Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 2070

Thread: Climate Change Debate

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

    Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?
    I will dig some stuff out later but I assure you that you attempted to compare apples with oranges. You also seem to assume corellation with one variable identifies cause. Given that less than 3% of the 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be attributable to man, I think you need to back up your assertions too.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 5th May 2012 at 09:21 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

    Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?
    I will reply with Magelen spacecraft data collated here (it was used for blue sky research in this article and is unlikely to be tainted, the same graphs can be found elsewhere):

    http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

    If you look for the intercepts of temperature and pressure there is not much varience with Earth at 1 bar despite Venus being much closer to the Sun and a completely different atmospheric composition. This would suggest that carbon dioxide is unimportant. A little effort would show you that the Venus surface is at 92 bar. Venus likely takes 4 times the radiative energy of the Sun compared to the Earth. Albedo is different and might account for some of it but given the dense clouds are lower?
    There are abundant differencies between the planets to make your original comment a tad naive.
    Earth dynamics are are not constrained to the atmosphere but it's oceans and it's geological core at temperatures to 1000s of celsius must be more important from an energy point of view. Why is it that some people can blame a trace atmospheric gas that is actually useful? Is maths/physics education in this country really so shit?

    Boltzmann explains most of this.

    One other thing, Vesus has little rotational speed and no moon contributing a gravitational influluence on it's surface and core dynamics.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 7th May 2012 at 11:09 PM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    6,554
    Our emissions are so bad it's effecting venus? Jesus people, we need to get our act together.
    <3 - guns, jesus, walmart, trucks, truck nuts, trump, brexit, rosters
    </3 - tea, kebabs, monarchies, EU, the deep state, nandos

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    I will reply with Magelen spacecraft data collated here (it was used for blue sky research in this article and is unlikely to be tainted, the same graphs can be found elsewhere):

    http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

    If you look for the intercepts of temperature and pressure there is not much varience with Earth at 1 bar despite Venus being much closer to the Sun and a completely different atmospheric composition. This would suggest that carbon dioxide is unimportant. A little effort would show you that the Venus surface is at 92 bar. Venus likely takes 4 times the radiative energy of the Sun compared to the Earth. Albedo is different and might account for some of it but given the dense clouds are lower?
    Greater atmospheric density does indeed play a part in the higher surface temperature of Venus. But even once that is taken into account, there remains a significant (circa 20 degrees) contribution from atmospheric CO2.

    There are abundant differencies between the planets to make your original comment a tad naive.
    Earth dynamics are are not constrained to the atmosphere but it's oceans and it's geological core at temperatures to 1000s of celsius must be more important from an energy point of view. Why is it that some people can blame a trace atmospheric gas that is actually useful? Is maths/physics education in this country really so shit?
    Those points are, from a temperature balance POV, irrelevent, since they've been there for millions of years, so cannot affect the change in global temperature that we have witnessed. Planets receive radiation from the sun at a constant rate, and lose heat via radiation that is proportional to temperature.

    Boltzmann explains most of this.
    Not really, no. His methods are statistical, and rely on idealised models. You dont agree with models, remember?

    One other thing, Vesus has little rotational speed and no moon contributing a gravitational influluence on it's surface and core dynamics.
    So? Neither play a part in the thermodynamic balance of a planet. You seem to being engaging in FUDdery, whereby you throw a load of nonsensical scientific terms out in the hope of blinding your audience to that fact that none of them are in any way relevant.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Models are useful in science but you have to verify the results. I'm not sure my customers would be too pleased if I shrugged my shoulders and said it worked in the simulation.
    You seem to ignore that science is a way of modeling the universe and is useful for understanding, it must be readily observed that human understanding is incomplete.
    Your last comment is a cop out. My understanding of science and engineering will stand up to real world testing. I'm on here pointing out that despite what the politicians say the science and the solutions are most definately not settled. Tail wagging dog?
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 8th May 2012 at 09:49 PM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Greater atmospheric density does indeed play a part in the higher surface temperature of Venus. But even once that is taken into account, there remains a significant (circa 20 degrees) contribution from atmospheric CO2.
    You use the term degrees! 20 Kelvin out of a thousand in a lightly sensored system, behave that is noise. You cannot even factor solar orbital radius. What other factors are at play in such a volatile and poorly understood system?


    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Those points are, from a temperature balance POV, irrelevent, since they've been there for millions of years, so cannot affect the change in global temperature that we have witnessed. Planets receive radiation from the sun at a constant rate, and lose heat via radiation that is proportional to temperature.
    CONSTANT! You must be joking. I think you need a course in astrophysics, plate-techtonics, geo-magnetic physics and oceanography. With all due respect, your thinking seems to be entrenched, wedded to politics and inflexible to new ideas, quite unscientific concepts.
    You have yet to post anything technical which supports the carbon dioxide driven climate hypothesis.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 8th May 2012 at 11:15 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    You use the term degrees! 20 Kelvin out of a thousand in a lightly sensored system, behave.
    Twenty degrees isnt a significant amount now? What would happen if the antarctic warmed by twenty degrees?

    CONSTANT! You must be joking. I think you need a course in astrophysics, plate-techtonics and oceanography. With all due respect, your thinking seems to be entrenched and inflexible to new ideas, quite unscientific concepts.
    Perhaps you like to explain the relevence of those fields to a whole-earth radiative balance? Solar radiation comes in, the atmosphere radiates back out. WTF has plate tectonics got to do with that?

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Twenty degrees isnt a significant amount now? What would happen if the antarctic warmed by twenty degrees??
    Deary me, I used Kelvin not a airy fairy concept of 'degrees'. Come back when you can understand thermodynamics, what energy and temperature mean. Your answers suggest that there is a blind acceptance of 'macro' physics but poor understanding of what happens under the bonnet. I doubt the Venusian probe measurements can be deemed as accurate as 20 Kelvin at surface levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Perhaps you like to explain the relevence of those fields to a whole-earth radiative balance? Solar radiation comes in, the atmosphere radiates back out. WTF has plate tectonics got to do with that?
    The whole system is important, to suggest that a trace gas in the least massive part of the planet as a whole is the main climate driver is just plain stupid. The whole concept of 'greenhouse' gas is at best a misnomer. All gas molecules are free to energy exchange with their surounding gas, liqiud and solid molecules, I've not seen too much glass in greenhouses doing the same except in response to errant cricket balls.
    Vis, you do not seem to grasp that you cannot by science make a stoic representation of fact. Approximations are possible in well understood systems, engineers exploit that. Your idea that we have anything like a good approximation to the earth, solar and galactic environment is silly.

    Almost forgot: What do think is the energy source to drive the plate-tectonics, farting veggie dinosaurs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 9th May 2012 at 01:08 AM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    Deary me, I used Kelvin not a airy fairy concept of 'degrees'. Come back when you can understand thermodynamics, what energy and temperature mean. Your answers suggest that there is a blind acceptance of 'macro' physics but poor understanding of what happens under the bonnet. I doubt the Venusian probe measurements can be deemed as accurate as 20 Kelvin at surface levels.
    A temperature difference of 20 degrees Kelvin is *identical* to a difference of 20 degrees C. The only difference between Kelvin and Celcius is where the scale starts.

    From wikipedia:

    In science and in engineering, the Celsius scale and the kelvin are often used simultaneously in the same article (e.g., "...its measured value was 0.01028 C with an uncertainty of 60 K..."). This practice is permissible because the degree Celsius is a special name for the kelvin for use in expressing Celsius temperatures and the magnitude of the degree Celsius is exactly equal to that of the kelvin
    Im not going to take accusations that I dont understand temperature from someone who cant grasp that a difference of 20 degrees C and a difference of 20 degrees Kelvin are exactly the same.

    And given that we've had probes on the surface of Venus for over 40 years then yes, we've had accurate temperature measurements for the entirity of that period.

    The whole system is important, to suggest that a trace gas in the least massive part of the planet as a whole is the main climate driver is just plain stupid. The whole concept of 'greenhouse' gas is at best a misnomer. All gas molecules are free to energy exchange with their surounding gas, liqiud and solid molecules, I've not seen too much glass in greenhouses doing the same except in response to errant cricket balls.
    Not all gas molecules are equal - they will all radiate and absorb at different wavelengths - the most striking demonstration of this being the colour of streetlamps, whose colour varies with whatever gas is used to fill them. So you have broad spectrum radiation incoming from the Sun, while the radiation that escapes into space is predominantly in the infra-red region. The differing opacity of greenhouse gases in these regions is what gives rise to the greenhouse effect - they allow broadband radiation in, while blocking significant parts of IR from escaping.

    Vis, you do not seem to grasp that you cannot by science make a stoic representation of fact. Approximations are possible in well understood systems, engineers exploit that. Your idea that we have anything like a good approximation to the earth, solar and galactic environment is silly.

    Almost forgot: What do think is the energy source to drive the plate-tectonics, farting veggie dinosaurs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792
    The plate tectonics angle is an intersting one, when relating to anthropeginic climate change. How can plate tectonics (which has been happeneing constantly for millions of years) be responsible for the warming we have only seen in the past 100 years?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    A temperature difference of 20 degrees Kelvin is *identical* to a difference of 20 degrees C. The only difference between Kelvin and Celcius is where the scale starts.

    From wikipedia:



    Im not going to take accusations that I dont understand temperature from someone who cant grasp that a difference of 20 degrees C and a difference of 20 degrees Kelvin are exactly the same.

    And given that we've had probes on the surface of Venus for over 40 years then yes, we've had accurate temperature measurements for the entirity of that period.
    I know what the Kelvin relationship to Celcius is, probably from before you were born. I think you will find that no surface probe of Venus has survived more than few minutes at specific points. Orbiters have taken atmospheric readings that agree with well tested instrumentation. You should look up the Venus man-made spacecraft/satellite record over the last 40 years. The suggestion is that you didn't research before making a statement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Not all gas molecules are equal - they will all radiate and absorb at different wavelengths - the most striking demonstration of this being the colour of streetlamps, whose colour varies with whatever gas is used to fill them. So you have broad spectrum radiation incoming from the Sun, while the radiation that escapes into space is predominantly in the infra-red region. The differing opacity of greenhouse gases in these regions is what gives rise to the greenhouse effect - they allow broadband radiation in, while blocking significant parts of IR from escaping..
    Have you ever heard of other energy exchange mechanisms? Conduction, convection and radiation that were all important when I was a lad. The later was considered, and should be, it is largely unimportant in heat exchange within the planet.
    I'm half decent at quantum physics too, quantum energy exchange is irrelevent in a global heat exchange model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    The plate tectonics angle is an intersting one, when relating to anthropeginic climate change. How can plate tectonics (which has been happeneing constantly for millions of years) be responsible for the warming we have only seen in the past 100 years?
    You have a hypothesis for the last 100 years which is open to challenge. Vulcanisism has been demonstrably shown to influence short term climate. What drives the vulcanism?

    And finally...

    You have yet to show me the glass in your greenhouse. Explain how the atmosphere can be modeled as a greenhouse and I will buy you a bottle of Bud.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 10th May 2012 at 12:38 AM.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    I know what the Kelvin relationship to Celcius is, probably from before you were born.
    Perhaps thats why you appear to have forgotten it?

    I think you will find that no surface probe of Venus has survived more than few minutes at specific points. Orbiters have taken atmospheric readings that agree with well tested instrumentation. You should look up the Venus man-made spacecraft/satellite record over the last 40 years. The suggestion is that you didn't research before making a statement.
    How long does it take to record a temperature? Probes HAVE landed on Venus , and they HAVE returned temperature data - that is a scientific fact.

    Oh, and the longest lived probe (Venera 13) seems to have operated for over 2 hours - rather more than a 'few minutes' as you assert - so perhaps you should refrain from accusations of a lack of research.

    Have you ever heard of other energy exchange mechanisms? Conduction, convection and radiation that were all important when I was a lad. The later was considered, and should be, it is largely unimportant in heat exchange within the planet.
    I'm half decent at quantum physics too, quantum energy exchange is irrelevent in a global heat exchange model.
    The only mechanism that can transmit heat out into space is radiation. Conduction and Convection may have been important when you were a lad, but scientists prefer to focus on what matters in the system being considered - and when you're talking about a planet in a vacuum these latter mechanism cannot work.

    You seem to be focussed on heat mechanisms within the earth - whereas climate change is concerned with the radiative balance of the earth as a whole. More energy coming in than going out = increase in temperature = increase in radiation of heat from the earth = balance restored. The opposite is, of course also true. Now, the heat generated internally is constant, certainly over the timescales we are talking about, given that it comes from radioactive decay within the earth.

    You have a hypothesis for the last 100 years which is open to challenge. Vulcanisism has been demonstrably shown to influence short term climate. What drives the vulcanism?
    How can volcanoes be responsible for global warming when they actually *lower* global temperatures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

    And finally...

    You have yet to show me the glass in your greenhouse. Explain how the atmosphere can be modeled as a greenhouse and I will buy you a bottle of Bud.
    OK.

    Solar radiation is broad spectrum radiation. Some is UV (the stuff that gives you a tan/cancer), some is visible radiation (sunlight), some is infrared - thats why sunlight feels warm. Obviously when sunlight is incident upon the earth this raises the earths temperature. On the other side, warm bodies emit heat - and the warmer the body, the greater the heat.

    The greenhouse effect comes from the fact that certain gases react very differently dependent on the wavelength of the radiation passing through them.

    CO2 allows most radiation to ass through unhindered, but it absorbs infrared.

    I know you're a big fan of empiricism, so take a look at this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

    So Co2 in the atmosphere allows most of the energy from the sun (covering a wide range of wavelengths) though to the earth, but, the radiation that is emitted back out (comprising mostly infrared radiation), is trapped. Thats your greenhouse.
    Last edited by Visage; 10th May 2012 at 10:21 AM.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The best part of Wolvo.
    Posts
    27,486
    What warmed us up after the ice age?
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    FFS, Booz, this high horse you're on lately is bewildering.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

    I wasnt taht we we warmed, its that the things that cooled us stopped.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bilbrook
    Posts
    86,884
    Calor Gas.
    The rain falls hard on a humdrum town.

    http://oscillatingwildly.net
    Twitter
    Facebook

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Burton-On-Trent
    Posts
    43,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Boozad View Post
    What warmed us up after the ice age?
    The main factor for the coming and going of ice ages is the Earth's slight variations in the elliptical orbit and angle of tilt of the Earth, known as Milankovitch cycles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    It's in Vis' link but this is the main reason.
    Oh my god! Whitney's dead? How's Michael Jackson taking it?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The best part of Wolvo.
    Posts
    27,486
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bear View Post
    The main factor for the coming and going of ice ages is the Earth's slight variations in the elliptical orbit and angle of tilt of the Earth, known as Milankovitch cycles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    It's in Vis' link but this is the main reason.
    Interesting shit. I can happily read about the history of the planet for hours on end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    FFS, Booz, this high horse you're on lately is bewildering.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Burton-On-Trent
    Posts
    43,801
    There was a good 3-part BBC documentary on the seasons/weather a couple of months back called Orbit which dealt with the Sun/Earth relationship. Maybe it's on Youtube.
    Oh my god! Whitney's dead? How's Michael Jackson taking it?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Perhaps thats why you appear to have forgotten it?
    We can only have this discussion if we reference absolute zero. Kelvin has the same gradient as Celcius.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    How long does it take to record a temperature? Probes HAVE landed on Venus , and they HAVE returned temperature data - that is a scientific fact.

    Oh, and the longest lived probe (Venera 13) seems to have operated for over 2 hours - rather more than a 'few minutes' as you assert - so perhaps you should refrain from accusations of a lack of research.
    If you had gone to Buxton instead of Hazel Grove on Sunday your bollocks would have been more frozen compared to the later location. Are you seriously suggesting that we have a decent surface instrument record of Venus? Did you consider that the temperature measurements in those hours and minutes might have bias due to atmospheric entry friction?



    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    The only mechanism that can transmit heat out into space is radiation. Conduction and Convection may have been important when you were a lad, but scientists prefer to focus on what matters in the system being considered - and when you're talking about a planet in a vacuum these latter mechanism cannot work..
    Do you understand that radiative absorption and reflection across spectra most definately keeps the planet at some kind of equilibrium? Albedo is most definately important, and on this ice, oceans and clouds must be the majors. A tiny adjustment to atmospheric CO2, which is a trace gas is unlikely to be important from a radiative point of view (Venus does not support this).

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    You seem to be focussed on heat mechanisms within the earth - whereas climate change is concerned with the radiative balance of the earth as a whole. More energy coming in than going out = increase in temperature = increase in radiation of heat from the earth = balance restored. The opposite is, of course also true. Now, the heat generated internally is constant, certainly over the timescales we are talking about, given that it comes from radioactive decay within the earth.
    All man made of course /sark. The system dynamics are known to a point but that does not mean we can predict the future



    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    How can volcanoes be responsible for global warming when they actually *lower* global temperatures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
    I thought you guys had re-branded it to Climate Change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    OK.

    Solar radiation is broad spectrum radiation. Some is UV (the stuff that gives you a tan/cancer), some is visible radiation (sunlight), some is infrared - thats why sunlight feels warm. Obviously when sunlight is incident upon the earth this raises the earths temperature. On the other side, warm bodies emit heat - and the warmer the body, the greater the heat.
    Explain the radiative mechanism when the dark side of the earth is facing away from the Sun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    The greenhouse effect comes from the fact that certain gases react very differently dependent on the wavelength of the radiation passing through them.

    CO2 allows most radiation to ass through unhindered, but it absorbs infrared.

    I know you're a big fan of empiricism, so take a look at this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

    So Co2 in the atmosphere allows most of the energy from the sun (covering a wide range of wavelengths) though to the earth, but, the radiation that is emitted back out (comprising mostly infrared radiation), is trapped. Thats your greenhouse.
    That BBC video is famed for being ridiculous, it is a closed system (just like a greenhouse) and does not represent the atmosphere. Boltzmann turned up again, have you ever taken a bicycle pump and blocked the outlet? Apply pressure, what happens?

    You still haven't explained how radiation is trapped when molecules are free to distribute the energy (a good thing) unlike the elements of a greenhouse.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 11th May 2012 at 01:06 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Burton-On-Trent
    Posts
    43,801
    A couple of new stories about a recent peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change by NASA's James Hansen:

    http://t.co/mMgZuu4W

    http://t.co/5rJxUoRi
    Oh my god! Whitney's dead? How's Michael Jackson taking it?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    vasilika, evia, greece
    Posts
    10,015
    Well all this highbrow, engineers versus scientists is soemwhat boring as well as confusing to us mere mortals.

    IF and i say if, because i simply don't know, and the only models i worked with had great tits, IF we are responsible for climate change and governments are serious about saving the planet, why not.......

    1) Insist all new homes built in britain, consists of roofs constructed with photovoltaic cells in place. Bang the cost on the mortgage and we're off and running.

    2) on the babsis that Honda already have a perfectly working hydro car, and the problem is the storing and distribution of Hydrogen for use by motorists, and the refusal of poetrol companies to even consider a hydrogen , (or gas pump) at their current petrol stations, then why does the government not simply give them two years to achieve both, or suffer a continuing fine for every petrol station that does not offer the new alternative fuels.

    To me it seems climate change has been seized on by various governments around the world as a fabulous excuse to raise new, morally defensible taxes, that achieve little else except more cash in the government coffers.

    If you wish to reply to my post, please do so in norma; standard english, and keep the gobbledygook heavyweight stuff for yourselves. I would hate to see you wasting valuable energy.
    "Never enter into a battle of wits, with an unarmed man"

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    We can only have this discussion if we reference absolute zero. Kelvin has the same gradient as Celcius.
    Why? When talking about temperature difference you can use either. A change from 0C to 20C is exactly the same as a change from 273K to 293K. This is GCSE physics.

    If you had gone to Buxton instead of Hazel Grove on Sunday your bollocks would have been more frozen compared to the later location.
    Weather is not the same as climate. Thats pretty fundamental.

    Are you seriously suggesting that we have a decent surface instrument record of Venus?
    Yes. Not just from surface probes, but from the many orbiters that have been sent to venus over the last few decades - they're just as capable of measuring surface temperature as weather sattellites are when in orbit around the earth.

    Did you consider that the temperature measurements in those hours and minutes might have bias due to atmospheric entry friction?
    No, they wouldnt - the probes didnt plummet in free fall from space down to the surface - they'd have been destroyed. They all descended by parachute - meaning that any atmospheric heating would be negligible.


    [quote]Do you understand that radiative absorption and reflection across spectra most definately keeps the planet at some kind of equilibrium? Albedo is most definately important, and on this ice, oceans and clouds must be the majors. A tiny adjustment to atmospheric CO2, which is a trace gas is unlikely to be important from a radiative point of view (Venus does not support this).[quote]

    Unlikely to be? Based on what? We know for a fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation strongly - much more strongly than other, more common gases in the atmosphere.



    All man made of course /sark. The system dynamics are known to a point but that does not mean we can predict the future
    Waffle.

    I thought you guys had re-branded it to Climate Change.
    Answer the point. How can you claim volcanoes contribute to an increase in average global temperatures when, following volcanic eruptions, global temperatures have been observed to drop?

    Explain the radiative mechanism when the dark side of the earth is facing away from the Sun.
    Is this the form your arguments are going to take now? Throw out random questions and hope to muddy the water?

    Take a hot object, observe that it radiates in the IR band. Put the object in a darkened room - it continues to radiate IR.

    That BBC video is famed for being ridiculous, it is a closed system (just like a greenhouse) and does not represent the atmosphere.
    No-one claimed it did. What it does demonstrate is that CO2 absorbs IR, which is the thermal radiation by which heat flows away from the earth. Trap this heat, and you get warming. The more you trap, the warmer you get.

    Boltzmann turned up again, have you ever taken a bicycle pump and blocked the outlet? Apply pressure, what happens?
    The earth is a bicycle pump now? The heating comes from the behaviour of an ideal gas, where, put simple, pressure x volume is proportional to temperature. Again - you've raised an irrelevent point to cloud the issue.

    You still haven't explained how radiation is trapped when molecules are free to distribute the energy (a good thing) unlike the elements of a greenhouse.
    Because the radiation is scattered in all directions, including back downwards. Solar radiation comes in, warms the earths surface. The surface, in turn, emits IR radiation, some of which is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 and reemitted downwards, causing the atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be.

    Its actually a failure of the analogy to a greenhouse. A normal greenhouse works by restricting conduction and convection - warm air is trapped inside the greenhouse. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, is caused by the trapping of IR radiation by atmospheric CO2.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlosmacwolf View Post
    1) Insist all new homes built in britain, consists of roofs constructed with photovoltaic cells in place. Bang the cost on the mortgage and we're off and running.
    There used to be a preferential rate for homeowners to sell generated electricity back to the grid, but the tories slashed the rate at which it paid, making it uneconomical.

    2) on the babsis that Honda already have a perfectly working hydro car, and the problem is the storing and distribution of Hydrogen for use by motorists, and the refusal of poetrol companies to even consider a hydrogen , (or gas pump) at their current petrol stations, then why does the government not simply give them two years to achieve both, or suffer a continuing fine for every petrol station that does not offer the new alternative fuels.
    Not a bad idea, TBH.

    To me it seems climate change has been seized on by various governments around the world as a fabulous excuse to raise new, morally defensible taxes, that achieve little else except more cash in the government coffers.
    There's actually a very good reason to adopt 'green' energy policies. Fossil fuels are running out, fast. And when resources get scarce, resources get pricey., Countries that transition themselves away from fossil fuels will hopefully avoid the economic catastrophe of the future price rises. And if we save the planet too, well that great, yes?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,944
    Quote Originally Posted by The Bear View Post
    A couple of new stories about a recent peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change by NASA's James Hansen:

    http://t.co/mMgZuu4W

    http://t.co/5rJxUoRi
    Good reads. Of course, its all bunk, because they havent considered volcanoes. Or darkness. Or oceans. Or <insert random factor here>. Maybe HGW can give them some pointers.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by pavlosmacwolf View Post
    Well all this highbrow, engineers versus scientists is soemwhat boring as well as confusing to us mere mortals.

    IF and i say if, because i simply don't know, and the only models i worked with had great tits, IF we are responsible for climate change and governments are serious about saving the planet, why not.......

    1) Insist all new homes built in britain, consists of roofs constructed with photovoltaic cells in place. Bang the cost on the mortgage and we're off and running.

    2) on the babsis that Honda already have a perfectly working hydro car, and the problem is the storing and distribution of Hydrogen for use by motorists, and the refusal of poetrol companies to even consider a hydrogen , (or gas pump) at their current petrol stations, then why does the government not simply give them two years to achieve both, or suffer a continuing fine for every petrol station that does not offer the new alternative fuels.

    To me it seems climate change has been seized on by various governments around the world as a fabulous excuse to raise new, morally defensible taxes, that achieve little else except more cash in the government coffers.

    If you wish to reply to my post, please do so in norma; standard english, and keep the gobbledygook heavyweight stuff for yourselves. I would hate to see you wasting valuable energy.
    That is a very good summation of the political motivation. One problem, you need energy to extract and store hydrogen from the only abundant source, water, to turn it back into guess what.......water. As always the green solutions to a non-existant problem do not work. I can play hard ball on energy efficiency issues. On that subject, PV and wind power are hopelessly inefficient and probably deliver no net benefit.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 11th May 2012 at 11:05 PM.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    2,437
    I apologise for being personal, but I'm sorry Hazelgrove - but you come come over in your posts as an arrogant know it all.

    Now I'm sure I am wrong and you are a very pleasant person - but you need to think how you come over to other members. You are passionate about the subject but I cannot read your posts because of your attitude.

    If you want to spread the word....do it so people will want to get involved. If I was talking to you and you spoke to me the way you post...I would be walking away.
    Last edited by Hereford Wolf; 11th May 2012 at 11:07 PM.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    There's actually a very good reason to adopt 'green' energy policies. Fossil fuels are running out, fast. And when resources get scarce, resources get pricey., Countries that transition themselves away from fossil fuels will hopefully avoid the economic catastrophe of the future price rises. And if we save the planet too, well that great, yes?
    Cobblers, shale gas/oil, conventional gas/oil, development of technologies that actually work will get us through the next few hundred years. The scaresity is driven politically through reluctance to permit the necessary infrastucture. Good technologies do not need significant subsidy.
    There are better ways of utilising coal and nuclear technologies available in the short term. It is the 'green guilt complex' that is wrecking the economy. Economies thrive on low cost fuel not burdensome goverment bureauracy and taxation.
    Carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant or threat and is potentially beneficial for argriculture in an expanding world population.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 12th May 2012 at 12:14 AM.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Hereford Wolf View Post
    I apologise for being personal, but I'm sorry Hazelgrove - but you come come over in your posts as an arrogant know it all.

    Now I'm sure I am wrong and you are a very pleasant person - but you need to think how you come over to other members. You are passionate about the subject but I cannot read your posts because of your attitude.

    If you want to spread the word....do it so people will want to get involved. If I was talking to you and you spoke to me the way you post...I would be walking away.
    I'm sorry if you take it that way. If we were face to face the conversation would most likely have a different timbre simply because of a more rapid feedback mechanism. For the record I've been assertive in some respects but mostly to challenge issues which are not examined in influencial parts of the mainstream media. I'm sure Vis is happy to carry on. I'm examining a hypothesis which I see as flawed, at no point have I said that I have the answers. This is the essence of debate especially in engineering circles, few get wound up because a good brainstorm might yield a solution.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Good reads. Of course, its all bunk, because they havent considered volcanoes. Or darkness. Or oceans. Or <insert random factor here>. Maybe HGW can give them some pointers.
    I invite comments on this view:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/11/the-bias-of-science/

    Hansen has been challenged on numerous occasions and is more activist than academic scientist. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...stroying-nasa/

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Yes. Not just from surface probes, but from the many orbiters that have been sent to venus over the last few decades - they're just as capable of measuring surface temperature as weather sattellites are when in orbit around the earth.
    For which I posted temperature data supporting my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    No, they wouldnt - the probes didnt plummet in free fall from space down to the surface - they'd have been destroyed. They all descended by parachute - meaning that any atmospheric heating would be negligible.
    So the frictional braking was unimportant before the parachutes deployed?

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,016
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18120093

    not surprising as I recall watching a programme about 20 years ago where a scientist modelled the impact of methane trapped in the ice being released to catastrophic effect in terms of global warming. effectively he modelled it taking climate change beyond the tipping point in terms of our ability to do anything about it. let's hope he was being overly pessimistic.
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

Similar Threads

  1. Change of style?
    By Lupine Howl in forum Wolves
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 4th March 2012, 02:52 PM
  2. any chance of a username change.
    By James in forum Admin
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 05:52 PM
  3. Transfer Window Change?
    By Penk Wolf in forum Other Sport
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 31st August 2011, 01:36 PM
  4. Replies: 115
    Last Post: 18th March 2011, 04:47 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •