CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:58 pm
 


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


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


Alright. :D

Zip?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:21 pm
 


I'm not going to state my qualifications, respectfully, Gunny. The argument should stand on its own merits regardless of the number of letters after the name of the person stating it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:24 pm
 


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


You say that I don't gave a grasp of the basic physics. You then proceed to say that CO2 does not absorb photons in the infrared spectrum. The very first sentence of the wiki article on the Greenhouse Effect is:

$1:
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.


I would argue that since you are dismissing the Greenhouse Effect--a fairly rudimentary application of thermodynamics and radiation physics, then it isn't me that doesn’t know what I'm talking about.

What you are doing is trying to come across as knowing what you're talking about by arguing minutiae or using a scattergun of technical terms. Arguing for arguments sake.

Your post is wrong in so many ways that I'm not going to bother going through and correcting it, since it appears to me that you are more interested in being contrarian than trying to establish any basis of agreement.

This is how it is with so many so-called skeptics. It's OK to be a skeptic, but when you throw out basic thermodynamcis and radaition physics--theories which have been shown to be reflective of reality millions of times in the last 150 years--then you lose your credibility.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:38 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not going to state my qualifications, respectfully, Gunny. The argument should stand on its own merits regardless of the number of letters after the name of the person stating it.


Boo.

That's a bigger buzz kill than Buzz Killington... :D :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:58 pm
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not going to state my qualifications, respectfully, Gunny. The argument should stand on its own merits regardless of the number of letters after the name of the person stating it.


Boo.

That's a bigger buzz kill than Buzz Killington... :D :wink:


Fine then.

I have several PhDs, including a PhD in Fine Arts in the French Romanticism , 17 PhDs in Economics from the toilet stall in the UBC cafeteria, a PhD in adavnced Astrophysics in Princeton, a PhD in Behavioral Psychology, where my thesis was using cognitive analysis to try measure Xort's obtuseness. I also got VD in DC and an OMG in TLC. :lol:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:34 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You say that I don't gave a grasp of the basic physics. You then proceed to say that CO2 does not absorb photons in the infrared spectrum. The very first sentence of the wiki article on the Greenhouse Effect is:
It has almost no absorbtion outside by the wavelenghts I listed before. If IR is 0.74µm to 3mm then CO2 absorbs the lowest end of the named range, less than 14µm. Leaving from 14µm to 3mm of the range unabsorbed. Less than 1% of the IR range is something CO2 can absorb in.

$1:
The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions.


Nothing I said is in conflict with that statement.
$1:
I would argue that since you are dismissing the Greenhouse Effect--a fairly rudimentary application of thermodynamics and radiation physics, then it isn't me that doesn’t know what I'm talking about.
I have done nothing of the sort. I'm not dismissing the greenhouse effect, it's the center of my argument. WTF?
$1:
What you are doing is trying to come across as knowing what you're talking about by arguing minutiae or using a scattergun of technical terms. Arguing for arguments sake.
Sorry if climate change is a complex subject with a lot of aspects to it that have technical terms.
$1:
Your post is wrong in so many ways that I'm not going to bother going through and correcting it, since it appears to me that you are more interested in being contrarian than trying to establish any basis of agreement.
Ah yes, so wrong you can even say what is wrong about it. So much for "The argument should stand on its own merits.."
$1:
This is how it is with so many so-called skeptics. It's OK to be a skeptic, but when you throw out basic thermodynamcis and radaition physics--theories which have been shown to be reflective of reality millions of times in the last 150 years--then you lose your credibility.
I'm not throwing out anything.

CO2 absorbs EM radiation at a set range of wavelenghts, those wavelenghts due to overlap with other greenhouse gasses absorb almost all of the energy that is currently radiated at those lenghts. Adding more CO2 doesn't do much to move the average global temperature around because almost all the warming that can be caused by CO2 is currently being caused. *All* the warming models depend on other greenhouse gasses to rise the temperature. Your suggested theory that CO2 will radiate back in wavelenghts it can absorb, creating a chain of heating at all levels of the atmosphere is wrong. CO2 doesn't emit much radiation in wavelenghts CO2 can absorbs any meaingful amount of energy from.

Gunnair Gunnair:
That's a bigger buzz kill than Buzz Killington... :D :wink:
I know what he claims too, I do have a memory. (although it looks like he now claims 20 PhDs)

But the cool thing about science is that it's not done by popularity or vote, just what is observed or not. Claim glaciers in India are melting and it doesn't matter if you have a thousand signatures by top climate scientists saying they believe it, if the data shows they are not melting they are not melting.

~

It doesn't matter, if Dr x 20 Zipper thinks CO2 is going to cook the planet great, have fun. I don't care, he can believe that CO2 is polution and that it's going to cause global flooding and world scale ecological destruction. If he doesn't want to reply, also fine. I'm willing to wait a long time to be proven right, or wrong. See ya in 100 years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:26 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Gunnair Gunnair:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I'm not going to state my qualifications, respectfully, Gunny. The argument should stand on its own merits regardless of the number of letters after the name of the person stating it.


Boo.

That's a bigger buzz kill than Buzz Killington... :D :wink:


Fine then.

I have several PhDs, including a PhD in Fine Arts in the French Romanticism , 17 PhDs in Economics from the toilet stall in the UBC cafeteria, a PhD in adavnced Astrophysics in Princeton, a PhD in Behavioral Psychology, where my thesis was using cognitive analysis to try measure Xort's obtuseness. I also got VD in DC and an OMG in TLC. :lol:


See, not so bad to blow your own horn! [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:01 pm
 


Xort Xort:
It has almost no absorbtion outside by the wavelenghts I listed before. If IR is 0.74µm to 3mm then CO2 absorbs the lowest end of the named range, less than 14µm. Leaving from 14µm to 3mm of the range unabsorbed. Less than 1% of the IR range is something CO2 can absorb in.


A CO2 molecule absorbs in the (approx) 13 - 18 micrometer band. Which is in the infrared spectrum. The fact that it absorbs a very small band if the infrared spectrum is not unusual for all dipole molecules, and is immaterial to the argument. The fact that is material to the argument is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and re-emits in the infrared radiation.
And here is an example of you being argumentative by throwing up technical sounding yet completely irrelevant facts.
Xort Xort:
Ah yes, so wrong you can even say what is wrong about it. So much for "The argument should stand on its own merits.."


Well, then lets go through shall we.

Firstly, my original point was that treating the atmosphere as a number of levels based on their chemcistry and physics was superior to treating the atmosphere as a monolithic slab, which you took issue with. The idea that a model works better when you can make the elements of that model finer is hardly advanced science. So you're wrong there.

Secondly, you say there is an insignificant difference between the stratosphere and the lithosphere. In fact there are significant changes in temperature, in pressure and in chemistry and in the radiation physics. So you're wrong there too.

Thirdly, your saturation argument is wrong for a number of reasons. The fact that carbon dioxide becomes less effective at removing IR as its concentration increases is already reflected in the logarithmic realtionship betweeen forcing CO2 concentration (delta F = k ln C/C(0)), which states that each doubling of CO2 results in an increase of about 4 W/m^2 or 1 deg C. Also, your saturation argument fails to account for the fact that, as bands absorb more radiation, they also fatten, soi that they, in effect, absorb a greater bandwidth. The saturation argument also fails because you treat the atmosphere as a monolithic slab. And the saturation argument fails to explain a "runaway Greenhouse Effect" such as we see on Venus. Venus, by your argument, should have stopped warming long before its current state due to saturation.

Fourthly, you are wrong that the IPCC does not account for negative feedbacks. In fact they do. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is a negative feedback effect (accounted for by the IPCC), which is that the heat radiated to space corresponds to the fourth power of the temperature. They also account for the negative feedback effect if clouds (which reflect some incident incoming solar radiation before it hits the Earth's surface. Clouds of course, also have a positive feedback effect in that they are made of water vapour--a GHG. The lapse rate (change of temperature with height in the atmosphere) is another negative feedback effect accounted for in the IPCC model.

$1:
Adding more CO2 doesn't do much to move the average global temperature around because almost all the warming that can be caused by CO2 is currently being caused.

Satellite measurements from 1970 to the present have shown a change in the spectral properties of outbound radiation from Earth in the bands at which CO2 absorbs.
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
This experimental evidence that you are wrong.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:43 pm
 


You're kind of doing what you're accusing Xort of doing Zip. You're using high sounding language to disguise hypothetical BS as fact.

The IPCC does not "account" for positive, or negative feedbacks in clouds. There is no real certainty on that one. The IPCC offers some hypothesis, but does not claim certainty. It's an issue of much contention. The evidence is nowhere close to being in on that one. I'd like to see where in the IPCC they say it is. Don't they say something more like "we think it might work something like this", then scientists like Spencer come along and say, "no, there's support for thinking it might be more like this."

And where does this business of "fattening bands" come from? Sounds kind of hypothesis-y. I notice that happens a lot in these kinds of argument. A hypothesis is contradicted by a fact then a new hypothesis is created to explain the conflict. But presenting these hypotheses as fact is just high-fallutin nonsense.

Also, didn't Xort already offer a counter explanation to the Venus thing? I could of sworn I heard something about the higher density of gas on Venus, or something.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21663
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:36 pm
 


N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
The IPCC does not "account" for positive, or negative feedbacks in clouds.


Sentence two and we're already into arguing semantics. Not a good sign.


$1:
There is no real certainty on that one. The IPCC offers some hypothesis, but does not claim certainty.


There's no certainty in science. Deal with it.

$1:
It's an issue of much contention. The evidence is nowhere close to being in on that one. I'd like to see where in the IPCC they say it is. Don't they say something more like "we think it might work something like this", then scientists like Spencer come along and say, "no, there's support for thinking it might be more like this."


The issue is that Xort said that the IPCC did not consider any negative feedback scenarios in their analysis. The fact is they did (e.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 6-2-3.html)--namely the negative feedback effect of clouds and the negative feedback effect of the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation. They probably did others too; those are the ones that are the most obvious.


$1:
And where does this business of "fattening bands" come from? Sounds kind of hypothesis-y. I notice that happens a lot in these kinds of argument. A hypothesis is contradicted by a fact then a new hypothesis is created to explain the conflict. But presenting these hypotheses as fact is just high-fallutin nonsense.


It's not exactly cutting edge stuff, so I wonder why you don't just go look it up and teh several dozen free physics sites available. Of course the answer is, like Xort, you want me to explain it to you, look for some semantical nonentity to make an argument out of and ride that for the next three pages.

Here:

Modtran. You can run that model. Type in, say, 0, 375, 750 and 1500 ppm for CO2 leaving others the same and take a look at the change in the spectrum. You can see the CO2 line get fatter. Knock yourself out.

Adn a primer on spectral lines, that explains broadening of spectral lines due to interaction with other particles and Doppler broadening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

$1:
Also, didn't Xort already offer a counter explanation to the Venus thing? I could of sworn I heard something about the higher density of gas on Venus, or something.


Yes, not going there for reasons mentioned above. The original issue here is Xort's contention that CO2 abosorbance is saturated and therefore adding CO2 will not have an effect. I'm sticking with that, and I'm not going to get sidetracked. I originally mentioned that Venus's runaway Greenhouse Effect was a counter-example of that saturation, but have belatedly realized that this will just provide another opportunity to derail the discussion.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:43 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
There's no certainty in science. Deal with it.


Which is why my personal BS detector tends to go off when people try to tell me, with certainty, what the climate and sea levels will look like eighty-seven years from now.

I also have issues with computer models that propose to divine the weather for ten years from now when they can't even accurately 'predict' what the weather was ten years ago.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.