Simple Question About AGW [Archive] - Page 3

anor277

1st March 2008, 03:35 PM

That you will never see.
For newcomers, AGWrs claim that the physics about their pet theory is very sound.....CO2 have some properties that make it a "greenhouse gas".

But......... the real question is : Those properties are still in effect when CO2 is in a 1000 PPM dilusion (almost homeopatic) on air? And what happens when this CO2 is stored in large masses of water?
Just to weigh in on a question of units, 1000 ppm is hardly a homeopathic dilution; it is orders of magnitude greater than a homeopathic dose. 1 part per million is 1 milligram per litre; therefore 1000 ppm is 1 g per litre. Such a concentration would certainly kill you if the gas was hydrogen cyanide, another greenhouse gas; it is also 2-5 times the concentration at which common drugs are prescribed. This concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be nicely proportional to the concentration of the gas in sea water; it is envisioned that the enhanced concentration of this acidic oxide will spell the end of all coral reefs.

There are some other questions, and AGWrs have come with nice theories about this, but a controlled experiment we haven't see.Capital idea; what sort of experiment do you envision? And how do we extrapolate the results of this experiment (that will inevitably fail to include important variables) to actual global warming?

Dr. Imago

1st March 2008, 03:51 PM

Capital idea; what sort of experiment do you envision? And how do we extrapolate the results of this experiment (that will inevitably fail to include important variables) to actual global warming?

There isn't one experiment. There are a series of independent validating experiments, much like the two I describe above, that give "proof of principle" to much of what is currently being held out as meaningful observation and upon which conclusions are being made.

Re-read my post above.

-Dr. Imago

mhaze

1st March 2008, 04:37 PM

mhaze

1st March 2008, 04:50 PM

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations. Not done yet. Why? -Dr. Imago

Steve McIntyre did a bit of it -

“Bring the proxies up to date (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89)” was the title of one of my earliest posts. Michael Mann had explained that doing so required the use of heavy equipment (like tree ring borers) and travel to out-of-the way sites such as Bishop, California or even Niwot Ridge, a full 45 minute drive from UCAR world headquarters in Boulder CO. As a result, Mann explained that few proxies were available after 1980 and it was therefore necessary to keep using bristlecone and other series ending in 1980 or so.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1278
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

CapelDodger

1st March 2008, 04:59 PM

YES! i've seen a LOT more proAGW than noAGW science papers and granted i most likely don't fully understand the science, but all i'm seeing is correlations! normally i read evo bio papers (for fun, believe it or not). compare and contrast.

While the theory itself is robust, quantifying AGW in the real and rather messy world is the current focus of interest. That's why you see a lot to do with correlations because we're only just starting to get a good data flow. When it comes to historical data we can't really do experiments on it - that experiment has been run and all we can do is extract the data, and interpret it as best we can.

i don''t know enough about it to know what experiments *should* be done, but the stuff i have seen is suggestive, sure. but i've seen NO papers that'd convince me that AGW is a nailed-down theory, let alone that it's gonna be a disaster that we have to fix NOW before it happens or.... else.

There is only one experiment that will tell us everything we want to know, and it's been underway for some time now.

The HITRAN database is founded on thousands of careful observations of greenhouse gas absorption at various pressures and concentrations. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/langswitch_lang/in . That's an example of experiments that have been done.

and when i express my skepticism i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics. i expect the climate scientists are working in good conscience (unlike many internet posters and conspiracy nuts). but... there hasn't been enough time and enough research done to sort the wheat from the chaff. fads and trends hit science as much as any human activity, and until it's done and dusted we don't KNOW.

You used the word "superficial" earlier, and you're right. We're mostly not scientists, we're interested observers. Much of what we talk about is how we and other people react to the subject.

I can't think of any sceintific "fad" that has had the longevity and impact of AGW, and it's not showing any sign of going out of fashion. If anything it's becoming more prominent more rapidly than ever (despite the best efforts of the shiny-hat brigade). That's not a scientific argument, but then I'm not a scientist. I'm having to make judgements on what I see and hear, like everybody else.

I've long concluded that AGW is going to have a material impact. It must have been fifteen years ago that I said "The next ten years will tell", and they told. It's happening all around us. I'm not often unequivocal because I do hate to be wrong, but in this case I'm comfortable. For what that's worth.

mhaze

1st March 2008, 05:23 PM

mhaze

1st March 2008, 05:34 PM

....incidentally, i'd service Ann Coulter.....

Impressive depth of scientific understanding noted.

i get offered links to tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories from so-called skeptics

Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?

David Rodale

1st March 2008, 05:54 PM

Steve McIntyre did a bit of it -

“Bring the proxies up to date (http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89)” was the title of one of my earliest posts. Michael Mann had explained that doing so required the use of heavy equipment (like tree ring borers) and travel to out-of-the way sites such as Bishop, California or even Niwot Ridge, a full 45 minute drive from UCAR world headquarters in Boulder CO. As a result, Mann explained that few proxies were available after 1980 and it was therefore necessary to keep using bristlecone and other series ending in 1980 or so.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1278
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

The Dendros (Mann et al) said it was too hard and expensive to update the proxies, so Steve McIntyre did it himself for the grand total of.......$5000. Maybe the warmers on JREF would donate $20 to offset the huge cost?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2183
Per unRealClimate:
While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s and 1980s and have yet to be updated.

Do you think there may be another reason they don't update the Mann proxies?

Alric

1st March 2008, 06:05 PM

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?

Gibberish.

I've set out the experiment before, and will state it again. Select your trees. Place appropriately calibrated measuring devices near those trees. Let trees grow. Send tree rings to scientists in a blinded manner a set period of time from when the experiment was initiated. And, have them attempt to correlate the data in a blinded manner to the actual observations.

Not done yet. Why?

-Dr. Imago

How do you think the equation and its constants were calculated. By measurement.

On the tree ring point. You do understand all proxies agree. The tree rings agree with glaciers which agree with coral growth which agree with pine needles...etc. There is your validation.

Alric

1st March 2008, 06:12 PM

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

The sever effects level of some contaminants in ppm range. Hardly homeopathic.

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/ppm.png

Alric

1st March 2008, 06:20 PM

Here's one with tree rings :) We mustn't forget the unprecedented warming in the Arctic either
Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers (http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=9ddaf2f63141459da7289ee7be4a4b41&pi=5)
Abstract
The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:

Although the paleoclimatic records show a high degree
of similarity in North Fennoscandian and, possibly, North
Atlantic trends over the last millennia, it is important to
also note that there are large regional differences in the
timing and the magnitude of climatic periods such as the
‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Hughes and Diaz 1994;
Crowley and Lowery 2000) and the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’
(Bradley 1992; Jones and Briffa 2001). Hence, although the
climate of northern Fennoscandia seems to have been
significantly warmer during medieval times as compared to
the late-twentieth century, the published composite records
of northern hemisphere climate (Moberg et al. 2005) do not
show a conspicuously warm period around AD 1000.

The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/450px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But without the increased temperature at the end.

CapelDodger

1st March 2008, 06:48 PM

The article concludes the Arctic has actually cooled in the last 1500 years, and as we all know now (at least those that didn't assimilate) the recent ice melt was due to wind and oceanic circulation patterns and not temperature.

They conclude that the Arctic was warmer than now in the 6thCE? That seems rather unlikely unless we have a lot more Arctic warming to come.

This 1500 year cycle does not fit well with Scandinavian, Russian, or Icelandic history. Nor British history, for that matter. It may look cool on a graph but it doesn't measure up to the real world.

CapelDodger

1st March 2008, 07:09 PM

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

They just can't seem to grasp what the G in AGW stands for. A habit born of limited horizons, IMO. They'll stick the G on anything. Something in the Arctic? Stick the G on it. Something in the Antarctic? Stick the G on it. Something about hurricanes? ...

For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/450px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But without the increased temperature at the end.

In twenty years they might have one. Twenty years ago they hoped they'd have one by now, but they're not disheartened. It could start tomorrow and blow the whole AGW scam out of the water. After all, warming stopped in 1998 didn't it :rolleyes:?

fsol

1st March 2008, 07:15 PM

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:

The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/450px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But without the increased temperature at the end.

This paper was bought up here recently and I quoted the very same paragraph to make the very same point as you have just done. Funny that...and they wonder why no one takes them seriously.

David Rodale

1st March 2008, 08:06 PM

As usual the contrarian spin is different from the conclusion of the paper. This is reporting temperature at a local scale and includes a well documented period and area of local warming.

Consider this paragraph taken from the discussion of the quoted paper:

The discussion should always center on global or at least hemispheric temperature averages. I know some of you don't believe in global temperatures but such is the analyses needed. At least that is what real climatologists use when discussing climate change. For a strong argument against AGW contrarians would have to produce a graph like this:

But without the increased temperature at the end.

What's a "real climatologist"? Is James Hansen a "real climatologist"? Warmers like to use logical fallacy in their arguments, so to clarify for all, define what a "real climatologist" is compared to a "real scientist". Let's get that out of the way before we bury the hockey stick once and for all ok?

P.S.
The article is concerning the Arctic, and since you apparently didn't read it, that was the subject of my post.

varwoche

1st March 2008, 08:09 PM

Crrrnk ... !

Huh? What challenges? I'm not the one making specific claims. I am the one challenging people to do additional science that will either prove or disprove their current claims. ... that's the sound of ... It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. ... But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now. ... goalposts moving hither and yon, backtracking away from borderline CT.

anor277

1st March 2008, 08:28 PM

Just to weigh in on a question of units, 1000 ppm is hardly a homeopathic dilution; it is orders of magnitude greater than a homeopathic dose. 1 part per million is 1 milligram per litre; therefore 1000 ppm is 1 g per litre. Such a concentration would certainly kill you if the gas was hydrogen cyanide, another greenhouse gas; it is also 2-5 times the concentration at which common drugs are prescribed. This concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be nicely proportional to the concentration of the gas in sea water; it is envisioned that the enhanced concentration of this acidic oxide will spell the end of all coral reefs.

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

Just replied to say that I made an error in the post above. The parts per million range is expressed differently in terms of gaseous versus aqueous concentration. 1000 ppm CO2 represents about 2 g of CO2 per cubic metre (if I've done my sums correctly this time) of atmosphere, not 1 g per litre as I mistakenly said before. My apologies for my error, I was out by 3 orders of magnitude. Still as Alric said above these are orders of magnitude above homeopathic doses, and I am surprised that human production of carbon dioxide (2-3 ppm (by volume) annually according to mhaze) is so high.

a_unique_person

1st March 2008, 10:35 PM

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.

Experts estimate that less than a microgram (one millionth of a gram) of the radioactive substance could have been responsible for Mr Litvinenko's death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6190144.stm

It depends, doesn't it? Something can be significant in small doses, depending on the physics of the situation.

a_unique_person

1st March 2008, 10:58 PM

Fine. Let's put it in a bottle and do the test. Argued in principle. Why has no one proven it in practice?

-Dr. Imago

This was established over a century ago, 1896

The next major scientist to consider the question was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages. In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

mhaze

1st March 2008, 11:02 PM

How do you think the equation and its constants were calculated. By measurement.

Lab measurements, not atmospheric.

On the tree ring point. You do understand all proxies agree. The tree rings agree with glaciers which agree with coral growth which agree with pine needles...etc. There is your validation.

No o o o...

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 11:39 PM

Impressive depth of scientific understanding noted.
shows some basic understanding of biology, doesn't it? whereas when you attribute a point to a paper when the paper in question explicitly avoids commenting on your point, well... that's Nobel Prize material, that is.

Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?
to quote *you*: " 'beggers'(sic) can't be choosers" so go down that long, willy-nilly list of links *you* provided and figure it out for yourself.

zeusbheld

1st March 2008, 11:50 PM

I can't think of any sceintific "fad" that has had the longevity and impact of AGW, and it's not showing any sign of going out of fashion. If anything it's becoming more prominent more rapidly than ever (despite the best efforts of the shiny-hat brigade). That's not a scientific argument, but then I'm not a scientist. I'm having to make judgements on what I see and hear, like everybody else.

since the introduction of Darwin's theory there were some pernicious wrong ideas that persisted. their persistence had more to do with cultural norms (things like white people being smugly convinced of their own superiority). most of them eventually came out in the wash. for example, the notion that you could tell all about a person by the bumps on their skull. there were many attempts to make evolution progressive in the sense that the 'great chain of being' is, mainly because that flatters H. sapiens (us). and eugenics... another bad idea.

one that's less controversial but may or may not turn out to be a "fad" (perhaps an unfair characterization, especially considering the stuff i just listed) is string theory. i don't understand string theory AT ALL but i've talked to some physicists who've grumbled about it not being tested and all. so the string theory one is just gossip really.

but hopefully, you get the idea: idea take hold, and are widely accepted even by credible scientists that wash out in the long run (Couvier apparently bought into the skull measurement nonsense).

I've long concluded that AGW is going to have a material impact. It must have been fifteen years ago that I said "The next ten years will tell", and they told. It's happening all around us. I'm not often unequivocal because I do hate to be wrong, but in this case I'm comfortable. For what that's worth.

i did have that impression, more or less from the start, yes.

zeusbheld

2nd March 2008, 12:03 AM

They conclude that the Arctic was warmer than now in the 6thCE? That seems rather unlikely unless we have a lot more Arctic warming to come.

This 1500 year cycle does not fit well with Scandinavian, Russian, or Icelandic history. Nor British history, for that matter. It may look cool on a graph but it doesn't measure up to the real world.

from the conclusion of the paper in question:
The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in
the new Tornetrask record: On decadal-to-century time-
scales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were
all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this
new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on
AD 1000.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 05:00 AM

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 05:04 AM

This was established over a century ago, 1896

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

My bad, Arrhenius did the calculations. Tyndal did the experiment.

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is. Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For full explanation of the science, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#N_1_)

Way back in 1859.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

fsol

2nd March 2008, 05:26 AM

My bad, Arrhenius did the calculations. Tyndal did the experiment.

Way back in 1859.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."

I'm mixing and matching here with my paraphrase of course but I am sure this line of thought has come up before and been made to look a little, shall we say...deficient. Now here it comes back round on the carouselle once more.

Pixel42

2nd March 2008, 07:57 AM

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."
What would be really useful is if there was a planet we could study which was about the same size as Earth but whose atmsophere consisted almost entirely of carbon dioxide, so we could see how much effect it has on surface temperature on its own. Pity there isn't such a planet in the solar system.

Oh wait, there is ....

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

Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. [...] The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C This makes Venus's surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

cloudshipsrule

2nd March 2008, 09:57 AM

Dr. Imago

2nd March 2008, 01:47 PM

Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

fsol

2nd March 2008, 01:51 PM

Pipirr

2nd March 2008, 01:56 PM

How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

Here's a freely available paper on the energy balance that may be of interest.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications.
Hansen et al. 2005 Science Vol. 308.

mhaze

2nd March 2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:
Where are the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories?

to quote *you*: " 'beggers'(sic) can't be choosers" so go down that long, willy-nilly list of links *you* provided and figure it out for yourself.

Okay, you've asserted that I posted lists containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but when asked where they are, you duck and dodge.

A reasonable conclusion is that you just made it up.

mhaze

2nd March 2008, 04:31 PM

Argument from ignorance.

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Please try this at home.

So this seems to indicate that if we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide from 0.037% to 100%, an increase of about 3000x, that the temperature goes up 5 degrees C?

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 04:53 PM

since the introduction of Darwin's theory there were some pernicious wrong ideas that persisted. their persistence had more to do with cultural norms (things like white people being smugly convinced of their own superiority). most of them eventually came out in the wash. for example, the notion that you could tell all about a person by the bumps on their skull. there were many attempts to make evolution progressive in the sense that the 'great chain of being' is, mainly because that flatters H. sapiens (us). and eugenics... another bad idea.

These are so different in scale as to not be equivalent in principle, IMO. White superiority was a cultural norm, not a scientific one. Phrenology never influenced government policy (well hopefully not, anyway) or diplomacy. On the other hand, AGW has been been a growing concern for decades, across the scientific world and even into the political, diplomatic and industrial world. Nothing like the Bali Conference has ever resulted from a scientific theory.

one that's less controversial but may or may not turn out to be a "fad" (perhaps an unfair characterization, especially considering the stuff i just listed) is string theory. i don't understand string theory AT ALL but i've talked to some physicists who've grumbled about it not being tested and all. so the string theory one is just gossip really.

As I understand it, string theory might simply be a way of modelling any physical system, which couldn't tell us much about this physical system we fondly call "Home".

but hopefully, you get the idea: idea take hold, and are widely accepted even by credible scientists that wash out in the long run (Couvier apparently bought into the skull measurement nonsense).

It's my opinion that we've had the long-run and the AGW consensus is going stronger than ever. Someone once said "Outdated ideas aren't abandoned, it's just that those who teach them die off". When you look at sceptical scientific papers I suggest you check out the age of the lead author.

i did have that impression, more or less from the start, yes.

When I claim my "Told you so!", can I use you as a reference :)?

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 05:07 PM

How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

How much would the infrared radiation coming directly from the sun contribute to the warming of the Earth if there was no secondary infrared reflected back from the atmosphere?

Wouldn't the build-up of 'greenhouse' gases reflect a tremendous amount of incident infrared radiation, and would this help counter the greenhouse effect to some degree?

There's no reflection involved. That would be like saying your bank account "reflects" your salary to your creditors.

The vast majority of the energy coming in is in the visible band, far from infra-red. All of the energy going out is in the infra-red - the planet isn't warm enough to glow. That's why the greenhouse effect is so influential, and why messing with it is not a good idea. In a nutshell.

Naturally, we messed with it anyway.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 05:10 PM

How does the quantity of infrared radiation entering the Earth's atmosphere directly from the sun compare to the resultant, reflected infrared radiation reemitted from the Earth?

How much would the infrared radiation coming directly from the sun contribute to the warming of the Earth if there was no secondary infrared reflected back from the atmosphere?

Wouldn't the build-up of 'greenhouse' gases reflect a tremendous amount of incident infrared radiation, and would this help counter the greenhouse effect to some degree?

That is where the 'greenhouse' part comes into it. The radiation coming in is short wavelength, which is transparent to CO2. The radiation going out is long wavelength, which is not transparent.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 05:14 PM

Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

I want to see a recent paper that proves the human heart exists. None of this old stuff.

If you want, you can do your own experiment. It looks pretty easy to set up.

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 05:21 PM

Experiments from 1861 and comparing a predominately sulfur dioxide/CO2 atmosphere on a planet that is 42 million kilometers closer to the sun.

You guys are really too much.

-Dr. Imago

We know about the 1861 experiments because they were the first. The subsequent reproductions and refinements we don't know so much about; there are the HITRAN measurements from the 40's, of course, we all know about them, but there will have been more. For instance, Angstrom's lab did some lab work in the 20's and concluded that CO2 was already at saturation level (the experiment turned out to be conceptually flawed).

Venus's atmosphere answers to the same physical laws as ours does. Think of it as a pro bono experiment.

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 05:31 PM

I want to see a recent paper that proves the human heart exists.

:D

None of this old stuff.

It's been around for a long time, and it's still not getting old.

If you want, you can do your own experiment. It looks pretty easy to set up.

Or he could get out more and observe the experiment going on all around us. It's freely available, after all. You don't even need an internet connection.

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 05:49 PM

So this seems to indicate that if we increase the concentration of carbon dioxide from 0.037% to 100%, an increase of about 3000x, that the temperature goes up 5 degrees C?

In twenty minutes? Pretty much.

At 100% CO2 there's 0% water-vapour. As a model of a real atmosphere it kinda sucks. But that's not what the experiment is about. The real atmosphere is in the other jar, as a control.

By the way, it's not the multiplier but the doublings that you should count. Something to do with logarithms, as I recall.

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 06:10 PM

"Why hasn't anyone put it in a bottle to find out? Oh they did 150 years ago. Ah, but that isn't in the atmosphere..."

I'm mixing and matching here with my paraphrase of course but I am sure this line of thought has come up before and been made to look a little, shall we say...deficient. Now here it comes back round on the carouselle once more.

It always comes back to demands for reproducible in atmosphero experiments, as if the CO2 molecule might have mysteriously different properties outside the lab. Mystic physics, a pretty desperate resort. (Not the last resort, of course, there are others still in play and there may well be more to come.)

Dr. Imago

2nd March 2008, 06:30 PM

It always comes back to demands for reproducible in atmosphero experiments, as if the CO2 molecule might have mysteriously different properties outside the lab. Mystic physics, a pretty desperate resort. (Not the last resort, of course, there are others still in play and there may well be more to come.)

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

mhaze

2nd March 2008, 06:50 PM

Alric

2nd March 2008, 07:00 PM

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes....

And if you do it you will get the equation I posted above. Get over it. C02 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation.

Its a well defined physical property. What else are you going to argue. That its not a gas or not actually composed of carbon and oxygen?

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 07:01 PM

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

How could you possibly know this? You've never heard any such response, because there's never been any call for one.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside.

How do you, in a box, equalize atmospheric conditions between down here and the tropopause? That's one heck of a pressure gradient across that box, and the basic mechanics escape me anyway. WTF :confused:?

It's very simplistic.

You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment.

Calibrated and state-of-the-art, you can't ask for better than that. I'm still stuck back at the "how do you build this frickin' box?" problem.

This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion.

Being stored by CO2 :confused:?

I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

It's the rarefaction gradient and the adiabatic cooling inside the box that trouble me. It's easy to say "box", but making one is not so easy.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices.

Apart from anything else, they couldn't have built the boxes. You're asking a lot even now.

They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

Give me the boxes and the funds and I'll do it.

mhaze

2nd March 2008, 07:35 PM

In twenty minutes? Pretty much.

At 100% CO2 there's 0% water-vapour. As a model of a real atmosphere it kinda sucks. But that's not what the experiment is about. The real atmosphere is in the other jar, as a control.

By the way, it's not the multiplier but the doublings that you should count. Something to do with logarithms, as I recall.

No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

Okay, use logs. Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.

David Rodale

2nd March 2008, 07:44 PM

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

Dr. Imago,
You ask too much. This experiment could very well cost several thousands of dollars, possibly as much as $5000, and the manpower required would be difficult to obtain. Considering the limited budget that global warming research has had over the past 20 years, a complicated experiment you propose may break the bank. This is the same problem the Hockey Team has in updating their proxies after 1980. Besides, the climate models have all verified the CO2 hypothesis so there is no need for experimentation. Please, can't we move on beyond the science?

See, Svensmark conducting an experiment to test his hypothesis on cosmic rays is irrelevant, but a 112 year old untested hypothesis based on 147 year old data is.

CO2 measurements made prior to 1958 are unreliable due to "outdated" instrumentation and methods, but somehow 1861 technology was well suited for 2007 science.

The AGW axiom:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347cb6587dbbca.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11105)

David Rodale

2nd March 2008, 07:48 PM

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 07:53 PM

Funny. This sounds precisely like something a pro-AGW proponent would say when a lab experiment proved one of their pet theories wrong.

It's very simple. You build two (for all intents and purposes) identical boxes. You have all the "atmospheric" conditions equalized, except for the microfractions of CO2 in that box, and you then subject them to the same external warming device - perhaps the sun outside. You then directly measure the temperature differences within those boxes using calibrated, state-of-art equipment. This would give you a direct measurement of the heat capacity capable of being stored by CO2 at the quantities in discussion. I use a CO2 analyzer everyday when I give anesthesia. This equipment is readily available. It can give you a precise and accurate measurement of CO2 in the box on a PPM scale.

Tyndal or Arhennius or Joseph Priestly or Antoine Lavosier or any other 19th century (or older) scientist could not have possibly accurately conducted such an experiment using their contemporary devices. They just didn't have accurate measurement tools like we have now, so their margins of error (even though they never conducted such a precise experiment) would've been huge even if they'd tried this exact experiment - which they never did.

It's a simple experiment. Really.

-Dr. Imago

They used pure CO2, then were able to infer what would happen at reduced levels. It's the amount of CO2 that the radiation passes that is the issue. There are quite a few kilometers worth of atmposphere each particle has to pass through. The precision was not that important in getting the general idea of what happens. Arrhenhius was able to do a calculation back then that was not correct, but was still quite good. They knew back then that the earth was warmer than it should be, greenhouse gases were the reason. CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas.

CapelDodger

2nd March 2008, 07:57 PM

No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

What do you base that opinion on? The twenty minutes constraint is imposed by it being part of a lesson-plan.

Okay, use logs.

OK, don't.

Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.

How many lessons do you want it to occupy? We're talking students here, not researchers.

David Rodale

2nd March 2008, 08:01 PM

They used pure CO2, then were able to infer what would happen at reduced levels. It's the amount of CO2 that the radiation passes that is the issue. There are quite a few kilometers worth of atmposphere each particle has to pass through. The precision was not that important in getting the general idea of what happens. Arrhenhius was able to do a calculation back then that was not correct, but was still quite good. They knew back then that the earth was warmer than it should be, greenhouse gases were the reason. CO2 was identified as a greenhouse gas.

Oh please AUP, point us toward the experiment that is precise...oh, and accurate too.

You are doing nothing more that arm waiving.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 08:05 PM

Oh please AUP, point us toward the experiment that is precise...oh, and accurate too.

You are doing nothing more that arm waiving.

You're asking an anomymous person on the internet about the in depth facts of climate science, then complaining because he doesn't know all the answers. :confused:

mhaze

2nd March 2008, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3490583#post3490583)
No, equilibrium is reached quickly. 20 minutes is fine.

What do you base that opinion on? The twenty minutes constraint is imposed by it being part of a lesson-plan.

Quote:
Okay, use logs.

OK, don't.
Quote:
Perhaps this experiment should be done at each doubling step.

How many lessons do you want it to occupy? We're talking students here, not researchers.

Students are fine.

11+ doubling results in 5c warming in the experiment.

What is the temperatures increase for one doubling of CO2?

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 08:35 PM

Dr. Imago,
You ask too much. This experiment could very well cost several thousands of dollars, possibly as much as $5000, and the manpower required would be difficult to obtain. Considering the limited budget that global warming research has had over the past 20 years, a complicated experiment you propose may break the bank. This is the same problem the Hockey Team has in updating their proxies after 1980. Besides, the climate models have all verified the CO2 hypothesis so there is no need for experimentation. Please, can't we move on beyond the science?

See, Svensmark conducting an experiment to test his hypothesis on cosmic rays is irrelevant, but a 112 year old untested hypothesis based on 147 year old data is.

CO2 measurements made prior to 1958 are unreliable due to "outdated" instrumentation and methods, but somehow 1861 technology was well suited for 2007 science.

The AGW axiom:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1032347cb6587dbbca.gif

1965 absorption of solar radiation by atmospheric CO2 http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0620034

1978

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978fac..rept.....G

Spectral transmission data for CO2 are presented between approximately 495 and 835/cm for a variety of samples of CO2 mixed in dry air. Sample parameters cover a wide range of pressures with the temperatures near 310 K. The spectral resolution varies from approximately 0.4 to 0.6/cm. Also included are data on the continuum absorption by H2O between 300 and 825/cm. Experimental data on H2O absorption are compared with data calculated on the basis of several theoretical line shapes. The H2O continuum absorption decreases more rapidly with increasing temperature than is predicted by line-shape theories.

Thing I don't get, Dr Imago and Slimething claim to be experts in the scientific method, yet can't go out and look up a few abstracts. :confused:

Report Date : 31 JAN 1970
Pagination or Media Count : 30
Abstract : The continuum absorption by H2O between 800 and 1250/cm and by CO2 from 780 to 900/cm has been measured. The continuum results from the extreme wings of very strong absorption lines centered outside the 800-1250/cm interval. Experimental results are compared with calculated values based on various line shapes. The extreme wings of N2-broadened H2O lines produce less than 0.005 as much continuum absorption as self-broadened H2O lines at the same pressure. Self-broadened H2O lines absorb more than Lorentz-shaped lines, but the wings of self-broadened CO2 lines absorb only approximately 0.01 as much in the 780-900/cm region as if they had the Lorentz shape. The shapes of the wings of the CO2 lines which produce the continuum between 780 and 900/cm are similar to those near 2400/cm for both self broadening and N2 broadening. Suggestions on methods for using the results for atmospheric transmission calculations are given.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0702117

etc...

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 08:58 PM

1: That would be similar to showing sugar is sweet.

No, it wouldn't be. Dr. Imago is requesting the testing of a causal relationship of two metrics, not an opinion. Both ordinte and abscissa in this case would be quantifiable, negating your assertion.

CO2 and other man-made gases are greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing can be calculated very precisely. This equation shows radiative forcing for C02

Kudos. That is a restatement of the standard equation for a first-order effect C = C0 e^(-kt). That statement follows directly from the assumed mechanism of greenhouse gases.

However, it's still hypothetical in that the equation assumes the effect wihtout corroboration in situ. You need to rethink your assertion. Your math is OK but your claim still needs secondary (real world) validation.

And this is my calculated radiative forcing by C02 in the atmosphere for the past 50 years using Mauna Loa CO2 concentration data:

I've seen that coefficient before. Is this really your work or did you find it somewhere?

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 09:02 PM

Thing I don't get, Dr Imago and Slimething claim to be experts in the scientific method, yet can't go out and look up a few abstracts. :confused:

What do "a few abstracts" have to do with the scientific method? Do your "few abstracts" give you a falsifiable test for AGW? What you posted to me is merely more raw data that may someday lead to a falsifiable hypothesis.

Please, read up on the scientific method. All you're doing is demonstrating your personal propensity to cherry-pick facts that agree with your view of how climate is made.

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 09:06 PM

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 09:13 PM

What do "a few abstracts" have to do with the scientific method? Do your "few abstracts" give you a falsifiable test for AGW? What you posted to me is merely more raw data that may someday lead to a falsifiable hypothesis.

Please, read up on the scientific method. All you're doing is demonstrating your personal propensity to cherry-pick facts that agree with your view of how climate is made.

No pleasing some people :(. Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.

It has been tested to absorb IR radiation. That radiation doesn't just accumulate forever, it has to come out again. When it does, some of it goes out to space, some goes back down to the planets surface again. Is that too hard to understand? Arrhenius and others worked out over a century ago, the earth is warmer than they expected it to be. If they could work out the basic theory back then, I don't know how it could be so controversial now. Arrhenius got the answer correct to a good estimate, even way back then.

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 09:15 PM

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 09:42 PM

No pleasing some people :(. Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.

You and I are interpreting Dr. Imago's posts differently. From my point of view, he's asking for a falsifiable test of AGW, same as I am. Of course, laboratory tests support the absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. What of it? (IOW, if such had not been demonstrated in the lab, would we even consider CO2 as an agent of AGW? We'd be targetting some other gas, right?)

I don't get it. You are quite ready to accept as fact that the same underlying physics can be used to explain the temperature of Venus, but not the temperature of earth?

Just pointing out that Venus is very different than Earth. 90 atm will do a heck of a lot global warming and that's proven physics. If you want to do the calculations of what the Venusian equivalent temperature would be on Earth, you're welcome to do so. Show your work.

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!

bobdroege7

2nd March 2008, 09:49 PM

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 10:24 PM

You and I are interpreting Dr. Imago's posts differently. From my point of view, he's asking for a falsifiable test of AGW, same as I am. Of course, laboratory tests support the absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. What of it? (IOW, if such had not been demonstrated in the lab, would we even consider CO2 as an agent of AGW? We'd be targetting some other gas, right?)

So you accept that laboratory test support absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. You just want someone to do the same test on a vacuum, to see if the results are different? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that's a complete waste of time.

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 10:27 PM

Much warmer than Mercury?

If you have a point, make it. I have no idea where your question is leading or if it's worth my looking it up.

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 10:29 PM

So you accept that laboratory test support absorbance/reradiation of IR by CO2. You just want someone to do the same test on a vacuum, to see if the results are different? I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that's a complete waste of time.

I agree that testing the properties of any gas in a vacuum would be a waste of time. (Please, please, look up the definition of a vacuum!)

However, the test on a mesocosm with a controllable atmosphere as Dr. Imago suggests would be very elucidating.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm much better than that. Really!

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 10:41 PM

I agree that testing the properties of any gas in a vacuum would be a waste of time. (Please, please, look up the definition of a vacuum!)

I said compared to a vacuum.

However, the test on a mesocosm with a controllable atmosphere as Dr. Imago suggests would be very elucidating.

We know it absorbs, we know it re-radiates. I don't know what else you could find out. Measurements are made of the atmosphere, and they confirm the theoretical predictions.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.htm

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/images/energy_balance.jpg

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy_balance.htm

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 10:48 PM

The Surface Radiation Budget Project.

http://gewex-srb.larc.nasa.gov/

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 10:50 PM

I said compared to a vacuum.

Still argumentum ad adsurdum. We know that already. The reference cell used would have been a vacuum. I could be wrong. As you have the original publications, please post what the reference cell was for the measurements you are citing.

We know it absorbs, we know it re-radiates. I don't know what else you could find out.

Ummm...how it affects climate. How efficient your proposed pathway is. And so on.

Again, I point out to you that there are many, many models that are fully consistent with all underlying science that scientists feel apply but still don't predict what goes on in nature. Let me ask you why you feel the AGW models are an exception? As a case in point, we have biological and molecular models that predict the efficacy and comparative toxicity of candidate pharmaceuticals. Would you take an untested drug?

Measurements are made of the atmosphere, and they confirm the theoretical predictions.

What theoretical precitions are you talking about? Please cite the numerical predictions and their observational confirmation. Pretty pictures are nice, too, but they don't get me all the way there. Post them anyway. They're nice to look at.

Slimething

2nd March 2008, 10:54 PM

The Surface Radiation Budget Project.

http://gewex-srb.larc.nasa.gov/

You need to school yourself on the difference between raw data and what a falsifiable hypothesis is. You can post all the models and raw data you want but until you can prospose a falsifiable hypothesis, all you have is "that's nice, dear".

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 10:55 PM

Still argumentum ad adsurdum. We know that already. The reference cell used would have been a vacuum. I could be wrong. As you have the original publications, please post what the reference cell was for the measurements you are citing.

Ummm...how it affects climate. How efficient your proposed pathway is. And so on.

Again, I point out to you that there are many, many models that are fully consistent with all underlying science that scientists feel apply but still don't predict what goes on in nature. Let me ask you why you feel the AGW models are an exception? As a case in point, we have biological and molecular models that predict the efficacy and comparative toxicity of candidate pharmaceuticals. Would you take an untested drug?

What theoretical precitions are you talking about? Please cite the numerical predictions and their observational confirmation. Pretty pictures are nice, too, but they don't get me all the way there. Post them anyway. They're nice to look at.

You're a chemist? Do people ask you to prove all the results you give them from first principles?

a_unique_person

2nd March 2008, 10:58 PM

You need to school yourself on the difference between raw data and what a falsifiable hypothesis is. You can post all the models and raw data you want but until you can prospose a falsifiable hypothesis, all you have is "that's nice, dear".

I don't get it. Once again, we seem to have the case where someone isn't going to accept that AGW is real, until an anonymous person on the internet who is not a scientist can demonstrate it to them :confused:. I am not going to be able to do that.

Pixel42

3rd March 2008, 12:59 AM

Just pointing out that Venus is very different than Earth. 90 atm will do a heck of a lot global warming and that's proven physics. If you want to do the calculations of what the Venusian equivalent temperature would be on Earth, you're welcome to do so. Show your work.

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!
Sorry, can I just check what it is you're suggesting here? You're saying that the fact that the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite being twice as far from the Sun is due to its atmospheric pressure, and not to the greenhouse effect?

fsol

3rd March 2008, 01:24 AM

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 01:35 AM

If you have a point, make it. I have no idea where your question is leading or if it's worth my looking it up.

In reference to this post

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

my point is that if venus is much closer to the sun than the earth, therefore the surface temperature should be much warmer, as you argue, and I point out that Venus is warmer than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun than Venus, which leads use to the question: Why is Venus warmer than Mercury which is warmer than Earth?

fsol

3rd March 2008, 01:42 AM

In reference to this post

my point is that if venus is much closer to the sun than the earth, therefore the surface temperature should be much warmer, as you argue, and I point out that Venus is warmer than Mercury, which is closer to the Sun than Venus, which leads use to the question: Why is Venus warmer than Mercury which is warmer than Earth?

It's alright, if Venus atmosphere were at 1 atm it would be at about 8 K that's much colder than Mercury...

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 01:48 AM

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!

Uhm,

On what basis so you set N1 = N2?

Such that you can make the statement that PV/T for earth equals PV/T for Venus?

And my introductory chemistry texts are at home.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 01:54 AM

It's alright, if Venus atmosphere were at 1 atm it would be at about 8 K that's much colder than Mercury...

Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 03:18 AM

Okay, you've asserted that I posted lists containing tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, but when asked where they are, you duck and dodge.

A reasonable conclusion is that you just made it up.

aside from reasonably concluding that you are an utter hypocrite for expecting *me* to answer *your* questions when you can't be bothered to answer mine, and apart from your lying about the content of science papers, you manipulative twisting of what i say and your smugly pissy attitude why on Earth do you expect to convince anyone that *you* are even capable of a reasonable conclusion? if you are, your track record doesn't reflect that. "Great Global Warming Swindle" is tinfoil hat conspiracy documentary complete with spooky music. and this (http://iceagenow.com/) surely requires readers wear a tinfoil hat.

again, the point being, it's not *my* job to go through *your* crappy list and filter out the tinfoil hat stuff. *you* should have alreaqdy done that, if you had any commitment to critical thinking whatsoever. *you* obviously haven't--your list has credible skeptic sites, political hacks, tinfoil hatters, and even AGW advocates all mixed up with no differentiation whatsoever between them, and you pass off this sh*t sandwich as a list of credible, science-based skeptic sites. are you lazy, or just incapable of telling the difference?

i asked for science, *you* give me that garbage. sorry for not basing my skepticism on the same loony BS you are promoting. are you sure you're not sent by Al Gore to make skeptics look like idiots?

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 03:45 AM

These are so different in scale as to not be equivalent in principle, IMO. White superiority was a cultural norm, not a scientific one. Phrenology never influenced government policy (well hopefully not, anyway) or diplomacy.

eugenics did.

On the other hand, AGW has been been a growing concern for decades, across the scientific world and even into the political, diplomatic and industrial world. Nothing like the Bali Conference has ever resulted from a scientific theory.

but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time. the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.

It's my opinion that we've had the long-run and the AGW consensus is going stronger than ever. Someone once said "Outdated ideas aren't abandoned, it's just that those who teach them die off". When you look at sceptical scientific papers I suggest you check out the age of the lead author.
fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.

When I claim my "Told you so!", can I use you as a reference :)?

sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 03:48 AM

Or he could get out more and observe the experiment going on all around us. It's freely available, after all. You don't even need an internet connection.

which could be construed to demonstrate GW (although my experience as a non-gardener is... weather changes often)... but NOT rigorously... and i fail to see how 'getting out more' will put the A in AGW.

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 03:50 AM

Likely because the science isn't.... settled.

my God i hate agreeing with you, but i do, here.

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 03:55 AM

And if you do it you will get the equation I posted above. Get over it. C02 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation.

Its a well defined physical property. What else are you going to argue. That its not a gas or not actually composed of carbon and oxygen?

i think the argument (the real one, not the tinfoil hat one) has to do not with whether the proportionally tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in dramatic changes in climate, and 'tipping point' scenarios.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 04:06 AM

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161)[I](Physics, arXiv:0707.1161) - Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
QUOTE [SIZE=2]A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Do you remember what McIntyre said about this paper?
What are the chances it will ever be published in a peer reviewed journal?

The answers are "it isn't" and not a chance.

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 04:26 AM

Do you remember what McIntyre said about this paper? i missed that episode, would you mind offering up a link to it or do i have to google?

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 04:33 AM

i think the argument (the real one, not the tinfoil hat one) has to do not with whether the proportionally tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in dramatic changes in climate, and 'tipping point' scenarios.

Roughly. CO2 might make up a small amount of the total atmosphere, it will be doubling in that amount, though. It is the only rational argument, however. The deniers do themselves a great disservice by clutching at anything that is presented as a refutation of AGW, no matter how crazy.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 05:07 AM

i missed that episode, would you mind offering up a link to it or do i have to google?

I will search my posts to find the link if I must, but not today, perhaps tomorrow.

But, on Climate Audit, posters were discussing the Gerlich paper and McIntyre said basically, and forgive me as I am quoting from memory, that he wasn't interested in papers that said the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was impossible because it isn't.

Read the paper though, and come to your own conclusions.

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.

mhaze

3rd March 2008, 06:49 AM

Roughly. CO2 might make up a small amount of the total atmosphere, it will be doubling in that amount, though. It is the only rational argument, however. The deniers do themselves a great disservice by clutching at anything that is presented as a refutation of AGW, no matter how crazy.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0707.1161

Only rational argument? No, that is impossible as long as many items have a "level of understanding" of Low or Medium Low.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)

zeusbheld

3rd March 2008, 07:05 AM

I will search my posts to find the link if I must, but not today, perhaps tomorrow.

But, on Climate Audit, posters were discussing the Gerlich paper and McIntyre said basically, and forgive me as I am quoting from memory, that he wasn't interested in papers that said the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide was impossible because it isn't.

Read the paper though, and come to your own conclusions.

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.

s'alright, if it's on climate audit i can find that discussion. no need to dig. as for mhaze... don't expect consistency.

Alric

3rd March 2008, 07:15 AM

Only rational argument? No, that is impossible as long as many items have a "level of understanding" of Low or Medium Low.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)

You do see that the graph you always show illustrates that CO2 has the most radiative forcing of all the greenhouse gases, right?

Alric

3rd March 2008, 07:26 AM

TIME OUT!!!

Have the contrarians posted ANY DATA that disagrees with unprecedented GLOBAL WARMING concomitant with unprecedented CO2 levels in historical times?

The closest I can come up with is Lohele's conclusion that just attempt to widen confidence intervals at a local site and the local scandinavian tree ring data that the authors discuss do not reflect the historical global temperature.

Barring the "theoretical" concerns of the contrarians do they have any data?

Dr. Imago

3rd March 2008, 07:32 AM

No pleasing some people :(. Imago wants proof that CO2 can even be considered a greenhouse gas.

Wrong again, AUP. Don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is a demonstrable experiment at the microfractions being discussed to quantify CO2's heat capacity and effect on a surrounding microatmosphere.

It's a simple experiment really. And, the results could be extrapolated and possibly predictive of perceived "forcing" effects in the lower troposphere.

-Dr. Imago

Dr. Imago

3rd March 2008, 07:34 AM

You do see that the graph you always show illustrates that CO2 has the most radiative forcing of all the greenhouse gases, right?

This is quite simply factually wrong, and it is well-known that many other gasses existing in even smaller microfractions exert a much more potent "greenhouse" effect. Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that the most potent (because of abundance) is water vapor.

-Dr. Imago

Alric

3rd March 2008, 07:39 AM

This is quite simply factually wrong, and it is well-known that many other gasses existing in even smaller microfractions exert a much more potent "greenhouse" effect. Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that the most potent (because of abundance) is water vapor.

-Dr. Imago

That's what you say. But it's not what the graph shows.

mhaze

3rd March 2008, 08:05 AM

Wrong again, AUP. Don't put words in my mouth.

What I want is a demonstrable experiment at the microfractions being discussed to quantify CO2's heat capacity and effect on a surrounding microatmosphere. It's a simple experiment really. And, the results could be extrapolated and possibly predictive of perceived "forcing" effects in the lower troposphere.

-Dr. Imago

AGW-greenhouse gas theory says mid tropospheric hot spot MUST EXIST. That is where the "blanket" has to be. If regions close to the surface gets 1C warmer due completely to greenhouse effects, then that hot spot must be 1C warmer.

There isn't anyway around this.

This disregards the oceans, which have a heat capacity a million times greater than the atmosphere.

mhaze

3rd March 2008, 08:22 AM

Investigating a bit, I find typical IPCC circuituousness. The chart is from the Summary for Policymakers, but references chapter 2. Going there, Figure 2 is the same chart but is titled "Radiative Forcing of Climate between 1750 and 2005". Quite a difference from what I posted, entitled simply "Radiative Forcing Components"!

The implication is that the chart shows the changes since industrialization, and one might conclude that they thought there was no change in the water cycle during that period. That's been disproven (Wentz 2007, "How much more rain will global warming bring?"

For "Cloud albedo effect" we have ...
RF in W m2 -0.7 (-1.8 to -0.3) LOSU - Level of Uncertainty "LOW".

The bottom line,
Radiative forcing, Total Net Anthropogenic is +1.6(0.6 to 2.4).

Wentz 2007 (http://www.nasa-news.org/documents/pdf/Wentz_How_Much_More.pdf) "How Much More Rain will Global Warming Bring?" has shown the water put in the atmosphere to be triple what was presumed by the studies used by the IPCC in assembling the chart.

Let us revise the summary for Radiative forcing to include Wentz's correction - one presumption - (mine) that a tripling of water for a given temperature increment causes a proportional tripling of cloud cover.

RF in W m2 -2.1 (-5.4 to -0.9) with a LOSU of (perhaps now Medium),

New bottom line ...
Total net anthropogenic -1.2 (-6.6 to + 1.2)

Does it look like there is still anthropogenic global warming?

So using the IPCC's own method, and more recent science for the water cycle, there would appear to be no net positive feedbacks, but net negative feedbacks. There do not appear to be any negative effects caused by man on the climate.

The point I am making is as follows. NOT that my analysis is correct, it could easily be in error. But that as long as we have wide ranges on variables which are feedbacks, and which are admittedly poorly understood, we should not be so very certain that the science is settled.

Dr. Imago

3rd March 2008, 08:41 AM

So using the IPCC's own method, and more recent science for the water cycle, there would appear to be no net positive feedbacks, but net negative feedbacks. There do not appear to be any negative effects caused by man on the climate.

The point I am making is as follows. NOT that my analysis is correct, it could easily be in error. But that as long as we have wide ranges on variables which are feedbacks, and which are admittedly poorly understood, we should not be so very certain that the science is settled.

Certainly it is an evolving science. Much of the problem, at least until recently, is that the AGW "science" assumed a predominating positive-feedback (feed forward) relationship without fully considering negative-feedback (homeostatic) mechanisms.

-Dr. Imago

mhaze

3rd March 2008, 08:41 AM

Do you remember what McIntyre said about this paper?
What are the chances it will ever be published in a peer reviewed journal?

The answers are "it isn't" and not a chance.

I do not think this paper is written in a fashion that would cause it to easily fit in a peer reviewed journal; nonetheless, I've encouraged people to read it. I particularly like the way Gerlich debunks 19 variations of the "greenhouse theory" one after the other. These are typically inaccurate, pop science degenerate versions of the "greenhouse effect", including the one used by Gore in his documentary.

varwoche

3rd March 2008, 09:52 AM

Certainly it is an evolving science. Much of the problem, at least until recently, is that the AGW "science" assumed a predominating positive-feedback (feed forward) relationship without fully considering negative-feedback (homeostatic) mechanisms. Ah, so you think the science is so bad that it merits a scare quote, implying that it's not real science.

Is the "science" lacking so badly because the scientists are complete idiots? So idiotic that an anonymous lay person on the internets, such as yourself, can clearly spot (though not provide examples of) the widespread idiocy?

Or is there is a conspiracy afoot, as your prior posts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3401073#post3401073) infer?

fsol

3rd March 2008, 10:20 AM

Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.

Imagine sarcasm tags around my post for better understanding of my thoughts about Slimethings "calculation."

Or to make it unambiguous...I am saying that his calculation is nonsense.

fsol

3rd March 2008, 10:33 AM

I do not think this paper is written in a fashion that would cause it to easily fit in a peer reviewed journal; nonetheless, I've encouraged people to read it. I particularly like the way Gerlich debunks 19 variations of the "greenhouse theory" one after the other. These are typically inaccurate, pop science degenerate versions of the "greenhouse effect", including the one used by Gore in his documentary.

All of which has no bearing on whether the greenhouse effect is real or not.

This might help a little.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 11:05 AM

All of which has no bearing on whether the greenhouse effect is real or not.

This might help a little.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

What then should be the litmus test for AGW via CO2?

Alric

3rd March 2008, 11:22 AM

What then should be the litmus test for AGW via CO2?

It seems that you would have to believe in chemistry first.

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 11:28 AM

It seems that you would have to believe in chemistry first.

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 11:47 AM

I fail to see how the probability of (A)GW reality has anything to do with the acceptance or non-acceptance of it by laypersons whose judgement may be saddled with various political or ideological agendas. In fact, the words of individual climate scientists carry little weight on their own.

The facts surrounding (A)GW are affected by neither eloquent opponents nor ridiculous proponents.

-r^2

(Hi... this is my first post... and I'm dumb enough to jump into the lions den!:))
Welcome, and enjoy!

Alric

3rd March 2008, 11:54 AM

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

The litmus test should be that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its chemical properties, namely infrared absorption.

And yes, gold is shiny and copper conducts heat.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 12:08 PM

Not the word of a single scientist or group of scientist have anything to do with the reality of AGW. But a single study can prove it false or true

What would those studies be? Care to define them?

That was my point. My new point is that when this failure is commited by an AGW believer most people don't notice it. No one has corrected Truesceptic dumb argument about Coulter, but the discussion about the counterargument is quite alive.
I mentioned Coulter because she represents a particular type, the right-wing Creationist right-wing bigot. I'd be worried if I had any beliefs in common with hers.

Of course, it is amusing that you pick me up on this when you lot go on and on and on about Al Gore, as if his advocacy of AGW somehow automatically discredits it.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 12:24 PM

yes, and when that 'single study' happens, it will inevitably be followed by lots of further research reproducing the result.

that's fair enough, for sure.

but the best way to CORRECT it is for posters like mhaze to stop posting even dumber, sloppier arguments. no offense, but DUH.

but looking at this forum--and let's be clear i'm NOT sold on the A in AGW--there are too many people on the skeptic side in this forum that just do a crap job of posting. if one paid no attention to the science, didn't give a rat's orifice about 'democraps' and 'republic***s', one would probably be put off by sloppy posts like mhaze's and inclined to trust more careful posters like Trueskeptic. damn shame too since it's utterly superficial.

mhaze, raise your game. the world needs more skeptics who are skeptics, rather than tinfoil hatters.

Slimething, well played and keep it up.
You have to ask: why are most "sceptics" so sloppy if their case is so strong? Why are they so frequently dishonest or insulting? Why do they rarely seem to be sceptics in the true, open-minded, sense?

Note that I'm here not to advocate AGW. I'm here to try and find out what drives GWS and all I keep seeing are confirmations of my HTBAGWS list.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 01:04 PM

Good points, but the amount of co2 added each year by man, 2-3 ppm, certainly is in the homeopathic range.
False. Homeopathic solutions are so dilute that the "active ingredient" cannot be detected. That is the point.

A common dilution is "30C" (1:10^60) and many are much more dilute than that.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 02:01 PM

Just replied to say that I made an error in the post above. The parts per million range is expressed differently in terms of gaseous versus aqueous concentration. 1000 ppm CO2 represents about 2 g of CO2 per cubic metre (if I've done my sums correctly this time) of atmosphere, not 1 g per litre as I mistakenly said before. My apologies for my error, I was out by 3 orders of magnitude. Still as Alric said above these are orders of magnitude above homeopathic doses, and I am surprised that human production of carbon dioxide (2-3 ppm (by volume) annually according to mhaze) is so high.
From 284 ppm in 1832 to 384 ppm in 2007. That is average of only about 0.6 ppm. Since 1960, however, the increase has averaged about double that.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 02:19 PM

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 02:24 PM

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 02:49 PM

I don't get it. Once again, we seem to have the case where someone isn't going to accept that AGW is real, until an anonymous person on the internet who is not a scientist can demonstrate it to them :confused:. I am not going to be able to do that.
No demonstration will ever be enough.

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 03:11 PM

eugenics did.

but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time. the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.

fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.

sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."
Can something so complex and with such noisy data ever be "done and dusted"? Don't we reach a point where we accept that something is so likely to be true, and with no credible falsification, that we should proceed as if it is true?

Do we demand absolute proof for everything? Of course not: much is based on statistical analysis. Where would medical science stand, for instance?

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 03:31 PM

I had thought we got mhaze off of the greenhouse effect is impossible position, but maybe not.
Well this is odd, because last year he said this:-
We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

From that one must ask, well, what are we talking about here? Is it a 0.5 C rise over 50 years (does not matter at all) a 6 C rise over 50 years (not good) or a completely unknown rise because we ain't that smart to figure it out?

TrueSceptic

3rd March 2008, 03:45 PM

Do you know what a litmus test is? Obviously not. Even you could devise a litmus test. It likely would not be correct, but give it try.

What should be the litmus test for AGW?

Here, atmospheric chemistry lessons for the illiterate:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
Another reasonable, polite response that will impress the open-minded sceptic looking for persuasive arguments.

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 03:53 PM

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 04:06 PM

I could be wrong about this, but isn't the physics behind the absorption/re-emission of infrared radiation by a CO2 molecule similar to the physics behind the absorbtion/re-emission of various wavelengths of an absorption nebula?

A nebula has densities of only ~1000 particles/cm^2 but the physics hold up and we can determine the composition of absorption nebulae by observing their absorption lines with a spectrometer.

When a photon encounters a molecule that absorbs and re-emits it, does it care if there is another molecule nearby? I doubt it. My point is, if there is a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that is measurable (unlike a homeopathic dilution) why would the physics of absorption/re-emission break down to an infrared photon in the atmosphere? Isn't an absorption nebula an "experiment" that demonstrates that extremely small concentrations of matter result in a measurable effect on opacity to radiation?

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 04:09 PM

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 04:29 PM

Oh, by the way, IIRC, the atmosphere on Venus is about 96.5% carbon dioxide and the planet has a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres. Due to its much closer proximity to the Sun, a much warmer surface temperature is expected. These facts are in no way any use toward verifying or falsifying the AGW hypothesis.

Consider this a fact pro bono.

Venusian temperatures can be predicted according to the greenhouse hypothesis, then the predictions can be compared to accurate measurements. Therefore the hypothesis can be falsified by measuring Venusian temperatures. Such measurements have been made, and the hypothesis still stands.

It's no great trick to calculate Venusian insolation, its albedo has been measured, and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature. The Venusian atmosphere is a heck of a lot better experiment than Dr Imago's bit of atmosphere in a box. It's an entire frickin' atmosphere, for one thing.

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 04:30 PM

Another reasonable, polite response that will impress the open-minded sceptic looking for persuasive arguments.

Please explain to Alric what a litmus test is.

To be honest, we've been enduring relentless ad hom attacks, many quite vicious, since the first day I joined this forum. No apology is forthcoming as his ignoramus first response is typical.

Now, what is the litmus test for AGW? Since oceans cover ~70% of earth's surface, they must warm annually in order for global warming to be present as it is claimed the sun's energy is essentially constant.

Next, it must be explained why the troposphere is not warming as global climate models dictate.

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?

I patiently await your non-reply.

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 04:34 PM

Venusian temperatures can be predicted according to the greenhouse hypothesis, then the predictions can be compared to accurate measurements. Therefore the hypothesis can be falsified by measuring Venusian temperatures. Such measurements have been made, and the hypothesis still stands.

It's no great trick to calculate Venusian insolation, its albedo has been measured, and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature. The Venusian atmosphere is a heck of a lot better experiment than Dr Imago's bit of atmosphere in a box. It's an entire frickin' atmosphere, for one thing.

Keep waiving those arms Capeldodger.

Pipirr

3rd March 2008, 04:41 PM

Keep waiving those arms Capeldodger.

But then how could he type?

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 04:46 PM

But then how could he type?

Easy, he's using his toes.

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 04:54 PM

Please explain to Alric what a litmus test is.

To be honest, we've been enduring relentless ad hom attacks, many quite vicious, since the first day I joined this forum. No apology is forthcoming as his ignoramus first response is typical.

Now, what is the litmus test for AGW? Since oceans cover ~70% of earth's surface, they must warm annually in order for global warming to be present as it is claimed the sun's energy is essentially constant.

No, there are currents, which are changing, and natural cycles. It's the long term trend that contains the signal.

Next, it must be explained why the troposphere is not warming as global climate models dictate.

It is, within the error bounds, and the stratosphere is cooling, also as predicted.

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?

I patiently await your non-reply.

This seems to be a concept too complex for some people to understand. "Trapping" is just an expression. It really just hinders the transmission of radiation from the earth to galactic space. The more CO2, the slower the transmission.

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 05:17 PM

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?
I patiently await your non-reply.

Physics was a loooong time ago, but:

Our atmosphere is largely transparent to visible wavelengths of light (hence our eyes evolved to see in these wavelengths)--transparent because photons of these wavelengths are of the wrong energy to be absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere.

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of them end radiating back to earth. Some are re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but rather the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons and some are re-emitted back to earth.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 05:39 PM

Physics was a loooong time ago, but:

Our atmosphere is largely transparent to visible wavelengths of light (hence our eyes evolved to see in these wavelengths)--transparent because photons of these wavelengths are of the wrong energy to be absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere.

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of it ends radiating back to earth. Some of it is re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

But have you falsified it?

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 05:42 PM

No, there are currents, which are changing, and natural cycles. It's the long term trend that contains the signal.

It is, within the error bounds, and the stratosphere is cooling, also as predicted.

This seems to be a concept too complex for some people to understand. "Trapping" is just an expression. It really just hinders the transmission of radiation from the earth to galactic space. The more CO2, the slower the transmission.

Talk is cheap. A big problem I have with your side of the argument is you lecture. Provide the scientific evidence. Put up or shut up.

We provide the science papers, you give us links to blogs and news articles.

The troposphere is not warming as dictated by AGW hypotheses. It should be 2-3x higher than the surface. RSS was the closest thing you've got and that still didn't meet expectations. Now a recent article shows UAH is the more accurate data. Do you find it coincidental RSS now is in agreement with UAH?
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf

You also claim UHI is a non-issue. Show us the evidence AUP. You don't have any. The IPCC ignored it completely by refusing to consider the myriad of research demonstrating UHI and rather favored Parker/Peterson who didn't even perform an empirical measurements! It is a complete fraud.

This paper alone completely obliterates IPCC conclusions about UHI. Earlier studies was available prior to AR4....no excuses.
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf (http://www.geography.uc.edu/%7Ekenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf)

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 05:42 PM

eugenics did.

Briefly, and disastrously for the principle.

but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time.

I have to take issue with that. Bali got enormous coverage and attention, and I can't think of anything equivalent. G8? Yawn ... What's more, we have the Copenhagen Conference coming up in 2009, and that's when they're definitely getting down to talking about how they'll discuss what to do about AGW. These diplomats have really got a rocket under them this time. My money's on Geneva for 2011 (really; I've bought options on hotel rooms for the entire summer :)).

the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.

As I understand "meme", it's subject to natural selection. And AGW is not an attractive idea to the movers and shakers in the world. They really don't need this, they've got enough on their plates without the climate friggin' about but there it is, they have had to reluctantly accept it. Even the White House is engaged in a fighting retreat.

Since the meme isn't doing it on looks, it must be doing it on something else. Which is wealth of evidence and scientific advice, IMO.

fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.

More to the point is how many of the younger sceintists don't just take AGW as a given and carry on from there. Damn' few. These folk have careers yet to come, why waste effort up a blind alley? (Hansen's been on the AGW thing since the 70's, by the way.) What you'll find in the GW Sceptic field is mostly lead authors whose careers are behind them and who staked out their rejection of AGW decades ago.

sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."

I know. I'm a gardener. We knows things, us gardeners :cool:.

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 05:45 PM

But have you falsified it?

I tried, but the extremely rarefied gas of absorption nebulae keeps making lines in my spectrograph, and Venus keeps being hotter than Mercury. ;)

Alric

3rd March 2008, 05:46 PM

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

Yeah and do you have litmus test for your explanation? I didn't think so. You are clearly wrong because some guy somewhere disagrees with you. That physical principle you describe has not been demonstrated in a bottle. IN A BOTTLE!

In conclusion, I am sure Al Gore agrees with you.

Its sad that a good response like Round Robin's can me make think of the responses that will follow...

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 05:49 PM

You're a chemist? Do people ask you to prove all the results you give them from first principles?

Yes. That's what being a scientist is. Not only do I have to prove it once but I have to prove it every time I use it. How's that?

Now that I've answered your question, why don't you try answering a few of mine?

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 05:53 PM

Sorry, can I just check what it is you're suggesting here? You're saying that the fact that the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite being twice as far from the Sun is due to its atmospheric pressure, and not to the greenhouse effect?

Maybe. I'm just posting a calculation based on the Ideal Gas Law that speaks to the fact that the warming effects are solely attributable to the composition of the atmosphere. Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 05:57 PM

Uhm,

On what basis so you set N1 = N2?

Uhm, no N1 or N2 in my equation. So, as they're both not there, it's pretty obvious they would be equal.

Such that you can make the statement that PV/T for earth equals PV/T for Venus?

Did I say that? I just point out that the pressure of the atmosphere has a warming effect as well. If the greenhouse effect exists on Venus, my guess is that it is dwarfed by the warming due to pressure, especially given that saturation is achieved fairly high in Venus' atmosphere.

And my introductory chemistry texts are at home.

Maybe you should wait before posting, then?

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:01 PM

Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

Really? Is your Daddy home?

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Did I say that? No, no, I didn't. Obviously an intelligent offspring of an astronomer would be able to conceive that Venus without its present atmosphere would be a different kettle of fish altogether, yes? Perhaps not. Take my word for it.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

How do you get that the pressure of a planet dictates the composition of the atmosphere? The Earth is at 1 atm and it's got lots more than He.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.

Time to talk to Dad again, sonny.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:05 PM

Imagine sarcasm tags around my post for better understanding of my thoughts about Slimethings "calculation."

Or to make it unambiguous...I am saying that his calculation is nonsense.

I could be wrong. You may not be a simpering fool. Perhaps you'd like to show us the mistake I made? This is high school chemistry, after all. Go ahead, genius, try it. :mad:

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 06:05 PM

Maybe. I'm just posting a calculation based on the Ideal Gas Law that speaks to the fact that the warming effects are solely attributable to the composition of the atmosphere. Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

I'm sorry, Slimething, but you just blew it all with that statement. I'm not a scientist, and even I can see that someone who calls himself one can have no idea at all.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:11 PM

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of it ends radiating back to earth. Some of it is re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

That's a big part of the story. The whole story (as ever) isn't quite as simple as that ... :)

Some of the energy captured is converted to kinetic energy within the molecule - its component atoms oscillate more. If it's in collision with another air molecule while in that state it can transfer some of that kinetic energy directly. So it's a bit more complicated, but it's all calculable.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

The environment is very different, though, because nebulae have very weakly interacting particles whereas the atmosphere has strongly interacting particles. It's a real crush down here :).

That said, yes, the nebulae do tell the same story. After all, it's not as if spectroscopy is a new field, nor its close involvement with astronomy.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:12 PM

...and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature.

You must be braindead. There is no other explanation. :jaw-dropp

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 06:13 PM

[...] Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

Are you quite sure of this? I studied Planetary Science 10 years ago and the predominant theory then was that Venus is an ideal example of a "runaway greenhouse effect" due to the increased solar flux... that began evaporating the oceans... that put more water vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere... that increased the atmospheric temperature... that accelerated the evaporation of the oceans... that put more water vapor into the atmosphere... that... ... ...

A quick wiki/google search didn't reveal any indication that this theory has been abandoned in the intervening years.

My recollection is that, absent the greenhouse effect of Venus, its temperature would not be dissimilar to Earth's. It seems unlikely that planetary scientists would neglect the ideal gas law in performing their calculations.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:13 PM

I'm sorry, Slimething, but you just blew it all with that statement. I'm not a scientist, and even I can see that someone who calls himself one can have no idea at all.

Show your math. How much of Venus' surface temperature is GWG-related?

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:16 PM

Are you quite sure of this? I studied Planetary Science 10 years ago and the predominant theory then was that Venus is an ideal example of a "runaway greenhouse effect" due to the increased solar flux... that began evaporating the oceans... that put more water vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere... that increased the atmospheric temperature... that accelerated the evaporation of the oceans... that put more water vapor into the atmosphere... that... ... ...

A quick wiki/google search didn't reveal any indication that this theory has been abandoned in the intervening years.

My recollection is that, absent the greenhouse effect of Venus, its temperature would not be dissimilar to Earth's. It seems unlikely that planetary scientists would neglect the ideal gas law in performing their calculations.

Really? How did they get around Beer's Law (saturation effect), 96+% CO2 and 90 atm worth of heat? I could be wrong here but that doesn't seem to be correlative to the situation on Earth. Show me your math.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:16 PM

Keep waiving those arms Capeldodger.

I'm rather gratified that you're reduced to that.

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 06:23 PM

Show me your math.

Show my math? I did none; I just reported what I believe to be the predominant theory of Venus' planetary evolution. I'm an electrical engineer, not a planetary scientist; I generally trust experts in planetary science to get their math right, particularly given how long Venus has been studied scientifically. I would hope a planetary scientist with no training in engineering wouldn't question how I terminated my DDR2 bus! :)

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 06:25 PM

You must be braindead. There is no other explanation. :jaw-dropp

I could be wrong here, but PV/T is a description of what is happening, not why.

Pierrehumbert has a discussion on Venus even I can understand in his free, online textbook.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

Page 15, chapter 1.4

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 06:27 PM

That's a big part of the story. The whole story (as ever) isn't quite as simple as that ... :)

Some of the energy captured is converted to kinetic energy within the molecule - its component atoms oscillate more. If it's in collision with another air molecule while in that state it can transfer some of that kinetic energy directly. So it's a bit more complicated, but it's all calculable.

Cool; I didn't know about that mechanism. I owe you a pint.

The environment is very different, though, because nebulae have very weakly interacting particles whereas the atmosphere has strongly interacting particles. It's a real crush down here :).

Yeah, you're right. I was just using a nebula as an example of extremely rarefied gas still creating a measurable absorption effect.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:33 PM

which could be construed to demonstrate GW (although my experience as a non-gardener is... weather changes often)... but NOT rigorously... and i fail to see how 'getting out more' will put the A in AGW.

Obviously the benefit won't be immediate, but at least over a few years they'll get over the idea that it's not warming, that all stopped in '98, doncha know.

The "A" comes from no credible alternative, despite much effort being expended on the search. I see scientists who claimed there'd be no warming now touting reason and after reason for it, all of them resolutely not AGW. And that's it.

There's no contest. CO2 is materially affecting the climate.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:36 PM

The troposphere is not warming as dictated by AGW hypotheses.

Mid-troposphere warming is dictated by any warming, so this claim is tantamount to a claim that there's been no warming.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:38 PM

I could be wrong here, but PV/T is a description of what is happening, not why.

You are right. The full law is PV=nRT but the nR are both constants that drop out when comparing the same system in two different states. There is no prediction therein other than that the three variables are correlative and vary as described. I was reacting to Capel Dodger's ridiculous assertion. Maybe he should explain why we're all floating on magma if pressure does not translate to heat.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:41 PM

Show my math? I did none; I just reported what I believe to be the predominant theory of Venus' planetary evolution. I'm an electrical engineer, not a planetary scientist; I generally trust experts in planetary science to get their math right, particularly given how long Venus has been studied scientifically. I would hope a planetary scientist with no training in engineering wouldn't question how I terminated my DDR2 bus! :)

I do have a confession to make now that I've cooled down a bit. I lost my temper. My math is correct but all it does is show that the pressure on Venus does account for some of the surface temperature. The weakness in the calculation is that, at those pressures, CO2 or any gas would not act in the ideal manner we theorize for all gases near our ambient pressure.

Moreover, I made a mistake in my thinking in that Beer's Law would negate a greenhouse effect on Venus. It would not. Whereas it would effectively block out all the IR from reaching the surface, it would also tend to insulate IR generated by reradiation of other absorbed wavelengths that penetrated to the surface. So, there. I am chastened and contrite.

However, the point still stands that the pressure on Venus would contribute mightily to the surface temperature.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 06:42 PM

Mid-troposphere warming is dictated by any warming, so this claim is tantamount to a claim that there's been no warming.

Really? Any warming? Even non-gas-mediated warming? Funny. How is the troposphere to know?

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:42 PM

Really? How did they get around Beer's Law (saturation effect), 96+% CO2 and 90 atm worth of heat? I could be wrong here but that doesn't seem to be correlative to the situation on Earth. Show me your math.

A "runaway effect" implies saturation, or exhaustion of a necessary resource, at some point in time.

Do the math, for a real environment.

Another thing that's been bugging me : are you under the impression that pressure creates heat?

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 06:49 PM

Really? Any warming? Even non-gas-mediated warming? Funny. How is the troposphere to know?

There's a non-linear relationship (driven by water-vapour and its effect on the lapse rate) between surface temperature and the temperature mid-troposphere which means that the temperature gradient is inversely correlated with the surface temperature. Which means that when the surface warms the troposphere has to warm more, to reduce the gradient.

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 06:52 PM

I do have a confession to make now that I've cooled down a bit. I lost my temper. [...] So, there. I am chastened and contrite.

It's all good; it would be a shame if this discussion got boring through universal agreement! :)

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 07:11 PM

Cool; I didn't know about that mechanism. I owe you a pint.

Fuggedaboudit. I've learnt a hell of a lot since I've got into this thing.

Yeah, you're right. I was just using a nebula as an example of extremely rarefied gas still creating a measurable absorption effect.

It's a good example since it does isolate the absorption/emission effect, and isolating an effect is generally regarded as a good thing in science. Eliminate the other variables, to the extent that you can.

These demands for experiments in the real atmosphere (followed by rejection of Venus's very real atmosphere as an example) are going in exactly the opposite direction. Cramming as many variables into an experiment as you can "just to make sure" is not good scientific thinking, to my mind.

I'm still waiting on the specs for Dr Imago's box.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 07:35 PM

Another thing that's been bugging me : are you under the impression that pressure creates heat?

Yes, I am. I find that you'll find that little quirk in most scientists. If you keep volume constant and increase pressure, you get a temperature increase. Is that news to you?

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 07:37 PM

There's a non-linear relationship (driven by water-vapour and its effect on the lapse rate) between surface temperature and the temperature mid-troposphere which means that the temperature gradient is inversely correlated with the surface temperature. Which means that when the surface warms the troposphere has to warm more, to reduce the gradient.

Perhaps you don't understand English. A non-gas-mediated warming. As in no CO2, no water vapor, no helium, no argon, etc. Get it yet? :confused:

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 07:58 PM

Yes, I am. I find that you'll find that little quirk in most scientists. If you keep volume constant and increase pressure, you get a temperature increase. Is that news to you?

How would that work? You can't increase pressure and keep volume constant. The only way to do it is to increase the temperature. QED.

jsfisher

3rd March 2008, 08:05 PM

Yes, I am. I find that you'll find that little quirk in most scientists. If you keep volume constant and increase pressure, you get a temperature increase. Is that news to you?

I think you misread CapelDodger's question. He asked about heat; you answered about temperature.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 08:15 PM

Yes, I am. I find that you'll find that little quirk in most scientists. If you keep volume constant and increase pressure, you get a temperature increase. Is that news to you?

If you compress a gas it will get hotter. The work expended in compressing it is converted into heat. Leave it compressed and that heat will dissipate. Venus's atmosphere has been compressed long enough for all the heat of its original compression to have dissipated long ago.

Pressure does not create heat.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 08:18 PM

How would that work? You can't increase pressure and keep volume constant. The only way to do it is to increase the temperature. QED.

I missed that gem; I was focussed on my original target :). Set 'em up, knock 'em down.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 08:23 PM

Perhaps you don't understand English. A non-gas-mediated warming. As in no CO2, no water vapor, no helium, no argon, etc. Get it yet? :confused:

Increased insolation is not a gas-mediated warming. The impact on the surface to mid-troposphere temperature gradient is gas-mediated, but that's the atmosphere we have to live with.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 08:37 PM

I think you misread CapelDodger's question. He asked about heat; you answered about temperature.

It all comes down to heat in the end :).

"Can't avoid, can't reverse,
Energy Death of the Universe"

(From Energy Death by the short-lived 70's pub band Energy Death. yeah, we all saw where that was going, but at least they got a cocktail named after them.)

jsfisher

3rd March 2008, 08:40 PM

If you compress a gas it will get hotter. The work expended in compressing it is converted into heat.

Temperature of a gas is a reflection of its heat content per unit volume. Compress the gas, and the temperature goes up (it gets hotter) because of greater heat per volume and not because of any additional heat.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 08:42 PM

How would that work? You can't increase pressure and keep volume constant. The only way to do it is to increase the temperature. QED.

:confused: That's a real diamond of a thought. You must have missed that class.

If you compress a gas it will get hotter. The work expended in compressing it is converted into heat. Leave it compressed and that heat will dissipate. Venus's atmosphere has been compressed long enough for all the heat of its original compression to have dissipated long ago.

Pressure does not create heat.

You must have missed that class also. A little thought experiment for you. If you have a compressed gas cylinder at room temperature and you knock the valve off with a sledge, will the cylinder heat, stay the same or cool? Duh. There goes your half-baked argument.

I told you to study up on your thermo, yes? Why didn't you do it before making a complete fool out of yourself?

I missed that gem; I was focussed on my original target :). Set 'em up, knock 'em down.

QED.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 08:45 PM

Increased insolation is not a gas-mediated warming. The impact on the surface to mid-troposphere temperature gradient is gas-mediated, but that's the atmosphere we have to live with.

You just can't escape that circle, can you? Why do we even try?

mhaze

3rd March 2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by David Rodale http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3493475#post3493475)
The troposphere is not warming as dictated by AGW hypotheses.

Mid-troposphere warming is dictated by any warming, so this claim is tantamount to a claim that there's been no warming.

IPPC ch. 9, p. 675, figure 9.1.

Distinctly differing atmospheric warming signatures.

which is obvious if you think about it.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 09:18 PM

You are right. The full law is PV=nRT but the nR are both constants that drop out when comparing the same system in two different states. There is no prediction therein other than that the three variables are correlative and vary as described. I was reacting to Capel Dodger's ridiculous assertion. Maybe he should explain why we're all floating on magma if pressure does not translate to heat.

We are all floating on magma because the big ball of earth is about 1% uranium, which is radioactive and the heat of that radioactive decay is what produces the heat. Which produces the magma.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 09:35 PM

You must have missed that class also. A little thought experiment for you. If you have a compressed gas cylinder at room temperature and you knock the valve off with a sledge, will the cylinder heat, stay the same or cool? Duh. There goes your half-baked argument.

Irrelevant. Venus has never decompressed. If you don't knock the valve off the cylinder any heat generated during compression will dissipate. Entropy increases. Venus's atmosphere accumulated long ago, and the heat of compression has dissipated.

I told you to study up on your thermo, yes? Why didn't you do it before making a complete fool out of yourself?

Cute.

So are you still under the impression that pressure creates heat?

David Rodale

3rd March 2008, 09:39 PM

I could be wrong here, but PV/T is a description of what is happening, not why.

Pierrehumbert has a discussion on Venus even I can understand in his free, online textbook.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf (http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf)

Page 15, chapter 1.4

Venus Express:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33010
You cannot understand the Venusian weather and atmosphere by comparing them to Earth's. Scientists are unable to explain some of the more extreme atmospheric phenomena that take place on Venus. For example, the planet only rotates once every 243 Earth days. However, in the upper atmosphere, hurricane-force winds sweep around Venus, taking just 4 Earth days to circumnavigate the planet.
The surface of Venus also baffles scientists. The oldest craters seem to be only 500 million years old, which may indicate that the planet behaves like a volcanic pressure cooker. On Earth, the constant, steady eruption of volcanoes and the shifting of the Earth's surface, causing earthquakes, ensures that the energy released in the Earth is dissipated gradually. This probably does not happen on Venus. Instead, pressure builds up inside the planet until the whole world is engulfed in a global eruption, resurfacing the planet and destroying any craters that have formed. This probably happened last, 500 million years ago and so accounts for the lack of older craters. Today, there is a strong relationship between the surface and the atmosphere. Is there any similarity between the ocean-atmosphere relationship on Earth and the surface-atmosphere relationship on Venus? Venus Express supplies scientific data that could shed light on both of these mysteries.

Round Robin

3rd March 2008, 09:45 PM

You must have missed that class also. A little thought experiment for you. If you have a compressed gas cylinder at room temperature and you knock the valve off with a sledge, will the cylinder heat, stay the same or cool? Duh. There goes your half-baked argument.

P -> Lower
V -> Unchanged
n -> Lower
R -> Constant
T -> Lower

Since n (moles of gas) changes, I am not sure that your thought experiment is representative of the situation described.

Also, are you assuming that Venus is a closed system?

a_unique_person

3rd March 2008, 09:47 PM

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 09:48 PM

We are all floating on magma because the big ball of earth is about 1% uranium, which is radioactive and the heat of that radioactive decay is what produces the heat. Which produces the magma.

Somethig that Kelvin was unaware of. Based on thermodynamics alone he calculated Earth's age at about twenty million years, as I recall. That's heat from deep within the core, not from a thin skin of atmosphere.

CapelDodger

3rd March 2008, 09:54 PM

You just can't escape that circle, can you? Why do we even try?

:confused:

Increased insolation is not a gas-mediated warming. The impact on the surface to mid-troposphere temperature gradient is gas-mediated, but that's the atmosphere we have to live with.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 10:17 PM

We are all floating on magma because the big ball of earth is about 1% uranium, which is radioactive and the heat of that radioactive decay is what produces the heat. Which produces the magma.

You can't be serious. How does that 1% know to stay in the magma? Nowhere near that concentration has been found in igneous rock. That concentration of uranium would have every mineral prospector this side of hell in Hawaii, Mt. St. Helens, Iceland, etc. Check your facts.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 10:18 PM

:confused:

Increased insolation is not a gas-mediated warming. The impact on the surface to mid-troposphere temperature gradient is gas-mediated, but that's the atmosphere we have to live with.

So, to turn the question around to you, if there is warming, why no troposhpere hotspot? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 10:20 PM

I have wondered why it is so hot after so long.

Because bobby's wrong. There is not 1% U in the magma.

ETA: Check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma)out. Bobby, your astronomer parent would not be proud.

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 10:21 PM

P -> Lower
V -> Unchanged
n -> Lower
R -> Constant
T -> Lower

Since n (moles of gas) changes, I am not sure that your thought experiment is representative of the situation described.

Also, are you assuming that Venus is a closed system?

Yes, one of the assumptions I made. That the atmosphere would expand infinitely to render 1 atm. Good spot. How would you have done it?

Slimething

3rd March 2008, 10:33 PM

Irrelevant. Venus has never decompressed. If you don't knock the valve off the cylinder any heat generated during compression will dissipate. Entropy increases. Venus's atmosphere accumulated long ago, and the heat of compression has dissipated.

That's not the point! You really are thicker than a brick! When you compress a gas, not all the heat goes away a work. The pressure heats the surface. Get that through your skull, if you possibly can. There is heat from pressure. Got it? The pressure is doing work on the planet's surface. Just like the Earth's atmosphere is doing work on your body right now. If that pressure goes away, you would be cooler. The heat has to go somewhere.

So are you still under the impression that pressure creates heat?

If we share the same definitino of heat (Q) as being TdS, no. The heat is latent until decompression. Then, TdS is loose. The heat is stored. Hence, if one were to calculate the temperature contributed by the 90 atm, it would be fairly large.

Nice dodge.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 11:37 PM

Really? Is your Daddy home?

Did I say that? No, no, I didn't. Obviously an intelligent offspring of an astronomer would be able to conceive that Venus without its present atmosphere would be a different kettle of fish altogether, yes? Perhaps not. Take my word for it.

How do you get that the pressure of a planet dictates the composition of the atmosphere? The Earth is at 1 atm and it's got lots more than He.

Time to talk to Dad again, sonny.

First of all, we are not school kids on the playground so leave the bullying at home.

My point is you are applying the ideal gas law in an incorrect method.

Second, the temperature of a planet has something to do with the atmospheric composition. As you know the earth is much warmer than 8K and has little He. I didn't post that the pressure causes the temperature.

By the way, in a blatant appeal to self authority, I have taught college chemistry, so I might know something about the Ideal gas law. And here's the point, P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2 applies to different states of the same system, where you can keep the n constant, such as in the piston and cylinder problems you no doubt are familiar with.

Plugging in the different pressures for Earth and Venus and solving for temperature gives you an erroneous result.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 11:45 PM

Because bobby's wrong. There is not 1% U in the magma.

ETA: Check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magma)out. Bobby, your astronomer parent would not be proud.

The internal heat of the planet is most likely produced by the radioactive decay of potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232 isotopes. All three have half-life decay periods of more than a billion years.[40] At the center of the planet, the temperature may be up to 7,000 K and the pressure could reach 360 GPa.[41] A portion of the core's thermal energy is transported toward the crust by Mantle plumes; a form of convection consisting of upwellings of higher-temperature rock. These plumes can produce hotspots and flood basalts.[42]

So maybe I'm wrong about the about 1% part but the rest is true.

Kindly leave my recently departed parent out of this really you are a heel.

bobdroege7

3rd March 2008, 11:54 PM

You can't be serious. How does that 1% know to stay in the magma? Nowhere near that concentration has been found in igneous rock. That concentration of uranium would have every mineral prospector this side of hell in Hawaii, Mt. St. Helens, Iceland, etc. Check your facts.

Right, I was wrong. Actually the concentration is 2-4 parts per million. Still enough to cause the heating of the planet's internals.

fsol

4th March 2008, 01:28 AM

I could be wrong. You may not be a simpering fool. Perhaps you'd like to show us the mistake I made? This is high school chemistry, after all. Go ahead, genius, try it. :mad:

Wow, nice. I should engage with you now why exactly? You made a stupid post. Deal with it.

Just pointing out that Venus is very different than Earth. 90 atm will do a heck of a lot global warming and that's proven physics. If you want to do the calculations of what the Venusian equivalent temperature would be on Earth, you're welcome to do so. Show your work.

ETA: I couldn't help myself. I did it for you using the law of ideal gases (PV/T = PV/T). Setting P1 = 90 atm and P2 = 1 atm and both V's at unity and T1 = 733 K, T2 is 8.14 K. Now that's chilly! Venusians are trying to fit more CO2 into their atmosphere as we speak!

Slimething

4th March 2008, 01:41 AM

First of all, we are not school kids on the playground so leave the bullying at home.

You are the one who used an appeal to authority to a relative as if competence was inherited. Deal with it.

My point is you are applying the ideal gas law in an incorrect method.

That chalkboard is all yours, bobby. Show the class.

Second, the temperature of a planet has something to do with the atmospheric composition. As you know the earth is much warmer than 8K and has little He. I didn't post that the pressure causes the temperature.

You are again confabulating what I wrote. I said nothing about the Earth. Your claim is that the temperature of a given planet determines the composition of its atmosphere. Show us. Please post a scale of planet temperature vs atmospheric composition. Orgel, were he alive, would really have enjoyed your wisdom.

By the way, in a blatant appeal to self authority, I have taught college chemistry, so I might know something about the Ideal gas law. And here's the point, P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2 applies to different states of the same system, where you can keep the n constant, such as in the piston and cylinder problems you no doubt are familiar with.

So have I, dude. So, show us your stuff. How much does 90 atm contribute to Venus' surface temp? Please don't let me detain you from showing off your prowess with physical chemistry, Teach.

Plugging in the different pressures for Earth and Venus and solving for temperature gives you an erroneous result.

It was back-of-the-envelope stuff. I could look up the correction factors for 90 atm, compressibiity, deviations from ideal parameter but, for what? You guys? Gimme a break.

So maybe I'm wrong about the about 1% part but the rest is true.

Kindly leave my recently departed parent out of this really you are a heel.

You opened the door, counselor. Take your lumps. I may be a heel but I didn't mention any of my accomplished forebears, of which I have many. I stand on my own feet. Try it.

Right, I was wrong. Actually the concentration is 2-4 parts per million. Still enough to cause the heating of the planet's internals.

You didn't quote the earlier part of the Wiki article that stated that melting was due to pressure, heat and expansive melting. Why is that? Maybe because you want to continue pulling "facts" out of your butt?

2-4 ppm is 0.0002 to 0.0004%. Most of the U is U-238 with a half-life of 4.5 x 10^9 years so its relatively stable. And here you are whining about my estimates. I have been up front about my calculations. You, on the other hand have dodged any type of truthfulness concerning your claims and expertise.

BTW, anyone who knows anything about radioactivity would know that the radioactivity in all the planet's radioactive nuclides is NOT enough to account for the molten core of the Earth. I find it sad that the AGW proponents on this thread were more than happy to jump at your moronic statements to bolster their biases. Another major vendor for a fool's paradise.

Slimething

4th March 2008, 01:43 AM

Wow, nice. I should engage with you now why exactly? You made a stupid post. Deal with it.

Because you claim to know more. Show us. Go ahead. The board is all yours. I've admitted all my assumptions. You show us how to do it. You said that my calculation was flawed so you must know something, right? Go ahead. Or maybe you don't? :eek:

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 02:17 AM

You are the one who used an appeal to authority to a relative as if competence was inherited. Deal with it.
That chalkboard is all yours, bobby. Show the class.

Class pay attention. By the way the son of an astronomer was meant as a joke and a reference to a not so popular rock and roll song, so sorry it went over your head.

You are again confabulating what I wrote. I said nothing about the Earth. Your claim is that the temperature of a given planet determines the composition of its atmosphere. Show us. Please post a scale of planet temperature vs atmospheric composition. Orgel, were he alive, would really have enjoyed your wisdom.

My only claim was that a planet at 8k and 1 ATM would have an atmosphere of only Helium.
If you don't get that you flunk chem 101, unless you can name anything that would be gaseous at that temperature and pressure. can you?

So have I, dude. So, show us your stuff. How much does 90 atm contribute to Venus' surface temp? Please don't let me detain you from showing off your prowess with physical chemistry, Teach.

90 atm on venus contributes nothing to Venus's current temperature as any compressive heating from the rise to that pressure dissipated long ago.

It was back-of-the-envelope stuff. I could look up the correction factors for 90 atm, compressibiity, deviations from ideal parameter but, for what? You guys? Gimme a break.

Well, lets see some support for your argument

You opened the door, counselor. Take your lumps. I may be a heel but I didn't mention any of my accomplished forebears, of which I have many. I stand on my own feet. Try it.

It was meant as a joke dude.

You didn't quote the earlier part of the Wiki article that stated that melting was due to pressure, heat and expansive melting. Why is that? Maybe because you want to continue pulling "facts" out of your butt?

Right, the melting is due to the heat, gee where does the heat come from?

Here is the latest research

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725103.700

With time, as more antineutrinos are detected, KamLAND may be able to determine once and for all whether radioactivity is entirely responsible for heating Earth or whether other sources, such as the crystallisation of liquid iron and nickel in the outer core, also play a significant role. "[Detecting anti-neutrinos] is the way of the future in terms of hard numbers about the system," says McDonough.

2-4 ppm is 0.0002 to 0.0004%. Most of the U is U-238 with a half-life of 4.5 x 10^9 years so its relatively stable. And here you are whining about my estimates. I have been up front about my calculations. You, on the other hand have dodged any type of truthfulness concerning your claims and expertise.

I haven't dodged anything, and freely admitted my error.
And it's not your estimates that I am not whining about, it's the flaw in your PV/T thinking.

BTW, anyone who knows anything about radioactivity would know that the radioactivity in all the planet's radioactive nuclides is NOT enough to account for the molten core of the Earth. I find it sad that the AGW proponents on this thread were more than happy to jump at your moronic statements to bolster their biases. Another major vendor for a fool's paradise.

Like I posted above, someone elses research says different. 24 out of 30 to 44 terawatts is produced by radioactive decay.

Nice to see you can look up a nuclide's half-life.

Moronic statement, now backed up by published research in what peer reviewed journal?
Oh, Nature.

And again, thanks for the civil discourse and unneccessary ad homs.

And another appeal to self authority, 23 rem lifetime dose, I had better know a little about radioactivity.

Pixel42

4th March 2008, 02:25 AM

The irony of the present ridiculous argument is that Venus' current huge atmsopheric pressure is almost certainly a direct result of a runaway greenhouse effect.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 02:45 AM

All of which has no bearing on whether the greenhouse effect is real or not.

This might help a little.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

My my, you posted something with integrals in it, you know that's not going to do a whole lot of good.

:dl:

sorry that's the only one I know

a_unique_person

4th March 2008, 02:55 AM

Venus Express:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33010

If we don't know everything, we know nothing?

a_unique_person

4th March 2008, 03:52 AM

All of which has no bearing on whether the greenhouse effect is real or not.

This might help a little.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Thanks for that. Those 'falsification' idiots get around, that is the perfect response.

Round Robin

4th March 2008, 07:12 AM

Yes, one of the assumptions I made. That the atmosphere would expand infinitely to render 1 atm. Good spot. How would you have done it?

Well, I'm neither a chemist nor a planetary scientist, but it seems to me that if we grant that n is relatively constant (the oceans are done evaporating, which would have increased n in the past), and we grant that Venus is hot and has high pressure, we need to determine what mechanisms now can cause this to be a stable system.

Heat radiates, so for the temperature of Venus to be constantly high because of pressure, then we need to find an external force that is applying pressure (increasing kinetic energy of the gas) by adding mechanical energy (such as pushing a piston into a cylinder), or we need to find a constant source of increasing n. n is not increasing to my knowledge, and Venus and its atmosphere is not getting smaller. So, there is no external force that is increasing pressure and balancing the heat radiating away from Venus.

However, Venus does have an external source of heat: the sun. Therefore, there is an external force that can provide heat energy. If the greenhouse gas theory is correct, the composition of Venus' atmosphere (primarily greenhouse gases) and the incident radiation should cause a high temperature. The temperature of the gas is a measure of its kinetic energy, and its high kinetic energy results in high pressure. This is what we observe.

So, given the available external forces, it seems to me that the high temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect, and the high pressure follows due to the physics of gases. I do not think that there is a mechanism in place where the high stable temperature is the result of high pressure.

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 07:50 AM

Please explain to Alric what a litmus test is.

Why? I'm sure he knows.

To be honest, we've been enduring relentless ad hom attacks, many quite vicious, since the first day I joined this forum. No apology is forthcoming as his ignoramus first response is typical.

Really? From what I've seen it is your "side" that is first with the insults. Perhaps you have a few examples?

Now, what is the litmus test for AGW? Since oceans cover ~70% of earth's surface, they must warm annually in order for global warming to be present as it is claimed the sun's energy is essentially constant.

Claimed? Why not look at the figures? They are easily available.

Next, it must be explained why the troposphere is not warming as global climate models dictate.

You could try reading this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm).

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?

Just how simple do you imagine this is?

Alric

4th March 2008, 07:54 AM

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Its a great site! Its scary to see all their points taken care of by someone else:

http://homepage.mac.com/alric/Contrarians.png

I propose letting the site deal with them.

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 08:13 AM

Yes, I am. I find that you'll find that little quirk in most scientists. If you keep volume constant and increase pressure, you get a temperature increase. Is that news to you?
CD's response is puzzling me too. Surely everyone knows (about) Boyle's Law?

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 08:20 AM

If you compress a gas it will get hotter. The work expended in compressing it is converted into heat. Leave it compressed and that heat will dissipate. Venus's atmosphere has been compressed long enough for all the heat of its original compression to have dissipated long ago.

Pressure does not create heat.
This is making sense now, thanks.

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 08:21 AM

I missed that gem; I was focussed on my original target :). Set 'em up, knock 'em down.
So did I. Duuuhhh.

Dr. Imago

4th March 2008, 08:25 AM

I propose letting the site deal with them.

These are not claims, but specific alternate considerations made in response to claims made by the pro-climate change camp. They are not meant to be taken in aggregate.

A pro-AGW person makes an absolute claim. Someone who doesn't agree with that claim offers a possible alternate explanation that can equally explain the phenomenon observed. This is boiled down to a graphic. And, it is done so disingenuously as a compilation of arguments against specific claims made by pro-AGW arguers only to appear that there is no rhyme or reason to those counter-arguments.

As I've said before, this is sound-bite b.s. that doesn't elucidate the relevance of the counter-arguments, but is meant in a more political sense to dissuade dissent and make people believe that there is no legitimacy in alternate hypotheses. Not all people making counter-arguments use all of these all the time, and some on that list are definitely legitimate in response to specific and ridiculous claims being made by pro-AGWs.

But, as you guys would have it, the issue is resolved. Man-made CO2 is forcing the climate to change. We are beyond all shadow of doubt responsible. We've amassed enough data. We understand everything we need to know at this point in time about what drives the climate change. And, we'd better start acting before we cause irrevocable damage to the planet.

How hubristic.

-Dr. Imago

Alric

4th March 2008, 08:32 AM

This is boiled down to a graphic.

But, as you guys would have it, the issue is resolved. Man-made CO2 is forcing the climate to change. We are beyond all shadow of doubt responsible. We've amassed enough data. We understand everything we need to know at this point in time about what drives the climate change. And, we'd better start acting before we cause irrevocable damage to the planet.

How hubristic.

-Dr. Imago

The point you make about the graphic is precisely my main criticism of the contrarians. There is no data that supports their claims. Only solipsisms and arguments from lack of knowledge. I try to answer every point with data.

On the latter point it is never that black and white but enough data is in to keep an eye on the process and take necessary steps. Is it going to kill you to drive a Prius and use fluorescent bulbs? Will it destroy the economy to use more solar and wind power rather than oil?

Changes like those are not only beneficial with regards to climate change but also they will improve society and policy. And will be of economic benefit to everyone, not just the oil companies.

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 08:34 AM

:confused: That's a real diamond of a thought. You must have missed that class.

You must have missed that class also. A little thought experiment for you. If you have a compressed gas cylinder at room temperature and you knock the valve off with a sledge, will the cylinder heat, stay the same or cool? Duh. There goes your half-baked argument.

I told you to study up on your thermo, yes? Why didn't you do it before making a complete fool out of yourself?

If you are right, how can the gas cyl be at room temp to start with? Surely it should be above ambient due to the higher pressure?

When you remove the valve, it cools because the volume increases and the pressure decreases. But I thought you were talking about constant volume?

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 08:38 AM

Slimething

4th March 2008, 08:45 AM

And it's not your estimates that I am not whining about, it's the flaw in your PV/T thinking.

Correct it or be quiet about it.

And again, thanks for the civil discourse and unneccessary ad homs.

Oh, any time, big fella! Your jokes suck. Keep your day job.

And another appeal to self authority, 23 rem lifetime dose, I had better know a little about radioactivity.

I've been breathing gases all my life.

Slimething

4th March 2008, 08:55 AM

If you are right, how can the gas cyl be at room temp to start with? Surely it should be above ambient due to the higher pressure?

When you remove the valve, it cools because the volume increases and the pressure decreases. But I thought you were talking about constant volume?

I was originally trying to demonstrate that the high pressure on Venus is contributive to the temperature. Now, I've been tarred with predicting the surface of the Earth would be 8 K because it is so similar to Venus. One can't win with people who refuse to listen.

Dr. Imago

4th March 2008, 08:59 AM

The point you make about the graphic is precisely my main criticism of the contrarians. There is no data that supports their claims.

Get this concept in your head: "contrarians" are not making claims! I've spoken extensively about this. Members of the pro-AGW camp are the one making claims. It is well-within the realm of the scientific process to review and criticize of the merits of those claims, as well as offer possible alternate interpretations of how those data were collated and the validity of the conclusions based on those data.

This is a juvenile scientific discipline. The ability to handle criticism and effectively counter-argue will bolster the credibility of the claims being made. Producing sophomoric graphics only politicizes the process and creates animosity. No one wants to be wrong, and people are becoming far too emotionally invested in this discussion. Time, cool heads, better science, proof-of-principle, appropriate validation of methodologies, and more data will ultimately show who's right and who's mistaken. Divorcing oneself from the emotive parts of the argument, and willingness to admit if/when you're wrong, will better serve the ultimate pursuit of the truth.

People, on both sides, are sadly so deeply entrenched in their positions already that it is becoming more like a WWF match than it is a scientific pursuit.

-Dr. Imago

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 09:01 AM

I was originally trying to demonstrate that the high pressure on Venus is contributive to the temperature. Now, I've been tarred with predicting the surface of the Earth would be 8 K because it is so similar to Venus. One can't win with people who refuse to listen.
But I think you are wrong about Venus's atmo pressure contributing to the temperature.

Why is the gas cyl at room temp until you release the valve?

Why is a stationary inflated car tyre at ambient temp?

Round Robin

4th March 2008, 09:01 AM

But, as you guys would have it, the issue is resolved. Man-made CO2 is forcing the climate to change. We are beyond all shadow of doubt responsible. We've amassed enough data. We understand everything we need to know at this point in time about what drives the climate change. And, we'd better start acting before we cause irrevocable damage to the planet.

How hubristic.

I'm a layperson in this debate, but I'd like to think that I'm scientifically minded. I don't perform research, nor am I qualified to evaluate the vast literature out there regarding the topics of GW and AGW; for that, I rely on experts in the field.

I don't hold any "belief" that AGW is real, but I accept it as probable because the predominant relevant scientific organizations (NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc.) have come to a consensus after decades of thrashing of the facts.

I do not accept AGW because the NAS, etc. says it's true; rather, I think that the consensus formed because it is probably true. And if the consensus changes, my view will change in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. Who am I--a layperson--to question a well formed scientific consensus, assuming that the scientific method didn't somehow break down in this one case?

This is not, in my opinion, an argument from authority; that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore, James Hanson, or any one scientist says it is. Individuals are quirky, but the scientific method is supposed to even out the quirkiness and come to a reliable consensus as a field of study matures. As this field has matured, a consensus formed, and I am not qualified to argue against it.

I expect that my philosophy is not unique. How is it hubristic?

varwoche

4th March 2008, 09:09 AM

Get this concept in your head: "contrarians" are not making claims! I've spoken extensively about this. This is nonsense of course. (Maybe you should put the 2nd sentence in your sig, since it seems to be the standard blurb that accompanies the nonsense you post.)

For instance, here you claim that the entire field of science is corrupt and/or that there's a conspiracy afoot:
It's quite clear to everyone who's paying attention that they've hung their hat on carbon dioxide. What is not clear - or proven - is that this is the correct place to do so. But, everything from this point forward is geared at bolstering that assertion and making any observations fit that premise, instead of considering alternate possibilities. I've talked about this extensively already. No need to rehash now.

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 09:13 AM

I'm a layperson in this debate, but I'd like to think that I'm scientifically minded. I don't perform research, nor am I qualified to evaluate the vast literature out there regarding the topics of GW and AGW; for that, I rely on experts in the field.

I don't hold any "belief" that AGW is real, but I accept it as probable because the predominant relevant scientific organizations (NAS, AAAS, IPCC, etc.) have come to a consensus after decades of thrashing of the facts.

I do not accept AGW because the NAS, etc. says it's true; rather, I think that the consensus formed because it is probably true. And if the consensus changes, my view will change in turn, neither willingly nor reluctantly. Who am I--a layperson--to question a well formed scientific consensus, assuming that the scientific method didn't somehow break down in this one case?

This is not, in my opinion, an argument from authority; that would be saying AGW is real because Al Gore, James Hanson, or any one scientist says it is. Individuals are quirky, but the scientific method is supposed to even out the quirkiness and come to a reliable consensus as a field of study matures. As this field has matured, a consensus formed, and I am not qualified to argue against it.

I expect that my philosophy is not unique. How is it hubristic?
RR, your view is very much like mine. How are we to judge the actual science unless we are specialists working in those fields?

What you find is that GWS are unwilling to accept this. If there is an AGW consensus then there must be a conspiracy: a conspiracy to claim a consensus when there isn't one, or to create one.

As for hubris, what could be more hubristic than thinking we can do what we like to the planet and have no effect?

Slimething

4th March 2008, 09:22 AM

Heat radiates, so for the temperature of Venus to be constantly high because of pressure, then we need to find an external force that is applying pressure (increasing kinetic energy of the gas) by adding mechanical energy (such as pushing a piston into a cylinder), or we need to find a constant source of increasing n. n is not increasing to my knowledge, and Venus and its atmosphere is not getting smaller. So, there is no external force that is increasing pressure and balancing the heat radiating away from Venus.

However, Venus does have an external source of heat: the sun. Therefore, there is an external force that can provide heat energy. If the greenhouse gas theory is correct, the composition of Venus' atmosphere (primarily greenhouse gases) and the incident radiation should cause a high temperature. The temperature of the gas is a measure of its kinetic energy, and its high kinetic energy results in high pressure. This is what we observe.

So, given the available external forces, it seems to me that the high temperature is caused by the greenhouse effect, and the high pressure follows due to the physics of gases. I do not think that there is a mechanism in place where the high stable temperature is the result of high pressure.

Yup. I see what you're saying. I think I made a logical mistake in assuming that the pressure being exerted primarily by the mass of the gas (heh, heh). I didn't take into account that, because Venus' atmosphere is itself a warming agent, the pressure could also be caused by kinetics. So, the difference in P from 92 atm to 1 atm would not be representative of hydraulic pressure but also of a chemical change.

Damn! I thought I was onto something. :boxedin:

Slimething

4th March 2008, 09:26 AM

But I think you are wrong about Venus's atmo pressure contributing to the temperature.

Why is the gas cyl at room temp until you release the valve?

Why is a stationary inflated car tyre at ambient temp?

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics. :blush:

Dr. Imago

4th March 2008, 09:31 AM

This is nonsense of course. (Maybe you should put the 2nd sentence in your sig, since it seems to be the standard blurb that accompanies the nonsense you post.)

I stand by what I said. It is a valid point. Your inability to see it as anything other than "nonsense" is your intellectual limitation, not mine.

For instance, here you claim that the entire field of science is corrupt and/or that there's a conspiracy afoot:

Where did I ever say that? More putting words in my mouth. Or, you are just (possibly intentionally) trying to misrepresent or misinterpret what I said.

There is a lot of well-intentioned "bad science" out there that is either conducted inappropriately or irrelevant. Some of it is intentionally misleading or misrepresentative, as has been pointed out on numerous occassions (see any of the copious criticisms on Hansen's methodologies). It is well within any scientists purview to point that out. You don't need to be an expert in a particular field if you understand process.

-Dr. Imago

David Rodale

4th March 2008, 09:48 AM

Why? I'm sure he knows.

Really? From what I've seen it is your "side" that is first with the insults. Perhaps you have a few examples?

Claimed? Why not look at the figures? They are easily available.

You could try reading this (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm).

Just how simple do you imagine this is?

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course. Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer :eek:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here (http://climatesci.org/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/)
Abstract:
“Limited Time Period (LTP) running trends are created from various Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) difference time series between the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing System (RSS) group’s lower troposphere (LT) and mid troposphere to lower stratosphere (MT) channels. This is accomplished in an effort to determine the causes of the greatest discrepancies between the two data sets.
Results indicate the greatest discrepancies were over time periods where NOAA-11 through NOAA-15 adjustments were applied to the raw LT data over land. Discrepancies in the LT channel are shown to be dominated by differences in diurnal correction methods due to orbital drift; however, discrepancies from target parameter differences are also present.
Comparison of MSU data with the a reduce RATPAC radiosonde dataset indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias. Our findings enhance the importance of understanding temporal changes in the atmospheric temperature trend profile and their implications on current climate studies.”

Pielke's summary:
While both UAH and RSS are outstanding research groups, with respect to the assessment of multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends, the independent comparison reported in Randall and Herman indicates that the trend values of the UAH group are more accurate.

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for :blush:

Alric

4th March 2008, 10:25 AM

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

Or you can put things in context. They are talking about what the overall effect of a correction is. No one is arguing there isn't warming they are arguing about the degree. This is what the raw corrected data looks like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 11:07 AM

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics. :blush:
Thanks. Admission appreciated. :)

It is easy to get this stuff confused, isn't it?

Megalodon

4th March 2008, 11:08 AM

Truesceptic,
Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9081)

always the same...

Round Robin

4th March 2008, 11:16 AM

Yup. I see what you're saying. I think I made a logical mistake in assuming that the pressure being exerted primarily by the mass of the gas (heh, heh). I didn't take into account that, because Venus' atmosphere is itself a warming agent, the pressure could also be caused by kinetics. So, the difference in P from 92 atm to 1 atm would not be representative of hydraulic pressure but also of a chemical change.

Damn! I thought I was onto something. :boxedin:

Oh, come out of that box; I imagine we all learned something by you posing the question and us all working it out. :)

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 11:19 AM

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

Nothing wrong with blogs if they have references. Or perhaps we should ban all references to Climate Audit?

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course. Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer :eek:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

You claim it is out of context. That is something that GWS never do is it?

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here (http://climatesci.org/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/)
Abstract:

Pielke's summary:

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

"AGW scripted"? I you say so. No GWS ever posts any GWS propaganda, of course!

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for :blush:
Yeah, maybe someone should. When I've got nothing better to do, I'll look at responses to my messages!

fsol

4th March 2008, 02:34 PM

Yup. You're right. I was reaching too far and forgot the basics. :blush:

This is why I like you as a poster. You are willing to stick your hand up and admit a mistake. More people should be like this.

CapelDodger

4th March 2008, 04:29 PM

That's not the point! You really are thicker than a brick! When you compress a gas, not all the heat goes away a work. The pressure heats the surface. Get that through your skull, if you possibly can. There is heat from pressure. Got it? The pressure is doing work on the planet's surface. Just like the Earth's atmosphere is doing work on your body right now. If that pressure goes away, you would be cooler. The heat has to go somewhere.

That's not at all clear, but I'll try my best with it.

Pressure doesn't do work on the planet's surface. That would violate Conservation of Energy. So pressure does not heat the planetary surface. That's got that out of the way.

When a gas is compressed it heats up, partly because of conservation of the kinetic energy it already contains and partly from the work being done on it. This heating occurs during the process of compression. Once the gas is compressed and is just sitting there it will dissipate the heat into its surroundings just as any body will. Entropy increases.

In the case of the Venusian atmosphere, the compression occurred as the atmosphere was being accumulated. That process was completed long ago, and since then the heat generated by compression has been dissipating into the surroundings. (Which is very cold space.) It's almost all long gone from the Solar System as long-wave radiation.

If we share the same definitino of heat (Q) as being TdS, no. The heat is latent until decompression. Then, TdS is loose. The heat is stored. Hence, if one were to calculate the temperature contributed by the 90 atm, it would be fairly large.

Sorry, I can't make anything out of that. For myself, I regard heat as kinetic energy.

CapelDodger

4th March 2008, 04:35 PM

Class pay attention. By the way the son of an astronomer was meant as a joke and a reference to a not so popular rock and roll song, so sorry it went over your head.

Dang, now I've got Son of a Preacher Man playing in my head. Time to load up some Alabama 3, that'll flush it out.

CapelDodger

4th March 2008, 04:52 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_281472eeca0ead83.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9081)

always the same...

Just when they think it's safe to come out again ...

We need some sort of Bat-Signal so we can alert you :).

TrueSceptic

4th March 2008, 05:01 PM

Dang, now I've got Son of a Preacher Man playing in my head. Time to load up some Alabama 3, that'll flush it out.
Have you seen A3 live? F***ing amazing! :D

CapelDodger

4th March 2008, 05:38 PM

Truesceptic,
If you're going to use blogs as your go-to source for information, at least have the foresight to research whether they are accurate or are propagandizing.

For instance, I have long ago read the blog entry in your link (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)
It uses a quote from John Christy, out of context of course.

How so? Firstly it uses an extract from an Executive Summary co-authored by Christy, so it's not quoting him at all. Secondly the extract includes

"... discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved"

and it's precisely these tropical discrepencies that have resurrected this whole thing recently.

Rather than go on about your propaganda blogs that leave out facts such as the "error" in UAH of .035 deg was within the margin of error, we could talk about the recent RSS error of .1 deg, which Mears gives credit to......John Christy and Roy Spencer :eek:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt

That was very recent, wasn't it? Jan 2008. Christy and Spencer must be commended for their vigilance.

I digress. A recent peer reviewed article is in press. Read about that here (http://climatesci.org/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/)
Abstract:

Pielke's summary:

I'll read about it after it's published. Peer-review only weeds out the truly egregious, publication is spotlight-time.

I'm confident of Pielke's conclusion (he has a 100% record) that it's all looking very bad for AGW. Wasn't he saying the same twenty years ago?

So Truesceptic, if you're going to rely on AGW scripted websites, make sure you've investigated it thoroughly first. Maybe you should have them update their information so other easily impressionable folks won't be misinformed.

The paper hasn't been published yet, so you're being a bit previous, aren't you? Let's wait on the paper before any of us start crowing about it.

How much warmer should the troposphere be trending compared to the surface? What are the observations?

You do realise this is all about the tropical troposphere, don't you? As for the rest

"... these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale ..."

(from an Executive Summary co-authored by John Christy).

Why aren't the oceans continuing to warm?

Trick question. They are continuing to warm.

As for insults, someone should go back in time and tally up the posts to satisfy your need to know just which side has been the shrills. Be careful what you ask for :blush:

I don't see that "someone" being you.

As for myself, I'm almost unfailingly polite.

CapelDodger

4th March 2008, 05:41 PM

Have you seen A3 live? F***ing amazing! :D

Aren't they from Brixton or somewhere equally silly?

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 09:20 PM

Correct it or be quiet about it.

Gee, I see you have admitted your mistake.

Oh, any time, big fella! Your jokes suck. Keep your day job.

And I don't have a day job, 9 to 5 maybe, but not a day job.

And another appeal to self authority, 23 rem lifetime dose, I had better know a little about radioactivity.

I've been breathing gases all my life.

And you claimed I didn't know anything about radioactivity, you better stop smoking, it causes cancer you know.

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 09:29 PM

I was originally trying to demonstrate that the high pressure on Venus is contributive to the temperature. Now, I've been tarred with predicting the surface of the Earth would be 8 K because it is so similar to Venus. One can't win with people who refuse to listen.

You know it was difficult to get what you were trying to show when you used the pressure of Venus, the temperature of Venus, and the pressure of Earth, and solving for temperature.

It was natural to assume you meant the temperature of Earth was what you were solving for.

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 09:38 PM

Dang, now I've got Son of a Preacher Man playing in my head. Time to load up some Alabama 3, that'll flush it out.

Actually its not that song and I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the song, but the applicable lyric is.

ah wait google is your friend
the late great Rory Gallagher

All around man

"I ain't no doctor
I ain't no doctor's son
but I'll fill your prescription
till the real doctor come"

Slimething

4th March 2008, 10:03 PM

This is why I like you as a poster. You are willing to stick your hand up and admit a mistake. More people should be like this.

fsol, you are a very gracious person. I feel truly awful about what I directed at you. Very sorry. Sometimes I charge ahead with stupid ideas and don't take a look back at what I'm saying early enough to make an ass of myself.

Thank you. Really.

Slimething

4th March 2008, 10:11 PM

Gee, I see you have admitted your mistake.

Yeah, pretty friggin stoopid can I be. Please accept my apologies for the taunts and idiocy displayed. As you can tell, I'm a very emotional person and I can do myself a lot of damage before I regain what little intelligence I have.

And you claimed I didn't know anything about radioactivity, you better stop smoking, it causes cancer you know.

You're assuming tobacco. (Nah, I don't do drugs but sometimes I think I should.)

You know it was difficult to get what you were trying to show when you used the pressure of Venus, the temperature of Venus, and the pressure of Earth, and solving for temperature.

It was natural to assume you meant the temperature of Earth was what you were solving for.

No, I was trying to determine what, if any, effect the high pressure on Venus would have on the surface temp. My RNF (random neural firings) alit on the Ideal Gas Law and I was off and running. I was tired, is all I can say in my defense. Dumb, dumb, dumb. And sorry.

Be well. :blush:

Slimething

4th March 2008, 10:17 PM

That's not at all clear, but I'll try my best with it.

No need. I see my mistake. Dumb. Sorry about the tirade.

Sorry, I can't make anything out of that. For myself, I regard heat as kinetic energy.

I use the TdS as my definition of heat to remind myself that it's more than temperature and that it must be accompanied by increased entropy. It's the def they beat into you in thermodynamics class (known formally as Physical Chemistry, a rite of passage that makes you think you can survive anything).

So, let's get back to it. I'm really curious as to whether or not there is tropospheric heating. If not, how do you reconcile that with the assertion that any warming has to be accompanied by such heating?

bobdroege7

4th March 2008, 10:54 PM

Yeah, pretty friggin stoopid can I be. Please accept my apologies for the taunts and idiocy displayed. As you can tell, I'm a very emotional person and I can do myself a lot of damage before I regain what little intelligence I have.

You're assuming tobacco. (Nah, I don't do drugs but sometimes I think I should.)

No, I was trying to determine what, if any, effect the high pressure on Venus would have on the surface temp. My RNF (random neural firings) alit on the Ideal Gas Law and I was off and running. I was tired, is all I can say in my defense. Dumb, dumb, dumb. And sorry.

Be well. :blush:

Thanks, apologies accepted.

mhaze

5th March 2008, 06:18 AM

So, let's get back to it. I'm really curious as to whether or not there is tropospheric heating. If not, how do you reconcile that with the assertion that any warming has to be accompanied by such heating?

Revise the hypothesis?

Not a direction to make the climatoza happy...

Round Robin

5th March 2008, 06:42 AM

My RNF (random neural firings) alit on the Ideal Gas Law and I was off and running.

I need to remember that turn of phrase the next time I passionately argue forth, then realize I made a mistake. I hope I'll have the courage to do so though and admit my mistake and apologize, as you have. Your integrity and honesty is appreciated.

If history is any judge, though, I'll have an opportunity to test my courage very soon. :)

Alric

5th March 2008, 07:42 AM

So, let's get back to it. I'm really curious as to whether or not there is tropospheric heating. If not, how do you reconcile that with the assertion that any warming has to be accompanied by such heating?

So there you go. Find data of troposphere temperature measurements why is it important. The important thing is to make sure is not yet another contrarian straw man.

mhaze

5th March 2008, 09:04 AM

So there you go. Find data of troposphere temperature measurements why is it important. The important thing is to make sure is not yet another contrarian straw man.

IPCC Chapter 9. Already posted. Isn't it obvious why it is important?

This is called actually going looking for the greenhouse effect.

TrueSceptic

5th March 2008, 01:31 PM

IPCC Chapter 9. Already posted. Isn't it obvious why it is important?

This is called actually going looking for the greenhouse effect.
So what is your view of the greenhouse effect?

mhaze

5th March 2008, 01:53 PM

So what is your view of the greenhouse effect?

You mean my view of the greenhouse effect, which is defined as requiring a mid level atmospheric temperatures hotter than surface temperatures?

BobK

5th March 2008, 02:29 PM

Megalodon

5th March 2008, 02:43 PM

Yes, the Science & Environmental Policy Project... While you're at it, check their work on second-hand smoke, and on the ozone layer...

There's no losing horse that Singer won't back, it seems...

mhaze

5th March 2008, 02:48 PM

Since it appears no one has posted a link to it yet, some of the more open-minded people here might be interested in reading this pdf. (http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf) Entitled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.

Starting on page 5, they discuss going out and looking for the actual presence or lack of of the greenhouse effect.

BobK

5th March 2008, 03:53 PM

Yes, the Science & Environmental Policy Project... While you're at it, check their work on second-hand smoke, and on the ozone layer...

There's no losing horse that Singer won't back, it seems...

From the tone of your post I take it you don't intend to bother reading it. How open-minded of you. Evidently you feel the perspective of other educated people cannot possibly inhance your knowledge of the subject or change your perspective in any manner. Hey. It's your brain, fill it with whatever you want.

When I'm interested in a subject I find that getting the perspective of others educated in the subject to be better than thinking I know all there is worth knowing about subject. It may lead to a re-evaluation of my perspective, or it may not.

a_unique_person

5th March 2008, 04:01 PM

Yes, the Science & Environmental Policy Project... While you're at it, check their work on second-hand smoke, and on the ozone layer...

There's no losing horse that Singer won't back, it seems...

They might be losing, he still gets paid. I don't make accusations of people doing it for funding often, but for Singer I'll make an exception.

Megalodon

5th March 2008, 04:11 PM

From the tone of your post I take it you don't intend to bother reading it. How open-minded of you. Evidently you feel the perspective of other educated people cannot possibly inhance your knowledge of the subject or change your perspective in any manner. Hey. It's your brain, fill it with whatever you want.

From the tone of your post I take it you suck at guessing. I've seen the document, and it didn't take me that long either... most of the graphs and arguments have been posted and debunked here before.

They mix and match disciplines, cherrypick data and, when nothing else works, lie. All, I admit under language that makes them look very scientific to the layperson.

When I'm interested in a subject I find that getting the perspective of others educated in the subject to be better than thinking I know all there is worth knowing about subject. It may lead to a re-evaluation of my perspective, or it may not.

The document is a pile of garbage. Deal with it. Only the preface is so full of bare-faced lies that it's hard to not close the pdf there... It's a hit-piece, made with the sole purpose of casting a doubt on the work of scientists around the world.

You call the SEPP a different perspective, but they are also a different perspective on the CFC-ozone, secondhand smoking-cancer and air pollution-acid rain "debates". Always backing corporate interests against mainstream science...

Megalodon

5th March 2008, 04:13 PM

They might be losing, he still gets paid. I don't make accusations of people doing it for funding often, but for Singer I'll make an exception.

You could say there's a definite trend, wouldn't you?

Of course, the SEPP would publish a report "showing" how the trend doesn't really exist, and if it existed it would be caused by something else...

TrueSceptic

5th March 2008, 05:03 PM

From the tone of your post I take it you don't intend to bother reading it. How open-minded of you. Evidently you feel the perspective of other educated people cannot possibly inhance your knowledge of the subject or change your perspective in any manner. Hey. It's your brain, fill it with whatever you want.

When I'm interested in a subject I find that getting the perspective of others educated in the subject to be better than thinking I know all there is worth knowing about subject. It may lead to a re-evaluation of my perspective, or it may not.
Ideally we would all have the ability to read everything about everything on a continuing basis and continually reassess our views from first principles.

In practice, we do not. We quickly learn what is worth our time and what is not. We learn that, no matter how often we examine the goods being displayed by certain merchants, they are always shoddy and unconvincing fakes. After several visits, we stop wasting our limited time and go elsewhere.

David Rodale

5th March 2008, 05:19 PM

From the tone of your post I take it you suck at guessing. I've seen the document, and it didn't take me that long either... most of the graphs and arguments have been posted and debunked here before.

They mix and match disciplines, cherrypick data and, when nothing else works, lie. All, I admit under language that makes them look very scientific to the layperson.

The document is a pile of garbage. Deal with it. Only the preface is so full of bare-faced lies that it's hard to not close the pdf there... It's a hit-piece, made with the sole purpose of casting a doubt on the work of scientists around the world.

You call the SEPP a different perspective, but they are also a different perspective on the CFC-ozone, secondhand smoking-cancer and air pollution-acid rain "debates". Always backing corporate interests against mainstream science...

I take it Megalodon you don't keep tabs on what's been discovered concerning atmospheric ozone? Apparently not :)

What's going to be the next world catastrophe after global warming fades away?