way the phton was headed anyway) or it might go down (resulting in global warming). 50/50. So if that first level captures 99% of the incoming energy, some 49.5% (0.99/2) of that energy will be re-emitted upwards and the rest down.

Making the false asumption that CO2 emits 100% in the wavelenght it absorbs in. Making a further false asumption that CO2 that absorbs energy emits 100% of what it absorbs.

$1:

Or here...Sucking up 100% of what energy? All energy? And why wouldn't water vapour and other moelcues be sucking up some of the energy? We're not talking about all energy, we're talking about about infrared energy...heat.

No we are not, and infrared energy isn't heat. Infrared is a set band of electromagnetic radiation between 0.74µm and 3mm.

CO2 absorbs most of the EM radiation it will absorb at wavelenghts of 1.5, 2 and 11µm. The lowest end of what is called IR.



You very clearly don't know much about the physics of global warming.

$1:

The atmosphere near the surface may absorb 100% of the thermal energy, but it reemits a lot of that upward. If what you said were true then no longwave energy would be reradiated to space and the planet would be about...oh...a million degrees right about now.

No, because I thought I was talking to someone that knew something I left out the implied statement. At the wavelenghts CO2 can absorb EM energy the amount being absorbed is already at or very near 100%. Adding more CO2 doesn't absorb any more because it's already being almost totaly absorbed. And the limited emission from CO2 that absorbs energy isn't at wavelenghts that CO2 absorbs back into it's self at any great rate.

$1:

I didn't say that Venus had a high temperature because it has a high percent of CO2. I said your theory does not correlate with the situation we see on Venus.

You said if saturation doesn't work like I know it does and physics says it must, then Venus wouldn't have as strong a greenhouse effect as it does. Which is meaningless, because Venus is as warm as it is because it's atmosphere is at 92 times the pressure of the Earth's at the surface.

At the point where the pressure is equal to being under 1km of water on the Earth you are not talking about anything similar to how our atmosphere works at all.

$1:

None that I've seen in the IPCC.

Then you must not be reading them. Which is supported by you claim that CO2 is absorbing an imporant amount in the infrared band, or claiming that infrared is heat.

[Psudo]

Xort Xort:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

None that I've seen in the IPCC.

Then you must not be reading them.

It seems like this dispute could be cleared up by citing one.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

You very clearly don't know much about the physics of global warming.

Although it's possible you are correct, I'd like to see a comparison of qualifications...just for shits and giggles.

Xort?

Zip?

[Foxer]

Well, i've decided to do something about global warming personally, so i'm leaving my fridge door open today.

(Gunnair, why are you looking at me like that?)

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Although it's possible you are correct, I'd like to see a comparison of qualifications...just for shits and giggles.
Xort?
Zip?

How about my qualification of not saying things that are flat out wrong and close to physicaly impossible?