Sleep well!

It’s been a pleasure, we’ll do it again sometime.

Oooh, brother. You don’t know what “radiative forcing” means do you? It isn’t something that can be “discredited”.

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Yes, I know what forcing means Dave. It’s a bunch of silly mumbo-jumbo that defies the laws of physics. It basically states that somehow CO2 when it heats, can as a result of that heat, heat some more, in some kind of silly servo loop.

The proposition is nuts. CO2 is one of the most studied gases in all history and has no such property. In fact, if such a property did indeed existed would be the answer to all our energy problems. Because it basically says that somehow CO2 can start gaining energy of itself. Just nuts!

There is only so much sunlight. Just goofy.

Here’s what independent scientist Gary Novak has to say about it.

Where?

This should be fun… like I said, you have this whole hypothetical conversation in your head, and you desperately try to mold the REAL conversation into something that resembles it.

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM

Where you ask? What was all that CO2 causes 25% of warming all about? Or do you deny you said that? See below.

25% of the atmospheric greenhouse effect

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 2:00 AM

The whole idea of “forcing” has been discredited Dave, would you like the references?

Oooh, brother. You don’t know what “radiative forcing” means do you? It isn’t something that can be “discredited”.

That’s true, you didn’t but you’ve implied it.

Where?

This should be fun… like I said, you have this whole hypothetical conversation in your head, and you desperately try to mold the REAL conversation into something that resembles it.

the chart you linked to shows the spectral absorption bands

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Yes Dave… ABSORPTION is what it’s all about. Heat is nothing more that excited atoms or molecules, by excited, it simply means they move faster. They vibrate. Heat is nothing more than vibration.

Some molecules because of their size and configuration are able to absorb more energy than others from sunlight. CO2 is very lacking in this capacity, in fact it cannot absorb incoming sunlight, it has to wait until the sunlight is refracted from some object, and only then is it able to absorb some of the low level IR range.

O2 and H2O on the other hand can actually absorb energy directly from incoming sunlight which is much higher energy. Those molecules get much hotter much faster and are much more abundant. O2 and H2O are ALSO able to absorb the refracted light over a wider spectrum than CO2.

CO2 can’t hold a candle to heat/energy absorption to either O2 or H2O and as a matter of fact, I believe even nitrogen is able to absorb more energy on a per atom to molecule basis than CO2.

But even if a nitrogen atom was only able to absorb 1/50th of the amount CO2 can absorb, Nitrogen at 70-some percent of the atmosphere is still a much bigger player in atmospheric warming than CO2.

Because various negative forcings overpower the positive forcing from the CO2. How is that not obvious?

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM

The whole idea of “forcing” has been discredited Dave, would you like the references?

I never said CO2 “drives climate”.

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 8:55 PM

That’s true, you didn’t but you’ve implied it.

Your statement could have correctly read: “…you might want to look at this chart that clearly shows that there is more energy striking the earth in the O2 absorption range than in the CO2 absorption range. And of course the O2 molecules are about 500 times more prevalent in the atmosphere,” but it would still be irrelevant.

But of course CO2 has continued to increase since 1998 while the world has cooled significantly. If CO2 is this driver for warming then explain how that can be.

Because various negative forcings overpower the positive forcing from the CO2. How is that not obvious?

You know, it’s hotter in the summer so you would naturally assume if CO2 drives climate that CO2 would be higher in the summer. But is that true?

Nobody said that CO2 drove SEASONS. That’s stupid. And again, you’re putting words in my mouth (what’s with that need of yours to do that?)… I never said CO2 “drives climate”.

The chart doesn’t show that at all, but that’s beside the point. We aren’t dramatically increasing the amount of O2 in the atmosphere.

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM

The chart shows exactly that, in living color. And the chart you just linked to shows basically the same thing but in a different format.

But of course CO2 has continued to increase since 1998 while the world has cooled significantly. If CO2 is this driver for warming then explain how that can be.

And answer another question for me if you can. Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere during winter seasons or during the summer? Do you know the answer and why? I do.

You know, it’s hotter in the summer so you would naturally assume if CO2 drives climate that CO2 would be higher in the summer. But is that true?

…if you want to believe that CO2 can somehow be responsible for about 25% of total atmospheric warmth…

LOL… I never said that. You’re quite a piece of work.

…even though its only 380 parts out of 1,000,000 (one-million)…

That is actually irrelevant. The mere fact that it sounds tiny to someone who doesn’t understand what they are talking about doesn’t mean that it has a tiny influence. How much ppm ricin do you need in your bloodstream to kill you, do you think? Your “argument” is an uninformed, fallacious, load of 8th-grade crap. You should be embarrassed at how abhorrently stupid that made you sound.

…you might want to look at this chart that clearly shows that a single O2 molecule absorbs more heat energy than a CO2 molecule. And of course the O2 molecules are about 500 times more prevalent in the atmosphere.

The chart doesn’t show that at all, but that’s beside the point. We aren’t dramatically increasing the amount of O2 in the atmosphere.

The same chart shows that water vapor absorbs much more energy from sunlight than CO2 and it is also much more prevalent in the atmosphere.

Again, it doesn’t matter, but it does NOT show that. THIS CHART shows that, though.

OK fine, if you want to believe that CO2 can somehow be responsible for about 25% of total atmospheric warmth, even though its only 380 parts out of 1,000,000 (one-million), then you can believe that. Who am I to protest?

But you might want to look at this chart that clearly shows that a single O2 molecule absorbs more heat energy than a CO2 molecule. And of course the O2 molecules are about 500 times more prevalent in the atmosphere.

The same chart shows that water vapor absorbs much more energy from sunlight than CO2 and it is also much more prevalent in the atmosphere.

So believe what you want Dave, it’s your choice.

Such an explanation for how the earth cools is laughable…

There you go again… nobody said anything about “how the earth cools”. What I described, though, is VERY elementary thermal dynamics.

The sun sends us it’s heat and light via photons which are the full spectrum of white light and very high energy compared to earth’s infrared signature, thus infrared is not able to move heat away from the earth at anywhere near the rate the sun sends it to us.

It has very little to do specifically with heat or “infrared”. Heat is simply a manifestation of energy being moved around… the sun’s energy reaches us in the form of elecromagnetic radiation (which covers a broad spectrum, of which infrared is only a part), and a large amount of that radiation is reflected back into space (here is a photo for your viewing pleasure).

The energy that does NOT reflect back into space goes into all of the things you mentioned.

Your problem is that you have convinced yourself that all of the things you listed after “Clearly, food…”–which are mostly true–somehow render greenhouse irrelevant. It’s like you aren’t able to chew gum and walk at the same time with this stuff…

If energy is coming and leaving in “equilibrium”, there is no net gain of heat and the temperature remains stable

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 6:35 PM

See, this is Al Gore claptrap. Al wants you to believe the earth cools via infrared radiation into space.

Such an explanation for how the earth cools is laughable, the statement is far beyond ridiculous and is clearly propaganda tailored to serve the exclusive interests of “Global Warming” advocates.

How ridiculous is it? Well.. if the earth’s only means of cooling was via infrared radiation into space, the earth would have incinerated long ago. The sun sends it’s full spectrum, high energy, white light to earth at a far greater rate than the earth’s low level infrared radiation signature could ever dissipate it.

Imagine trying to save a ship from sinking that was taking on water at the rate of a thousand gallons per minute by using a pump that was only capable of pumping one gallons per minute. That ship is going to sink, because the water is coming in at a much faster rate than the pump can move it overboard.

Just as the ship would sink, the earth would overheat, because the earth’s infrared radiation has nowhere near the heat transfer capacity required to equal the rate of heat being sent to earth by the sun.

The sun sends us it’s heat and light via photons which are the full spectrum of white light and very high energy compared to earth’s infrared signature, thus infrared is not able to move heat away from the earth at anywhere near the rate the sun sends it to us.

Of course some negligible amount of heat is lost back into space due to infrared radiation. To get an idea of how much consider the three modes of heat transfer, thermal radiation is by far the LEAST efficient. The three modes of heat transfer are:

1) Conduction : Heat transfer through a solid.
2) Convection : Heat transfer through a liquid or gas.
3) Thermal Radiation : Heat transfer via electromagnetic (infrared) waves (photons).

While Conduction and Convection are efficient means of heat transfer, neither mode can transfer any heat into space because space is a vacuum. A vacuum is the perfect insulator because there is no solid, liquid or gas in a vacuum to allow heat transfer via conduction or convection. Therefore, thermal radiation is the only means by which the earth can lose heat into space.

So why can’t the earth radiate heat away from itself as quickly as the sun send it to us ? The simple answer is because the earth is not as hot as the sun. In other words, in order for the earth to be as efficient as the sun at transferring heat via thermal radiation, the earth would have to be at the same temperature as the sun. The cooler the object, the less efficient it is for the purpose of thermal radiation.

And we would not want the earth’s heat to be lost into space at nearly the same rate it is received, the result would be a frozen world, a dead planet. It would be like trying to heat your home in the dead of winter with all the doors and windows open, your home would freeze and so would you.

The fact is, the amount of heat dissipated from the earth via infrared radiation is so small as to be insignificant, probably far less than one percent. If this was not true, and most heat energy was radiated away from a body and back into space, then we should be able to feel the sun’s heat being radiated from the moon at night, but of course we cannot. Furthermore, astronauts in space should feel nearly the same amount of heat through their shuttle windows from the earth as they do the sun. Obviously, that is not true.

So the question becomes, if the earth does not cool via infrared radiation, then how does it cool ? I’m glad you ask that question.

Clearly, food contains energy. Engines can run on pure Ethanol, which is made from corn. We eat food and thereby extract the energy that our bodies need for life. Cows eat grass that supplies their energy needs. All plant life contains energy.

While plants draw nutrients from the soil, the conversion of those nutrients is not possible without the energy from the sun which drives the process of photosynthesis. Both sunlight and heat are required for photosynthesis to occur. The heat is absorbed or “used-up” to run the process.

This is one reason why vegetation is sparse to nonexistent in arctic areas, there is plenty of sunlight, but not enough heat for photosynthesis to occur for most types of plants. And of course, plant life located in area with four seasons normally go dormant during the winter months, not enough heat to run the growing process is why. Plants having adequate heat and sunlight are able to convert that energy to another form. Trees and plants grow by using the heat and light as an energy source which fuels their growth. The absorption of heat and sunlight by plants causes much of the earth’s cooling. Plant life is responsible for a great deal of cooling, this is why a forest is cooler than the desert.

But plant life is not the primary means by which the earth cools, overwhelmingly the earth cools because of a process called EVAPORATION. Evaporation is a process by which heat energy is converted into kinetic energy…. in the form of an expanded water molecule. Heat is absorbed in the process, thus cooling occurs.

Have you ever lifted a gallon of water? It’s heavy stuff, it weighs about eight pounds per gallon. Have you ever wondered what does all the heavy lifting to bring billions of gallons of water over land each year? Well here’s a shocker… it’s the sun !

The sun heats the oceans and other bodies of water, which causes evaporation, which expands the water molecule turning liquid water into water vapor. Water vapor rises into the air and forms clouds, wind currents carry the clouds over land and when the right atmospheric conditions are met, the clouds condense and rain falls. It’s the sun’s energy that lifts all those giga-tons of water, an enormous amount of heat is required and absorbed in the process.

It takes billions of joules of energy to perform this massive evaporative process each day, and all of that energy is provided by the sun. Even the wind’s energy is a component of the sun. Uneven heating of the air causes expansions of air in some areas, thus high barometric pressures, along with lesser heated air in other areas, which forms lower barometric areas, thus the wind blows. So in reality, windmills are capturing energy that originated from the sun.

Thus energy from the sun’s heat and light are converted to other forms of energy, this energy does not leave the earth, it is “used-up” to run the earth’s natural processes.

And what about hydro-electric power, where does all of that energy come from? It’s simple, the same clouds that carried the water to irrigate you crops and lawns and provide your fresh drinking water also carried the water that flows from “upstream” through the dam’s generators which produce electricity onto power grid, which is supplying electricity to your computer right now. The original source of the power, was the sun.

This energy never leaves the earth, at some point it becomes mass, like dead vegetation that piles up to form top-soil. But the energy that comes in the form of heat is quickly transformed into some other type of energy, and the heat that was absorbed must be replaced by the sun every single day. If not, the process stops and the planet dies. The sun’s heat is not lost to space, it is used by the planet to warm it’s atmosphere, provide our fresh drinking water and produce our food along with many other earth processes.

The earth’s surface is two-thirds covered by water, the water acts as a kind of “thermostat” for the earth’s temperature. Provided the sun’s output does not dramatically increase, the earth cannot overheat. A slight increase in the sun’s output only causes evaporation to occur more quickly, and offsets the effects of more heat energy by running the natural processes at a faster rate.

So tell me Dave, if the sun’s energy just flows back into space shortly after it arrives, then what makes the trees grow? What evaporates the water to form rain clouds and bring fresh water over land? Where does all those giga-watts of energy come from that hydro-electric dams generate. Can you answer any of those questions?

OK, well as to your above statement it is completely wrong. If the ONLY atmospheric warming the earth had was “greenhouse effect warming” the earth would freeze over.

No… my statement is entirely accurate.

I think your problem is that you are confusing “warming” with an input of heat. Virtually all of the energy that gives our planet warmth comes from the Sun. Using your (incorrect) semantics, the Sun is responsible for 100% of what you are calling “warming”.

If energy is coming and leaving in “equilibrium”, there is no net gain of heat and the temperature remains stable… of course, there is no true equilibrium–things fluctuate all of the time. The hypothesized and experimentally sound problem with adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere is that it prevents more of that energy from leaving the atmosphere, which causes the temperature to slowly move upward… it would be like if you had calibrated your heater at home to run all of the time and keep a precise temperature, then started stuffing more insulation in all of the walls…. your house would warm up.

Of course, with greenhouse it’s much more complex, because there are many types of “insulation” that block different kinds of “heat”, and there is natural variation of solar output and that sort of thing.

greenhouse [effect] is the main mechanism by which the atmosphere remains warm and livable for us.

DaveS on June 10, 2008 at 2:19 PM

OK, well as to your above statement it is completely wrong. If the ONLY atmospheric warming the earth had was “greenhouse effect warming” the earth would freeze over.

As the definition I provided clearly states, “greenhouse effect” is ONLY that component of warming that is due to infrared absorption, and that is a very small component of overall atmospheric warming.

No, they are generally not the same thing. But there is one specific scenario where they would be the same thing (that is, of course, when they are the same thing).

It’s worth noting that even the most alarmist greenhouse “advocates” aren’t asserting that the two are equivalent.

OK, then you are saying that for all practical purposes they are the same thing. Correct?

Greenhouse effect warming = overall atmospheric warming

Is the above statement correct or not correct?

If the greenhouse effect is responsible for all observed warming, then yes. If not, then no.

Again, that’s sort of the question.

But in general, no… The two aren’t necessarily the same. I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

You are dancing Dave, let me make it easy for you.

Greenhouse effect warming = overall atmospheric warming

Is the above statement correct or not correct?

Dave I cannot be silent and allow you to spout out this nonsense that CO2 is responsible for 25% of overall atmospheric warming and that is clearing what you are advocating…

First of all, I’m not “advocating” anything… to the extent that anyone here is engaging in any sort of advocacy, it would be you.

That point aside, I never said that CO2 is responsible for 25% of all warming. I said that CO2 is responsible for up to 25% of the greenhouse effect. Depending on the atmosphere’s response to CO2 increases, that could mean that CO2 increases are responsible for anywhere from 0% to 100% of observed warming.

So again, do you concur that “greenhouse effect” warming is not the same as overall atmospheric warming?

That would depend entirely on whether warming due to greenhouse is solely responsible for observed warming… which is pretty much what the debate is about, isn’t it? Your phrases–”greenhouse effect warming” and “overall atmospheric warming”–do not necessarily mean the same thing, but can mean the same thing.

It’s a bit like saying “Do you concur that my shopping list is not the same as your shopping list?”. Yes, and maybe or maybe not.

Dave I cannot be silent and allow you to spout out this nonsense that CO2 is responsible for 25% of overall atmospheric warming and that is clearing what you are advocating, just like last time, and nothing could be further from the truth.

So again, do you concur that “greenhouse effect” warming is not the same as overall atmospheric warming? Yes or no?

Really? There isn’t? Well crap, here I was just about to deny it:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

Do you really want to go down a road where just citing a newspaper article that agrees with you is considered a reasonable substitute for knowing what you’re talking about?

This is where you have misunderstood from the beginning. You truly believe that the term “Greenhouse effect” is equivalent to overall atmospheric warming, but it is not!!

That’s like saying that I think “insulation” is equivalent to “overall house warming” because I said that insulation is the main mechanism by which a house remains warm and livable.

I had forgotten about you… I’m not interested in continuing this unless you make some attempt to be reasonable. I know you already have some scripted argument in your head where somebody says something you expect, and then you regurgitate some line you heard somewhere in the past… don’t do that with me. You try to communicate intelligently and thoughtfully, or do not address me. If you’re looking for strawmen so you don’t have to think, go somewhere else.

- The Cat

Just had that discussion in the car on the way to school. There is no denying the earth is warming. We are having a hot spell, just like in winter we have cold spells. It is natural. Something ended the first ice age, and as my 10 year old says “It wasn’t cow farts!”.

ctmom on June 10, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Really? There isn’t? Well crap, here I was just about to deny it:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

So when the Vikings were farming in areas of Greenland that are presently buried under a hundred feet of ice, what provided all that extra heat so many centuries ago? Their SUVs? Hairspray? Freon? Cow farts? Or… the Sun?