Global Warming: Your opinion ....

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by R29k, Jun 14, 2011.

?

Is Global Warming man made or a natural cycle ?

  1. Yes, it is man made

  2. Undecided

  3. No, I think there is another reason for it

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    @gordo999
    What on Earth are you talking about? "Trapped by glass and warms the air" ?
    Are you talking about an actual green house?? You may want to read this.
    https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

    Global warming is real there is no doubt about it. But it has nothing to do with ice ages. Read here if you're interested
    https://eos.org/research-spotlights/how-variations-in-earths-orbit-triggered-the-ice-ages

    The issue I have with the whole theory of global warming is CO2 as a pollutant . It's downright idiotic and was presented by Gore.
    Can humans destroy the planet by warming it. The answer is No. It's always been no, CO2 has been higher in the past when humans were not around and it was perfectly fine.
    Just because your beach front property is going to be under 10 feet of water 100 years from now is no reason to say the world is ending. You're in the wrong place, move ! Glaciers have melted and reformed multiple times in Earths history, why should that not happen again?
    Humans sometimes behave like the world was created only for them and everything on it should conform to whatever humans do. Hurricanes should not go thru certain spots because the humans sent a memo to the weather God!
    Apparently destroying forests and displacing or destroying millions of animals is not that important. But that damn beach front house needs to stay for eternity.
    Stupid humans, all hail the rise of synthetic lifeforms.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. gordo999

    gordo999 MDL Member

    Feb 11, 2019
    120
    33
    10
    MIT is divided on the issue. Dr. Richard Lindzen who taught atmospehric physics at MIT is a skeptic whereas others are alarmists. However, the article to which you link is scientific nonsense and I'll prove it to you.

    They begin by claiming CO2 molecules trap heat. That is nonsense, they trap infrared energy (IR) which MIT incorrectly calls light. It is actually electromagnetic energy (EM), which encompasses the entire spectrum of which visible light is one part. It's not correct to call EM light, although it is correct to call light EM. IR is not visible, hence cannot be light.

    Quantum theory tells us what happens when an electron in an atom loses energy and emits a quantum of EM. The electron falls from a higher kinetic energy level to a lower kinetic energy level and that KE over an entire mass of atoms is heat. In other words, when a mass of atoms radiates EM/IR and the lost heat is not replaced, it loses heat and cools.

    The emitted IR contains no heat since it is an electric field orthogonal to a magnetic field. Also, it has a frequency and heat does not. EM will go through a vacuum and heat will not because heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and requires mass to operate.

    When MIT claims CO2 molecules are trapping heat they are talking pseudo-science. If a CO2 molecules absorbs a quantum of surface IR, it will warm but that heat is in no way related to surface heat, it is a brand new heat. Therefore CO2 absorbing surface IR has no effect on surface heat.

    MIT's claim that the absorbed IR will produce heat to warm the atmosphere is misleading. CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere whereas oxygen and nitrogen make up 99%. Each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2500 N2/O2 molecules and the amount of heat it can transfer to them is governed both by the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation. Diffusion is a term used to indicate how much heat can be diffused by one gas into another and has nothing to do with conduction or convection.

    Both the IGL and the heat diffusion equation indicate that the amount of heat CO2 can induce in the atmosphere is proportional to its mass percent, which is about 0.06%. That means, for each degree C the atmosphere warms, CO2 can contribute no more than 0,06C. That is 6/100ths of a degree C. Climate models are based on a theoretical CO2 warming factor of 9% to 25% depending on the amount of water vapour present. That is one of several reasons why the models are reading far too high.

    Another issue is that CO2 can trap no more than about 7% of surface radiation, the rest escaping directly to space. Radiation decreases in intensity as the square of the distance it travels and depending on the altitude of the CO2, the intensity of the fraction it receives is dependent on the altitude. R. W. Wood, a world renowned scientist on gases like CO2 claimed that CO2 absorption would be ineffective after a few feet due to the inverse square law.

    Test that yourself, Turn on a 1500 watt ring on an electric stove till it glows cherry red then hold your hand a few inches above it. It's quite warm, partly due to radiation and partly due to super-heated air molecules.. Now move your hand a couple of feet away and you feel little or nothing. That's how quickly radiation dissipates.

    Another problem with the MIT theorists and their fellow alarmists is their reliance on surface radiation as a cooling mechanism. The energy budget of the Earth which was created by climate alarmists Trenberth and Kiehle claims that radiation is the prime heat mover from the surface. A recent paper by Shula killed that theory.

    Shula is an expert with the Pirani gauge. It has a glass chamber with a filament in it than can be heated electrically. The glass bulb can be evacuated to produce a vacuum around the filament and when the filament is heated in a vacuum, it can cool only by radiation. That gives a direct measure of the heat dissipated in the filament by radiation alone. If a gas is allowed into the tube, the filament cools 260 times more quickly than by radiation alone.

    The meaning is clear. Climate alarmists have focused on radiation because it fits their climate models best re the differential equations involved. They have ignored conduction of heat directly to atmospheric gases directly in contact with the surface and the subsequent convection that causes the heated air to rise (thermals). The energy budget diagram alarmists relegate conduction/convection to a small effect while focusing on radiation as the sole means of surface cooling.

    They have been proved wrong. The Pirani gauge proves without a doubt that radiation is an inefficient means of cooling the Earth's surface and that convection/conduction is 260 times more effective. That also explains the greenhouse effect. Solar energy is input much faster than it can be dissipated, therefore the planet warms.

    The argument of the energy budget theory, that heat in must equal heat out is plainly wrong. Solar energy is stored in the land and water like lakes, rivers and oceans, and due to the ineffectiveness of radiation at removing it, the heat accumulates. It also accumulates in the atmosphere due to the majority gases N2 and O2 scavenging heat at the surface, and being heated by incoming solar. Since N2 and O2 are poor radiators, they tend to retain heat until they rise to higher altitudes and dissipate their heat due to reduced pressure. That is the warming incorrectly attributed to the greenhouse effect.

    The MIT claim that GHGs can back-radiate heat to the surface to warm it is a direct contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and it represents perpetual motion as well. The 2nd law, as stated subjectively by Rudolf Clausius, it's inventor, is that heat can never be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. Atmospheric gases are either in thermal equilibrium with the surface, in which case no heat can be transferred, or it becomes cooler with altitude.

    This is a fundamental principle of all energy. No energy, by its own means, can be transferred from a state of lower energy to a state of higher energy. Water will not run uphill by its own mean nor will a boulder raise itself onto a cliff, by its own means. There is no reason whatsoever why heat should be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, even if alarmists have amended the 2nd law incorrectly to suit their pseudo-scientific theories.

    The main reason the surface can cool is by heated air in contact with it rising via convection.allowing cooler air from above to fall to the surface, where the cycle repeats. Radiation alone simply cannot cool the surface fast enough. With convection, according to Lindzen of MIT, the surface temperature would rise into the 70C range.

    Therefore, heat cannot be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere. Even if they could, 93% of surface radiation is lost when the the GHGs absorb their 7% and that 93% represents an enormous loss of heat in comparison. The MIT theory is claiming that a small fraction of that 7% back-radiated can making up the 93% lost. Besides, the theory that IR can be radiated from the surface, absorbed by GHGs, and radiated back to raise the surface temperature is perpetual motion. No engine can operate is such a manner that energy it loses can be captured and sent back to make it more powerful.

    The alarmist energy budget diagram shows more heat being back-radiated to the surface than the energy being inserted by the Sun. It is clearly pseudo-science of the highest order, yet so many people are willing to believe it for the simple reason that authority figures tell them it is so.
     
  3. gordo999

    gordo999 MDL Member

    Feb 11, 2019
    120
    33
    10
    I agree, but it is about 1 degree C in 170 years. Turn the thermostat in your home up by 1C and see if it leads to anything catastrophic.

    The ice age to which I referred, the Little Ice Age, began about 1300 AD and ended about 1850 AD. It is well-documented even though the IPCC, the alarmist authority, denies it, claiming it applied only to Europe. They failed to explain why Europe cooled 1C to 2C over the 400+ years yet the rest of the planet was unaffected.

    The Mer de Glace glacier in the French Alps grew down a valley during that period, wiping out long-established farms and villages. It began to retreat around 1850 as the LIA ended. The IPCC has only a mandate to find proof of anthropogenic warming and have dismissed this very natural explanation for the current warming.

    Ocean level are rising in millimetres and the propaganda about waterfront properties being wiped out is sheer nonsense. To compound matters, we carry on building on river estuaries where the land is soft and naturally marshy, then we whine about water levels rising when in fact the land is sinking.
     
  4. Palladin

    Palladin MDL Senior Member

    Feb 1, 2014
    476
    248
    10
    Further CO2 is the heaviest molecule in the atmosphere with one insignificant exception.

    As such, CO2 resides down at the surface.
    At this location, it can make no contribution to a so-called “greenhouse effect”.

    It also helps explain why plants do not grow well at higher altitudes.

    .
     
  5. zen45

    zen45 MDL Addicted

    Feb 25, 2010
    914
    2,379
    30
    i dont worry about climate change so much when you read about temps being higher or lower in the past greater then todays what did they attribute that to. i worry more about pollution and its effects just about everything produced has plastic that is thrown away and preservatives in food. how about insecticides used by farmers or home owners and roundup with the cancer causing bug killer or products to make plants bigger and grow faster. ever watch an add about medicine on tv about possible side effects that they go thru so fast you dont hear about half of them and the side effects are worse then what you'r taking the med's for !
     
  6. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    This is a chemistry question that I think @Yen would be more equipped to answer on spectroscopy. But I think you are incorrect about oxygen and nitrogen, they make up more of the atmosphere but they don't absorb that wavelength. Also anything above zero Kelvin emits IR.
    I'll have to look into the claims you made. But very interesting and was part of what I was looking at in my first post in this thread before I even started it.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    I like this post. There are far more pressing issues than global warming, like you mentioned. Also the dying bees is a huge issue that few are talking about.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. gordo999

    gordo999 MDL Member

    Feb 11, 2019
    120
    33
    10
    I agree on pollution, however, we need to use perspective here as well. The planet, especially the oceans, are huge and the amount of pollution we are talking about it is literally a spit in the ocean. We should be addressing those issues but we have plenty of time to do so.

    Climate alarmists spread propaganda that we are in dire straits and must act immediately. If we do what they want, to cut all fossil fuels, we will be in dire straits, The poor will suffer far more than the wealthy.

    Ironically, the United Nations, through their climate arm, the IPCC, want to tax wealthy nations to send the money to poorer nation. Ultimately, they will harm the people they want to help by depriving them of the fuel they need, not just oil but wood and anything that is carbon based.
     
  9. gordo999

    gordo999 MDL Member

    Feb 11, 2019
    120
    33
    10
    You're reply is somewhat contradictory. You claim 'anything' above 0K radiates IR yet you omit oxygen and nitrogen. It is a presumption in alarmist climate science that oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate at terrestrial temperatures, However, we know that oxygen emits in our atmosphere at microwave frequencies and it has been shown that nitrogen emits a certain amount in the IR band. Besides, it's not necessary that they emit in the IR band as long as they are dissipating energy input by the Sun.

    There are two points here. We need to dissipate heat added by the Sun and we need to account for atmospheric warming. Heat absorbed by N2/O2 at the surface accounts for atmospheric warming. heat dissipation is a far more complicated problem which has been ingenuously reduced to a trace gas. There is no scientific reason to think that a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can both heat the atmosphere and radiate excess heat off to space. There are far better explanations.

    Satellite temperature-sensing telemetry (AMSU) detects oxygen emissions in the 60 Ghz microwave band. That means oxygen is dissipating atmospheric heat in that band. That heat dissipation is not recognized in climate alarmist theory. There is also evidence that nitrogen radiates in the IR band. Even if it's only a small amount, nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere as opposed to 0.04% for CO2.

    However, the main heat dissipating effect of N2/O2 is not radiation. Those gases actually absorb heat right from the surface where they contact it then carry the heat away via convection. That heat dissipation effect, which is major, is almost completely ignored by alarmist theory. As I pointed out in a previous post, conduction/convection is 260 times more effective than radiation at cooling a surface yet the alarmist energy budget theory has relegated it to a fraction of the radiation heat dissipation effect.

    Just to clarify, heat conduction involves the direct transfer of heat from atom to atom. Molecules are nothing more than two or more atoms bonded by electrons. CO2 is two oxygen atoms bonded to one carbon atom by electron orbitals. Therefore, air molecules in contact with the Earth's surface are actually atoms touching the atoms of the surface. Therefore heat is transferred directly to the atmosphere where air molecules contact it.

    The fly in the ointment here is that surfaces like that in contact are normally at thermal equilibrium and no net heat can be transferred at equilibrium. However, due to the peculiarity of gravity and the negative pressure gradient it produces in the atmosphere, heated surface air rises and is replaced by cooler air from above. That cooler air allows heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere in a perpetual cycle.

    Richard Lindzen, formerly a prof at MIT, estimated that without that convection to remove heat, the Earth's average surface temperature would rise to 70C, despite radiation. Therefore, the effect of conduction/convection at the surface is far more important than radiation, in fact, 260 times more effective.

    In essence, climate alarmists are misrepresenting science, and not applying it correctly. From the greenhouse effect, through anthropogenic warming theory, to the energy budget, they present, important laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Ideal Gas Law are ignored and replaced with pseudo-scientific versions of the same.

    For example, the 2nd law is simple. It states that heat can never be transferred, by its on means from a colder body to a hotter body. However, the important point is that the 2nd law is about the direction of heat transfer. Alarmist have modified the theory to allow for a heat transfer from colder GHGs to the surface provided a mysterious net balance of energy is positive. That net balance is a balance of electromagnetic energy amounts, not heat, therefore it does not apply to the 2nd law.

    Much of modern alarmist climate science is based on an anachronism dating back to the mid-19th century when it was believed that heat could flow through air as heat rays. That was disproved by 1913 when Bohr discovered the real relationship between electrons in the atoms of surfaces and electromagnetic energy, yet the confusion between heat and infrared energy still exists. They are two different forms of energy with nothing in common yet IR is still confused with heat. The 2nd law does not represent the sum of electromagnetic energy, it represents only heat, Therefore, the alarmist claim that heat can be transferred from colder GHGs in the atmosphere to the surface, using a bogus amendment to the 2nd law, is sheer pseudo-science.
     
  10. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    Sorry haven't had much time to check in here. Found this though

    https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. parrish

    parrish MDL Junior Member

    Oct 16, 2016
    58
    28
    0
    SCARY HEARD ON RADIO: HALLOWEEN:

    SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING WITH NUCLEAR WINTER :(
     
  12. acer-5100

    acer-5100 MDL Guru

    Dec 8, 2018
    3,578
    2,584
    120
    @gordo999

    You should send your wall of text to venusians and see what they think about it. :schmorch:
     
  13. vladnil

    vladnil MDL Senior Member

    Jan 19, 2019
    460
    316
    10
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,510
    1,450
    180
    I am not a scientist but I know how to think historically and critically... and this is the missing point here: how have these levels changed since we became the mighty polluter, as many scientists agree, while advocating we take responsibility for our own actions, i.e. grow up and fast so we err on the side of caution, on behalf of our kids and their heirs...

    https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels

    [​IMG]

    Worse still:

    https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/...g-overlooks-human-driven-increase-2024-01-02/

    Or:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Any serious historically based "takedowns" of this?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...