Online news service promotes false climate change study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd
Interesting logic. So, by your reasoning...if I find a Christian website that makes a false claim, then the entire religion of Christianity has been proven false. Interesting. One false or inaccurate claim about, say tax cuts...and so the entire concept of tax cuts are false. I like it. It makes being ignorant much easier I suppose.
"It makes being ignorant much easier I suppose."
Here is the problem. Clearly global warming is affecting higher elevation places like the Eastern Sierra Nevada and the poles. In the Eastern Sierra Nevada, even without additional population in remote areas, low temps rarely approach average lows in winter.
On the other hand, I think the oceans sop up some of the problems so that I don't think immediate crisis will occur.
I personally like the balmy weather in Reno lately.
I do not know the person who posted this, but I think it's high headed, and heavy handed superiority complexes that would make someone to start the conversation starter (that's what the post seems to be to me) off with barely veiled insults.. . . but that's just me, you all have a great day.
The Guardian is becoming mnore worthless by the day. They are the UKs LA and NY Times. Two papers that are not worthy of using for the catbox
Can you feel the vibrations sanny? Sure to cause a rumpus. Unless everyone on HP just died
I reckon we're just cycling round (mean cycle - time periods rather than mountain biking) as per the nature of things. No expert though. Let's see what others come up with.
Yes because we all know that all of climate science is just a plot by Hitler's brain which is kept in a basement by the Rothschilds who are secretly controlling Obama through mind waves and have been trying (unsuccessfully for some strange reason) to take over the whole world since at least Woodrow Wilson's presidency, maybe even since the founding of the US (have you ever looked into the architecture and design of Washington DC? Obviously an illuminati plot).
Maybe this whole global warming thing will finally hit the jackpot for these all powerful global elites who have somehow failed so far to take over the world.
By the way Sanny, I have some tinfoil hats for sale if you need some.
Yeah, the latest "What's the problem? Man never does any damage" non-event is the BP oil spill.
To the extent and accuracy reported by climate science? Yes, I would have to agree.
It is funny how quickly we forget the people who died from such things...
It is shameful.
4000 people died in London due to one of the worst cases of air pollution
20 people died and 6000 people were ill when a bad case of temperature inversion settled over Donora PA trapping the all the pollutants in the air from the nearby steel mill, zinc smelting factories. For 10 years after that they would have a higher than normal mortality rate.
Yet we pretend that we have no effect on our environment. Sad and irresponsible really.
I thought we settled this already in the last thread? OK, second Misha challenge. Please, William, Texas, and LMC, post here your explanations of how global warming works, for a peer review.
If you can't post and defend your own model, you don't know what you are talking about, so your opinion on the matter is, err, uninformed, and therefore negligible.
I've written a series of hubs on the evidence. The model holds up very well.
Or do you have some alternative explanation? The sun maybe? Nope, sorry, we have been at a solar minimum for the past decade, while we've seen the highest temperatures ever recorded. Natural cycles? Maybe, but it's awfully strange that the physical changes we're seeing in the atmosphere mirror what we would expect from greenhouse gases. And exactly what natural cycle are we talking about? Milankovitch cycles? Not good enough to explain. Solar cycles? We've already examined that and found it to be wanting.
There is 150 years of science backing the anthropogenic global warming theory. The theory is falsifiable and evidence based.
Those of you who are so quick to dismiss: what's your alternative theory? Will it hold up to peer review? Is it a falsifiable hypothesis? Can it be tested? Or is it just wishful thinking based on no evidence?
Please William, in a few sentences - but your own. How exactly does global warming works? I promise, if you present the model that holds up to peer review, I will change my tune.
Those are my own words, as simple as I can explain it.
edit: see my profile for a whole list of articles on the evidence that the earth is warming, and it is caused by CO2.
William, I will not go there to waste my time in your comments for nobody to see. If you want to be taken seriously, post it here.
Oh, you may want first to check this thread out http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63461?p … ost1402375 , specifically the conversation between Kerry and myself, to avoid duplicate content
Sorry bud, I have things to do other than argue with someone about something that the vast majority of scientists and educated people accept, especially when I have already written about it extensively.
What's your alternative theory anyway? Is it testable? Evidence based?
I don't have to come up with alternative theory. This is you who want me to believe this tale and act accordingly, so the burden of proof is on your side. Pretty much like christians want me to believe their god exists, and I ask them to prove it. Same concept.
So, I take it you admit you don't think your model could hold up to peer review, right?
OK Misha, I'll bite: do you believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Not worth it really, if they won't accept that our actions can change the climate in the face of evidence that we can make the rain fall and what about temperature inversions over cities, entirely man made, like I say, what's the point?
It's the evil left. It is ALWAYS the evil left.
We have the climatologists in our pockets, you know. We are holding their loved ones hostage in our forced labor camps. If they refuse to help us destroy capitalism, we will breed a new race of scientist who will.
After we take over the banks, of course.
Umm, at least something to start. OK William. First I do not believe in anything. I do consider some things proven, though.
Now, to answer your question, I see that people state that. Since I do not consider proven that greenhouse gases exist at all, then no, I do not think CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just to make it clear, I consider proven that CO2 itself exists LOL
It is extremely simple to test the premise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Make a terrarium filled with nitrogen and one filled with CO2, irradiate both with visible light, and compare the temperatures.
Experiments of this nature have certainly been done. What would it take to constitute proof?
Even if you provide a record of such an experiment (which I doubt a bit), until you explain how this effect increases the global temperatures in any measurable way it won't mean anything.
Oh, and just to give you a perspective - here is what our atmosphere is composed from:
Mythbusters did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
CO2 absorbs infrared light and emits it isotropically, decreasing the total global emission rate for a given temperature and correspondingly increasing average temperatures.
Are you aware that the lights they used for this experiment emit a lot in IR range? You were talking about visible light though, did you?
I am seemingly unable to reply directly to your post.
I also didn't see your table of the atmospheric composition early. Why do you think that's relevant?
Lights emitting in the IR range will reduce the observed effects of CO2, so that doesn't support your point.
From what I remember seeing in the last thread, the major disagreement with the presented model eventually boiled down to visible light not being able to get converted into heat.
If that's the case, I can't help but wonder why darker surfaces emit heat better than lighter surfaces. Darker surfaces absorb the entire visible spectrum while lighter surfaces reflect most of the spectrum, so if absorbing this visible light does not result in heat emission why are darker surfaces better at warming up than lighter surfaces?
Personally I think that's a moot point, because in whatever way the Earth is heating up it is pretty clear that the greenhouse gases are good at trapping heat, which is the main issue in the first place.
Well, Kerry is educated enough to understand that this is not a moot point, but cornerstone of her model. You obviously did not understand this.
Do either of you actually understand what "moot point" means?
Nothing to do with this ridiculous argument, just that both of you seem to think it means the opposite of what it actually means.
Oops, I stand corrected. Ok, let it be insignificant point, how it was intended by MrPopo. Thanks for an English lesson.
Probably not. I did look it up prior to using it just for verification, but apparently it's still incorrect.
I was under the impression that it meant something of irrelevance. In my view, it doesn't really matter how the heat is being converted - be it UV, visual or infrared - because the trapping of the heat by the greenhouse gases is the main concern.
If the trapping of the heat is not the main concern, then I'll need some clarification with the global warming theory. Otherwise, I'll need some clarification with the proper use of the word "moot".
I am sure Misha knows much more about all this than anyone who studied to be a climatologist. If I were not part of the evil leftist conspiracy to destroy capitalism by imposing pollution controls on business, I'd agree with him because I like his profile picture and he makes four times the passive income I do. That plainly makes him right and the climatologists must be wrong.
As to "moot", neither meaning is applicable here. But that's unimportant.
I was referencing more in regards to the fact that spouting more gases will result in more heat being trapped and thus have an effect on climate. That has little to do with the "cornerstone" of her model (the visual spectrum issue, I'm assuming?), just a basic observation.
I'd like an explanation for the darker surfaces bit though, if you'd indulge.
Darker surfaces absorb more in all parts of the radiation spectrum, including infrared. Infrared is what is responsible for heat transfer.
I'm searching for anything supporting whether a darker surface will absorb more for all parts of the spectrum but I can't seem to find anything.
"Color has nothing whatsoever to do with an object's ability to absorb infrared energy. That is because color is a property related to visible light only. White paint, for example, appears "black" to infrared energy. That is, although it reflects most visible light (which is why you see it as white), it strongly absorbs infrared energy. In fact, most surfaces except bare polished metal, strongly absorb infrared. A significant part of the sun's energy is in the infrared region, so no matter what color your experiment was painted, it looks black to infrared energy."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/e … g99520.htm
Umm, interesting point. Somehow it does not quite correspond with what we both observe - Sun heats black objects more than white ones. And, until you boil a cup of water with a led flashlight, or at least increase its temp measurably, I will maintain that visible light does not transfer heat.
Yes, the sun does heat black objects more than white ones, but you haven't pinpointed exactly what causes that. It could be either ultraviolet, infrared or the visual spectrum, or perhaps a combination of the three. I assumed the visual spectrum had something to do with it because the colours that you're able to see are based on what they reflect/absorb from the visual spectrum. Darker objects absorb most of the visual spectrum and are able to warm up better than lighter objects that reflect most of the visual spectrum. I don't see any evidence that they absorb more of infrared or any other radiation, however.
As for the LED experiment, I'm not quite sure but it seems you're limiting the possibilities of the experiment to one conclusion when there could be several to account for the result. Perhaps there is too little power in an LED light to significantly warm up a cup of water. Maybe the heat is dissipated to the rest of the flashlight. It sounds too simplistic and you might be missing some outside variables in the experiment.
In my everyday life I don't see any evidence that visible light gets somehow converted to heat, in any noticeable quantities. Since we are coming back to this again and again, I may try to setup a better experiment than a flashlight, but this will have to wait a month or two until I can get to it.
All light, invisible and visible, have electromagnetic energy. The colors we see in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum correspond to different levels of energy. In this case blue will have the highest energy level with a gradual decrease in energy level through all the colors to red being the lowest. The next higher level after violet is ultraviolet (means beyond violet) light; this why we get sunburn when we are in the sun too long. Everything after ultraviolet light such as x-rays and gamma rays will burn and kill you if you are exposed to them long enough. Black objects absorbs all the colors, therefore it will feel warmer than white objects, it is absorbing all the energy of the different colors. White does the opposite all the color are reflected so it feels cooler since it did not absorbed any of the energy from the colors. That is why everyone should white in the summer months, it is cooler. But everything will feel warmer when it is exposed to infrared (heat) light because all molecules absorb infrared energy regardless of what color they are.
Something black is absorbing across all parts of the visible spectrum.
I know. Misha's claim is that darker objects are also able to absorb more from all parts of the radiation spectrum, including infrared.
In most cases that's probably true. If it's black it probably has a broad diversity of absorbing species, which increases the probability of having an absorption band at any given point in the UV or IR.
In that case, do lighter objects also have less probability of having an absorption band in the UV or IR range?
Just about any molecule is going to have some of both - with the exception of molecules that have no change in dipole moment when changing vibrational excited states (such as nitrogen and oxygen), which will not absorb infrared.
"Lighter" is not really the opposite of black. Something could be both dark and not black. In that case it absorbs strongly but only over a fixed wavelength range. There is not necessarily a correlation between the absorption coefficient in the visible and in other domains of the electromagnetic spectrum. If it's dark because it's highly concentrated though then it's likely to absorb significantly at it's other bands.
Many things that appear "light" like metals are in fact terrific absorbers. They appear light because they are also terrific emitters and they don't modulate the wavelength when they re-emit. Anything with a metallic band structure will generally fall into this category and will of course absorb anywhere if there is no band gap between the fermi level and the conduction band.
I haven't really been following the argument. How is this central to the global warming discussion?
Thanks for the in-depth reply! Much appreciated.
I'm still confused though; what part of the spectrum will heat up an object when it differs in colour? Will a dark jacket warm up more than a white one because it can absorb the visible spectrum better, or because it can absorb the IR radiation? Or even a combination of both?
Lol, to be honest I forget xD. The argument was from a previous discussion: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63461.
I think it had something to do with light from the visible wavelengths passing through the atmosphere, being absorbed by the earth and emitted at a lower wavelength. The roadblock is that there seems to be nothing demonstrating that visible wavelengths can be converted into infrared, though I can't see what else could happen to it.
I thought it was an interesting but irrelevant point mainly because if the gases we are emitting are trapping heat it doesn't really matter how the heat is being emitted.
You're working on your PhD in chemistry though, what would be a good explanation for the LED flashlight not able to heat up a cup of water? Or should it be able to heat it up? I'm kind of curious now.
Actually it does matter a lot. If the heat gets trapped in a form of preventing of IR radiation to pass through the atmosphere, and there is no conversion of visible light into heat by Earth, then more CO2 would mean cooler climate, because it would reflect more IR back the the Sun than back the the Earth, just because much more IR comes to atmosphere from the Sun.
What most people think of as temperature is defined by atomic or molecular motion. According to the equipartition theorem of molecular mechanics, if you put energy into a system of any sort it will redistribute that energy into all of its various degrees of freedom. Any energy input will therefore correspond to a temperature change, assuming thermal equilibrium is reached (the alternative is that re-emission of the energy will occur before equilibrium).
When a molecule absorbs visible light it goes to an excited electronic state; electrons occupy higher-energy molecular orbitals than they would otherwise. It transfers some of this energy into other modes - such as vibrations or rotations (mostly vibrations) - and when it eventually re-emits the photon emitted is at lower energy (longer wavelength) than it started and the molecule is warmer. This why we receive visible light but re-emit infrared.
There are two reasons why your LED flashlight won't efficiently heat your water. First, water is not a very good absorber in the visible - it's only very faintly blue. Second, the power output of an LED is very low. According to Wikipedia, a typical LED outputs 30-60 mW. Generously approximating this as 100 mW (or 0.1 Joules/second), one LED would heat a gram of water at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per second. If you had a cup of water at 20 C (~room temp) it would take 18.6 hours to bring it to a boil, assuming perfect absorption and no heat exchange between the water and its environment (which are, of course, terrible assumptions).
(to Misha, since I can't reply directly due to magic)
Oh, I think you're right. I might venture a guess that there are other ways of transferring energy into heat, not solely infrared radiation, but let's focus on this for now.
So these past few centuries we've been increasing CO2 concentrations and yet the climate is warmer? That doesn't sound right according to your explanation. We're putting out more CO2 - shouldn't it be cooler, assuming there is no conversion of visible light into heat?
What else could be accounting for the climate getting warmer?
Thank you so much Rabid Puma for yet another great reply.
Now that that's cleared up, what would be a better experiment to demonstrate that visible light does in fact heat up objects?
I see it, smell it, breathe it, taste it and walk in it......Nothing like experience to beat any ol study.
Next time you're behind a bus, and it takes off...take a nice big whiff. Then tell me that causes no damage to the air.
Go to the nearest oil refinery, and find a puddle near you. stick your finger in it and smell...better yet, taste...then tell me that is good for the ground.
Same goes for the smoke-stacks you see blowing that greasy smoke every day....smells real healthy, doesn't it?
Get a grip....man-made pollution causes damage to the environment. Just ask anyone who lives in a big city in the poor part of town.
Just to get it straight - nobody in their right mind denies that pollution damages the environment. It is obvious. However, causal relationship between pollution and climate fluctuations is not obvious and need to be proven - if you want to be taken seriously.
Just to get it straight,nobody in their right mind denies global warming, either.
But Right wing people still do, or they fall into the kind of nonsense you spout here.
Educate yourself. No, never mind: that would interfere with your Leftist anti business conspiracy theories, I expect.
Ayup - all of us on the left want to DESTROY CAPITALISM by pretending pollution is creating climate change. Oh, we are sneaky..
Well then, I'm out. Polluton is bad enough for me...as well as the destruction of the sacred rainforest....Greed is our downfall....is that man-made?
Starting a new subthread here for Misha because the one above is confusing my computer:
"I swear I don't put any spell on them
You said - to fill the box with CO2 - this is a bit different from 0.03%. Though mythbasters used the correct concentration, at least they say so.
And not sure I understood your last sentence, sorry."
Whether it is 0.03% or 100% is not particularly relevant if all you want to demonstrate is that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas. The answer is yes in both cases but easier to see at higher concentrations, obviously.
To clarify the last sentence of my previous post: If you had a box of nitrogen and a box of carbon dioxide and you irradiated both with infrared light, the carbon dioxide box would be cooler than the nitrogen box.
Well, it is actually a huge difference - 100/0.03= 3333 times. If you get a marginal result in 100% concentration, you are highly unlikely to see any result in 0.03% concentration, that is all what I meant.
Do you have any proof of your second statement, please? I don't have any casual experience to match it with, so have no idea if it is proven or not.
The mechanism of heating in the greenhouse effect is increasing the average time it takes for the earth to emit infrared radiation. In effect, CO2 reflects a portion of the light back to earth. In the case where the impinging light is infrared the same thing occurs, except here some of the incident light is reflected back out rather than held in.
Umm, that sorta sounds confusing, especially considering your previous post where you claimed the effect to be isotropic. Could you elaborate on your model a bit more so I can understand.
It is isotropic, hence only a percentage is reflected.
The earth converts impinging light to infrared and radiates it towards space. Greenhouse gases absorb that light and re-emit isotropically. Since all of it was trying to leave before and after re-emission the direction has been scrambled the effect is akin to that of partial reflection.
Likewise, light coming in being absorbed and re-emitted results in some of the light being ejected immediately.
Kerry did not show the mechanism of converting visible light into infrared, you did not show either. It is a cornerstone of this model, there fore it is not proven.
On a side note, this is the third model you presented on two pages of this thread. Should I take it you don't have one, and just are trying to invent it as you go?
Please make up your mind which one exactly you prefer. And no, when you reflect more visible in one direction and more IR in another, it is not isotropic, it is anisotropic.
I'm not sure where you think I'm being inconsistent.
There is no reflection in the visible; CO2 has no absorption there. It's emitting IR in all directions, but the INITIAL light is not isotropic, so the conversion from anisotropic to isotropic is an effective partial reflection.
The mechanism of conversion from visible to IR is a little hard without figures.
Paraphrasing myself from elsewhere:
Visible light interacts with matter by promotion of electrons. Electrons are intimately related to the bonding of a group of atoms. Changing the energy level of an electron, therefore, weakens (usually) the bonding interaction and makes the preferred distance between atoms larger.
When an electron is promoted the molecule doesn't have time to react, and it finds its atoms in unfavorable positions in the electronic excited state. As a result the molecule is also in a vibrational excited state (the Franck-Condon principle).
The molecule "relaxes," getting rid of extra vibrational energy by collisions with other molecules or distributing it into rotational and translational modes. Eventually it re-emits a photon but it has lost a lot of energy due to its relaxation. It also relaxes to an excited vibrational state in the ground electronic state. The net result is a significant red shift, or decrease in energy (increase in wavelength), typically this emission is shifted all the way to the infrared.
That part we need to set up an experiment. Here is the plan:
1. Obtain infrared and visible optical filters, preferably rectangular.
2. Set up three booths equipped by thermometers, capable of holding filters and soil/water samples while providing ample natural ventilation.
3. On a sunny day, set all three booths facing sun (two equipped with filters and one without any filter) with a portion of soil/water placed behind the filters and read the temp measurements after half an hour.
4. After measurement, shift the filters between booths and replace a sample with a fresh one, form a shady area. After half an hour measure again.
5. Repeat step 4.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 on a different day
7. Repeat step 6.
This should give us 27 measurements that are likely to produce repeatable results, when averaged.
Any ideas and suggestions on the plan are welcome.
Why not just use one of the lamps like the ones in that Mythbuster video with those optical filters? They do release both IR and normal light.
Start them all off at room temperature, set up the booths with those filters and shine the light on them.
Well, this is also an option, but sunlight does not cost anything, and such lamps cost a fortune. Besides, sunlight is what we are talking about, right?
Outside temperatures fluctuate though so I don't think there's much of a control source.
I did, actually. You just chose to argue that visible light absorbed by the surface somehow does not get re-emitted after being absorbed. Exactly what you think happens to it instead is not entirely clear.
John Tyndall discovered exactly this effect back in 1859, so the proof exists. I've got a Hub telling the tale of Tyndall's life and work, including a diagram of his experimental apparatus.
Since then, satellite observations confirm that the long-predicted radiative greenhouse effects in the atmosphere are in fact occurring. (Links on request.)
"World sizzles to record for the
year" ... "The world is hotter than ever. March, April, May and June set records, making 2010 the warmest year worldwide since record-keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration says."
Global warming is a fact. The atmospheric temperature is actually rising gradually due to the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average global temperature has increased by about a couple degrees centigrade as determined by historical meteorological records. There is a monitoring station located on one of the peaks in the Hawaii Islands that measures the daily level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Currently the carbon dioxide level in the global atmosphere is around 300 ppm and is steadily rising as determined by this station. It was around 50 ppm about 50 years ago when it was first setup. Carbon dioxide is a very good absorber of infrared (heat) energy. This is why there is an increase in global atmospheric temperature. Venus is a good example of what happen when too much carbon dioxide is trapped in the atmosphere. Over time the carbon dioxide level will probably be reset to a more suitable level through the natural carbon cycle. We have to wait to see if that happens in the future.
OK, so your model is direct heating by the Sun, right?
Well you've got to admit it's a more plausible model than indirect heating by hot air expelled by deniers.
Yes, it is direct heating from the sun that reaches the earth and reflected back into space. But when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere some of that reflected heat is trapped along with the man-made heat. This is the problem, there is a lot more heat from made-made sources now.
Do you know how much energy comes from Sun, and how much energy mankind produces? Also, the range of long-time variations of Sun energy?
I think we are better off returning to direct heating model, that does present some interesting challenges.
here's something interesting:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A … mp;h=df601
Our climate in the Deep South is def changing. Our cold weather is coming earlier than it used to. Whether that's caused by man, is part of a natural cycle, or some of both, I don't know.
"In my everyday life I don't see any evidence that visible light gets somehow converted to heat. . ."
Really? You've never felt the Sun's light as warmth upon your face? Never been in an actual physical greenhouse on a sunny day? Left some plastic gizmo you shouldn't have on your car seat on a sunny day and had it soften and deform from the heat?
Sure you have.
But all of those things are precisely the Sunlight--the great majority of which is in the visible spectrum--being converted to heat by the interaction with the molecules of your face, the plants and walkways, or the plastic gizmo on your car seat.
In the case of the planetary greenhouse effect, what happens is that the energy from that heat is reradiated as infrared radiation (sometimes called "thermal radiation" for this reason.)
Because greenhouse gases--water, CO2, methane and so on--interact very efficiently with IR, they absorb it, and are heated by it in turn. They collide with the much more numerous oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, heating them. All these molecules can then reradiate in those same IR frequencies, and they do so, with the radiation headed in all directions. ("Isotropically.")
The net effect of all this is that the rate of radiation to space slows; energy accumulates, warming the surface and atmosphere. If the GHGs aren't increasing, a new equilibrium temperature will be reached as outgoing radiation increases to balance the slower transmission.
There are other ways to think about this, too, but I believe that's a fair formulation.
Honestly this is a pointless conversation. It is very insane to think that someone who calls themselves educated would have to be convinced of a simple determination made years ago by many different people, before climate change every became a big hoopla.
1896 Swedish Scientist published a paper on burning fossil fuels adds increase to temperature.
1930 See work of G. S. Callendar
Studies in 1950 on weather, using Cold War funding, agreed and was verified later in 1960 with measurement of gases that showed they were indeed rising.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas as in it effects the weather. Period.
What should be done about is still up for debate.
Yes things exist in the natural environment outside of us and yes we can effect them. CO2 has fluctuated over the last 650,000 years but has been way above levels and has not seen a drop to normal fluctuation levels in quite some time.
You cannot make such simple statements as we feel warmth from infrared radiation. While that is one component it is not the whole truth which makes me wonder we you learned this one aspect of the process without the rest....How can you understand infrared radiation without greenhouse gases??
But here is some info for you
"Infrared radiation beaming up from the surface is intercepted by "greenhouse" gas molecules in the lower atmosphere, and that keeps the lower atmosphere and the surface warm. The radiation that finally escapes is mostly emitted from higher levels of the atmosphere, levels that are indeed well below freezing
The nitrogen and oxygen gases that make up most of the atmosphere don't intercept infrared radiation. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was observed to be rising rapidly, and the only reasonable explanation was that this was due to the enormous emissions from human activities." Spencer Weart historian, physicist, astrophysicist.
Natural cycles of solar activity? How is that most likely, Misha?
And are you suggesting that despite rising CO2 levels the climate is getting warmer? How much warmer should it be if CO2 levels were at normal levels?
This is not me who says CO2 plays a major role in warming/cooling. Ask them, please
Well, you yourself stated that more CO2 would mean a cooler climate, so that would be where I got the idea.
"If the heat gets trapped in a form of preventing of IR radiation to pass through the atmosphere, and there is no conversion of visible light into heat by Earth, then more CO2 would mean cooler climate, because it would reflect more IR back the the Sun than back the the Earth, just because much more IR comes to atmosphere from the Sun"
What about my first question? I am really curious to know how you can determine the probability that global warming is either man-made or a natural cycle. I think you can, but I think the probability is higher for a man-made scenario, given all of the evidence.
If you could compare the current effects to previous stages of this cycle cycles and find enough of a comparison then it might strengthen your point.
Do you see "if" there, at the beginning. This is the operative word
As for the first question - not sure I see what is to be answered there? You asked what could be the culprit, and I said I think most likely it is natural cycles. How is that most likely? Cause I think so, without any determination. I do not know for sure, and I am content with not knowing it, there are millions of things I do not know.
Remember, it is you who is trying to convince me that god exists, so I make certain corrections to my lifestyle because of it - so this is your job to prove the grounds for your demands. I do not demand anything from you.
Sorry, I assumed that we had agreed that heat does get trapped by gases like CO2, and that the only issue left was the conversion of visible light into heat. So you disagree - heat does not get trapped by CO2? That Mythbusters experiment shows otherwise. All that's left is the conversion of visible light into heat, and for me lasers do a pretty good job of that.
There must be some reason for that inclination. I could just as easily say I think fairies did it, but I don't have much reason for saying so. Purely thinking on probabilities though, it makes more sense to assume that the recent climate changes can be attributed to man. This video makes a few intriguing points, so if you have the time I suggest watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1A … re=channel
I am not trying to convince or demand you of anything, I am merely attempting to dissect at this theory and come up with a basic understanding. Besides, the grounds have been proven sufficiently, have they not? The only kink in the armor (based on the previous thread's discussion) was the visible light conversion into heat, but lasers have put that to rest and most likely a better version of your flashlight experiment can produce a similar result. What more do you disagree with?
Well, MB experiment was quite poorly designed, and shows only that ice figure placed into the atmosphere with some arbitrary concentration of CO2 gets heated by stage lamps faster than in two other arbitrary gas mixtures. I did not argue against it cause I don't want to steer off topic and waste my time and effort.
Lasers on the other hand is something to think about as I already admitted, though I am not ready to comment on it yet, I need some time to think and research.
I do doubt very much that grounds have been conclusively proven, for a mere fact that there is not enough reliable temperature data to draw any conclusion if this temp rise is something extraordinary in Earth history or not. The abundance of models offered just in this thread does not come across as a settled agreed upon theory either. But I am curious to about it, too - hence me posting here.
Having been through this conversation with Misha myself recently, also bear in mind that the greenhouse effect does not depend on visible light directly causing warming, it depends on infrared being emitted by the surface of the Earth and reflected back towards the surface by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
ANY electromagnetic radiation of ANY wavelength that is absorbed by the Earth's surface would be re-emitted (primarily) as infrared because the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation depends on the temperature of the object that emits it, not on the wavelength the radiation was initially absorbed as.
At this point, physics is on my side, Misha. You agree that the earth's surface absorbs varying amounts of visible light, but offer no explanation for what it does with it. An object cannot just continually absorb energy and remain at thermal equilibrium. That defies the laws of physics. Either it must get warmer, which you claim is impossible, or it must use or re-emit the energy in some way.
If it re-emits the energy, Earth's ambient temperature ensures that the majority will be emitted at infrared wavelengths. The wavelength the energy was initially absorbed as has no effect on the wavelength it is re-emitted as.
If the absorbed energy gets used in a chemical reaction of some sort, it is still likely to get released as heat at some point. Photosynthesis uses the energy of visible light to produce ATP, which releases the stored energy as heat when it is metabolized.
Any way you look at this, you lose.
Nah Kerry, empty rhetoric. You are putting many "science" words there that just muddy the waters instead of clearing it.
Remember, this is you who want me to believe into your god, not vice versa, so I don't have to prove anything, all the burden is on your side. And so far I did not see a conclusive evidence.
Though I am ready to make a step towards you and perform the experiment I mentioned a few posts above. If set up properly, it should be able to answer the question. Do you have anything to say about this experiment plan?
I don't have filters to test your claim for myself. If I did, I would, but meanwhile I've made a couple inquiries to see if your claims about the results are true, and what flaws you might have in your experiment's set up. I haven't received a reply yet, but if I do, I'll get back to you.
"Remember, this is you who want me to believe into your god, not vice versa, so I don't have to prove anything, all the burden is on your side. And so far I did not see a conclusive evidence."
You say it's not conclusive but offer no refutation of anything I've said, so I'm sorry if I see no reason to change my opinion. I respect you, Misha, but not enough to blindly believe anything you say! I've Googled and Yahooed and dredged up my dusty physics textbooks and even bugged my brother-in-law, so if we're going to do this again, I expect a little more effort put into your side of the debate than "No, that's not conclusive."
Yeah that was my initial assumption from what little I knew, but I wanted to see where this conversation would lead.
Apparently either global warming is true or the fundamental laws of physics are being broken...
At last an interesting and informative thread !
I must say from just arriving on the scene - part of the whole problem is that the whole thing is complex. Misha needing a proveable experiment for light heating the atmosphere is exactly the way to go I would say. When that experiment can be described and reproduced this thread at least has something real to consider instead of the over-exagerration of promotion and the under-exagerration of the oil lobby.
When the atmosphere heating issue is put to bed - I always thought the increased carbon dioxide (which is not in dispute I think) caused heating of the earth surface by all the various heat in the light spectrum from the sun that reaches us in a straight line (90 degrees angle) reflecting back at shallower angles that are then reflected back down again and so preventing it escaping from the atmosphere - as a greenhouse works, hence the name of the effect ?
"Now that that's cleared up, what would be a better experiment to demonstrate that visible light does in fact heat up objects?"
A laser is the easiest and most convincing example. Lasers are monochromatic, so they are not emitting any infrared (unless it's an IR laser, of course). High-power lasers are routinely used for cutting and welding. Here's a you-tube video of a green laser burning paper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te7rS3-4 … re=related
Absolutely, that's the first thing that came to mind.
I saw a few Youtube videos as well but I became discouraged to find that the specific model I saw also emitted IR radiation and that most similar models emitted far more IR radiation than they claimed, and did not use an IR filter. I think I gave up too quickly.
Now that we have some solid evidence for the power of light in the visual spectrum, I don't think we have any issues with the model and have safely put to rest any doubts.
Thanks for all your input Puma, I think it'll help clear a lot of things up.
Now that is something to ponder about and make some research.
OK, this was easy. There are three types of lasers used for cutting and welding - CO2, Nd, and Nd:YAG. All three are IR lasers.
Next version, please
Those lasers are often used because of their high efficiencies (also the absorption efficiency of the target at a given wavelength is important), but you can use visible lasers also. The youtube video in the post you quoted shows a visible laser inducing burning.
Source, please. And no, youtube is not the reliable source. You do not know what laser was used in this video, likely it was frequency doubled Nd:YAG without IR filter, based on its green harmonic. You can educate yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_harmonic_generation , pay attention to "other uses" section.
If it's a frequency-doubled Nd:YAG the first harmonic is not going to be very important regardless of whether there's an IR filter; much of the point of going to the second harmonic is increasing power density. Search "Polyethylene welding by pulsed visible laser irradiation" and you'll get a recent paper that uses visible light for polymer welding.
The wattage of the laser is directly proportional to the temperature change regardless of the wavelength of light (assuming identical absorption coefficients at each wavelength).
Cool, this looks much more legible - and promising. So, after much searching we finally found one isolated case, at least. Though, before we can move any further, we need to establish that absorption and emission properties of polyethylene are materially similar to soil and ocean water.
Since Global Warming is caused by human activity,
and there is a significant number of people and governments world wide that want those activities stopped,
and the cessation of those activities by that significant proportion would have a profound impact on the human causes of Global Warming,
Than all of those insistent on solving Global Warming should immediately stop what ever activity they, personally are doing that contributes to Global Warming.
What would those things be? Driving, heating their homes, cooking their food, using their computer, drinking coffee(unless you have a coffee bush in your back yards,) and most significant of all - reduce both CO2 and water vapor by holding their breath.
It is not a solution to Global Warming these people want it is control over everyone's actions. Their numbers are significant enough that if they stopped breeding, eating, driving, defecating, breathing there would be a reversal of Global Warming.
My recommendation is that all those who sincerely think that Global Warming is occurring and is caused by human activity immediately stop all human activity thus solving the problem.
Can we spare the most attractive women though? Just a few, please?
Misha, the most cruel cut of all is they are called "hot" for a reason. They tend to increase the out put of water vapor and CO2 among panting men. Sorry, chilly, vile, ice queens like Nicole Kidman are as close as you will get to a really hot woman. Good bye Raquel Welch - probably the actual cause of Global Warming since she has been hot for over 40 years.
I think people who believe in Climate Change are realistic to the dependency on our world as it is built. It is absolutely asinine to imply that just because we believe in our responsibility in things and we believe in change that we should cease everything we do. What we should do is work together for a better way to do things and take steps on our own.
I understand that change is difficult but why would you ever want to continue a behavior that could have such bad repercussions??
Please read about " Tragedy of the Commons" this is what you sound like:
"Let us continue doing things they way we are doing things because "I" think it is easier for "me" even if it means bad things for others or the world we know."
Why not " what little steps can we all take to do better, be better, and make a better world for ourselves, others, and our children"?
We can start by simply insisting our country go further in advancing clean technology etc for a start.
With mass deforestation of this planet over the last century, combined with vast population growth, and pollution being pumped into the atmosphere by all of the industrial and automotive machines, how could our climate not get increasingly warmer.
The ice man thawed out in the Alps after being frozen hard as a carp for over 5,000 years. This may be more than merely a trend.
Randy, you are as arrogant as the last religionist We are not THAT important, ya know
Not to mention the pollution caused by cow gas. Do you feed your herd Gas-X?? lol
Misha, have you never heard of Occam's razor?
You seem to think that the sun is causing global warming. In response to mrpopo's question "What else could be accounting for the climate getting warmer?" you say: "Most likely natural cycles of solar activity."
Then later when asked how you know you say: "You asked what could be the culprit, and I said I think most likely it is natural cycles. How is that most likely? Cause I think so, without any determination. I do not know for sure, and I am content with not knowing it, there are millions of things I do not know."
So. You are saying that you think, based on no particular evidence, that 150 years of scientific work is not good enough, that all those scientists are wrong because you... just don't believe them.
This is why I'm not trying to convince you, because you obviously have your mind made up.
Sure, it could be natural cycles that we don't understand or don't know about - but believe me, scientists have been studying this for a long time and looking for alternatives to the greenhouse model.
CO2 has increased in the atmosphere due to human activity.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The earth is getting warmer.
Many converging streams of evidence indicate that it is CO2 causing the observed increase in temperature.
Many converging streams of evidence show that the warming is not caused by the sun.
How can you say, your 150 years of evidence is not enough to convince me, I believe it's caused by something that I have absolutely no evidence for?
Where is your model William? You don't have one, right?
Where is yours? I've already pointed you to some resources.
Ah, so you don;t have one. That means that you have no idea what you are talking about, and just parroting whatever you heard/read somewhere. So much for informed opinion. At least I know from now on how to grade your opinions.
People who can not see that global warming is taking place are ignorant.
As this thread has sunk to the level of religious style name calling - can I borrow Misha (whose opinion I value) to comment on the Katrina thread ?
Perhaps it would be easier if we start from the other direction.
Do you disagree with either of the following fundamental laws of physics?
Energy is conserved.
Light transmits energy.
Umm, so you recognized you likely won't get anywhere with lasers, right?
OK, answering the question: I would not call the second statement a fundamental law, but I certainly agree to these statements. Now what?
Since you accept both of those statements, anything that absorbs a photon must increase in energy.
One of three things must happen at this point:
1)The absorber may re-emit the photon
2)The absorber may redistribute the energy (heat up, per the equipartition theorem)
3)The absorber may decompose
Any colored object falls into the second category. Any light emitted is at longer wavelength than was absorbed (otherwise the object would be white).
Do you agree?
I have several questions to ask, before I jump to any conclusion.
Yes, here we are on the same page.
Why only three? Just from the top of my head I can recall photosynthesis and photo-electric effect, may be other forms of energy my feverish mind does not recall at the moment (I am well above 100F now), and may be some forms of energy we do not know about yet. I don't see any need to restrict the choices here.
OK, surely it can, under some circumstances, what would be called reflection on the macro level I guess.
Here I need your help. Not all people around are making their PHD, some did not complete it and most even never started. For us mortals to understand I would ask you to kindly elaborate on the following points, preferably in high school physics language:
1. What exactly this scary sounding theorem states?
2. What are its assumptions?
3. What are its limitations?
4. Why exactly you think this theorem and its assumptions are applicable to our case, and its limitations are not?
Probably yes. Interesting, where the energy goes then?
Why? Do you mean colored objects do not reflect in the same range they receive, do not have their molecules decomposed, are free of photo-electric effect and photosynthesis? Somehow it does not correspond to my observations, you must live in a completely different reality
Not sure I understand your logic here, do you mind to elaborate?
Ejection of an electron ionizes the molecule and is not going to occur in the visible domain. Photosynthesis falls into the category of decomposition (although decomposition is not a great term there - we can broaden it to "inducing a chemical reaction").
The equipartition theorem states that a molecule will rearrange its energy over all it's various degrees of freedom. So, if you excite it vibrationally and allow it to relax it will increase the rate of rotation and translation also. It's a molecular mechanical principle, so it requires a system in order to thermalize rather than applying to individual molecules. It only loses accuracy at very low temperatures or pressures (for a gas).
This means that if you put energy into electronic transitions (absorption of visible light) it will redistribute it into vibration, translation, and rotation.
Depends on the reaction. The products will either be intrinsically higher energy (the energy will be stored in the chemical bonds) or (more likely) heat will be released.
Color comes from a molecule absorbing specific parts of white light. If the molecule re-emits the photon without modulating the wavelength you couldn't tell that it had absorbed it at all.
You skipped half the questions, and skimmed the rest. This way we never reach understanding. Or may be this is just my fever, so I am off for the night in a hope that tomorrow my brains will work better - or you will be able to put up a more coherent response. Good night.
by Mike Russo3 years ago
Do you believe global warming is causing the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in the U.S? Please watch this video and then comment.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EHvfaY8Zs
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by sannyasinman3 years ago
Once again, the latest IPCC report makes exaggerated claims of a looming Armageddon, cherry-picking data to support their alarmist propaganda. However, the NIPCC report also from climate scientists (although not...
by My Esoteric10 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by Tumbletree6 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by Sychophantastic3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.