lesmore49
canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/25/2004
View Profile
|
Doug4.7 wrote:BCSnob wrote:If gases absorb IR emitted from the earth they also absorb IR emitted by the sun, the source of the IR is irrelevant. The main idea is that solar radiation is "mostly" shortwave radiation (which is not absorbed as much by the greenhouse gases). When the Earth heats up due to the solar shortwave radiation, it emits in longwave radiation, which is absorbed by the greenhouse gases. So the greenhouse gases help keep the Earth warmer than it would normally be. I remember reading somewhere that without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be near freezing.
Quote:Combustion of materials pulled from below the surface of the earth releases CO2 and water that was removed from the atmosphere a very long time ago.
So while the amount of H, O, and C on earth remains constant; the amount of each in the atmosphere or at least above the earth's surface is increasing. That is true. What is "controversial" is exactly what will be the effect of that extra CO2. Water is the "real" greenhouse gas. Even with massive increases in CO2, the Earth will cool if the atmosphere dries, i.e., becomes less moist. We do not know the climatological linkage between CO2 and water vapor. Many models assumed that as CO2 increased, so would water vapor. That got the alarmist results of rapid, human induced climate warming. Now folks are looking at the CO2/water vapor links, and things are not so clear cut.
Now what do I think? I think (and yes, it is based on data, but others can/do interpret the data differently) that we as humans are getting way too big on ourselves if we think we can significantly alter the climate with our actions. The Earth's climate is just too dang big to bother with our puny human actions. It's been much warmer and much cooler in the past when we were not here. I agree.
Now I do think we can poison the Earth as that takes a whole lot less to make a difference (remember the joke about the sewage and wine). So working to get us to stop polluting the Earth is a valid effort. I agree again, but although I support efforts to stop polluting .BTW, not just North America...but other countries who continue to pollute significantly, need to reverse some of their actions, because by not doing so ..nullify much of our efforts. We (all countries) need to be on the same page, when it comes to ensuring adequate efforts are being made. As to how idealistic this may be, well that's another question for another thread.
I think we also need to examine what our efforts are. Too much of the proposed efforts are driven by emotion and other hidden agendas, to the point that some reason has departed when it comes to examining what we need to do, to ensure our anti pollution efforts are effective.
lesmore49
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
lesmore49 wrote:I agree again, but although I support efforts to stop polluting .BTW, not just North America...but other countries who continue to pollute significantly, need to reverse some of their actions, because by not doing so ..nullify much of our efforts. Very true. The problem is, do we not do our part until they do their part? If we lead by example, at least we get to look down on them.Quote:Too much of the proposed efforts are driven by emotion and other hidden agendas, to the point that some reason has departed when it comes to examining what we need to do, to ensure our anti pollution efforts are effective. Agreed. I think the "follow the money" line is a real good way to look at this. The rest of the world wants to stop us from using coal maybe in part due to the fact that we have all the coal. Now I also feel coal (without scrubbers) is a bad idea due to the problems with sulfur and such (acid rain anyone?), but with the proper scrubbers, I say coal away!.
|
lesmore49
canada
Senior Member
Joined: 11/25/2004
View Profile
|
Doug4.7 wrote:lesmore49 wrote:I agree again, but although I support efforts to stop polluting .BTW, not just North America...but other countries who continue to pollute significantly, need to reverse some of their actions, because by not doing so ..nullify much of our efforts. Very true. The problem is, do we not do our part until they do their part? If we lead by example, at least we get to look down on them. Quote:
I agree. I think no matter what, we (North Americans) need to do what we think is right. Leading by example is a good method.
Too much of the proposed efforts are driven by emotion and other hidden agendas, to the point that some reason has departed when it comes to examining what we need to do, to ensure our anti pollution efforts are effective. Agreed. I think the "follow the money" line is a real good way to look at this. The rest of the world wants to stop us from using coal maybe in part due to the fact that we have all the coal. Now I also feel coal (without scrubbers) is a bad idea due to the problems with sulfur and such (acid rain anyone?), but with the proper scrubbers, I say coal away!.
I agree. I also think that we need to look at Nuclear power. Chernobyl was a horrible situation, that has unfortunately colored views about danger and improper monitoring and maintenance of safeguards to ensure safe power from this source.
Proper safeguards, rigorously enforced make it safe power. Unfortunately although we know these things work...'safeguards...rigorously enforced '...we cannot rely that it will always happen. That's the danger. It is used safely and effectively on submarines and aircraft carriers, but those are under carefully controlled situations. I would think that the same safety/monitoring/ enforcement of following safety requirements could also take place at land based facilities.
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
 Online
|
Doug4.7 wrote:Yea, that's it. Notice the "hole" in the absorption spectra right where the sun radiates. Notice the "non-hole" where the Earth radiates. Bottom line, incoming shortwave solar radiation gets to the surface where it is radiated in longer wavelengths and absorbed by the atmosphere. Those are normalized plots of the blackbody radition from the sun and earth. When these plots are not normalized for intensity the sun's intensity is many orders of magnitude (close to 1,000,000x) higher than the earth's and there is a long tail in output that covers the same region as the earth's radiation. The sun's output in the IR where the earth emits is >100x more intense.
Spectral Distribution of Energy Radiated........from Blackbodies at Various Temperatures
This is an alternative plot with the x-axis reversed.
The sun emits at about 7000K and the earth at about 300K.
Note: when looking at plots of spectra (emission or absorption) keep track of the x-axis.
Bottom line, "greenhouse gases" have more solar radiation to absorb than radiation from the earth at ALL wavelengths.
* This post was
last
edited 10/16/08 07:58am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
Online
|
Doug4.7 wrote:Even with massive increases in CO2, the Earth will cool if the atmosphere dries, i.e., becomes less moist. This is based upon what?
* This post was
last
edited 10/16/08 06:54am by BCSnob *
View edit history
|
|
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:Doug4.7 wrote:Even with massive increases in CO2, the Earth will cool if the atmosphere dries, i.e., becomes less moist. This is based upon what? Science. Water is a much greater greenhouse gas than CO2. The big question is its role in climate. Some put it as a totally passive feedback component. In other words, it gets hotter (due to CO2 increased global warming), there is more water vapor, which causes more global warming. Some recent data seems to indicate that water is not a simple feedback variable. That would invalidate the CO2 = global warming models somewhat.
It is all still in scientific flux because we simply do not know enough to make a good guess.
I wish I could put up a link to a recent lecture I attended that did a good job in shooting holes in the more drastic "global warming" models. It was quite good (but not available on-line).
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
Online
|
First off, the link you provide with "scientific information" on climatology was prepared by an engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. While much of the data is from other sources the mathematical comparison (GWP calculations) between water vapor and the other greenhouse gases is by this (coal?) mining engineer and is never explained. GWP (fudge) factors (which are really not explained in the EPA reference) are relative to CO2 and how the GWP factor for water vapor was developed/calculated is never explained. That does not mean it's wrong, but there is no way to verify the calculations/estimates. Personally I find the whole GWP fudge factor (by the EPA whose science is well known to be influenced by the whims of policy) incredulous.
Water is the most abundate greenhouse gas, but without knowing (or being shown the calculations) how much energy is absorbed and converted into heat by each greenhouse I find it difficult to believe the comparisons of impact of each. However, increasing amounts of each will lead to increasing absorbance of radition => increasing heat output.
The thing I find interesting is that most people ignore the fact that combustion releases CO2 AND water. The difficult part is that both have an equilibrium between being in the atmosphere and in bodies of water (CO2 is soluble in water). I believe the equilibriums are the big unknown.
|
BCSnob
Knoxville, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
Online
|
I will check back here after the weekend. I have lots of data to analyze now and we'll be away this weekend.
|
Doug4.7
Hartselle, AL, USA
Senior Member
Joined: 10/02/2003
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:I believe the equilibriums are the big unknown. Oh there are bigger unknowns than that (like, "What is the role of solar forcing in climate change?"). That is what makes this field so fun: there are lots of opportunities to make an impact. The down side is some reporter is always attempting to get you to boil a whole life's worth of research into a sound bite or headline (and, "It's really complicated" won't cut it). 
* This post was
edited 10/16/08 10:41am by Doug4.7 *
|
Stressor
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Senior Member
Joined: 05/29/2001
View Profile
 Offline
|
I have read the whole thread. (Tongue hanging out here). 
I have the following observations:
If you have taken sides in this argument you are not talking about science, you are offering your opinion. Such statements are prefaced by saying, "In my opinion..."
Science requires that you to spend as much time looking for and weighing arguments against your hypothesis as you do looking for support for your point of view.
Science requires that all relevant data be explained, not just the parts that you like or that you think are important. Nobody gets to say, this is the reason this is happening, not this. Everything must be explained. Everything.
Science requires that you weigh the sources of your information and their methodology, and make certain that the conclusions reached matched the methodology used, and that you know what can be claimed under which methods are used to evaluate the information.This is why science requires us to use qualified sources, not just anybody can qualify as an expert.
Science requires that you seek out and utilize unbiased sources of information if you wish to find the appropriate consensus.
Science requires that you maintain an open mind, because there is no such thing as truth, just probability. Gravity will probably work tomorrow the way it worked today, but gravity ain't the same everywhere. You probably will not notice this.
And lastly, science recognizes no such thing as personal authority. Nothing is so because you say it is so.
Like Doug just said, it is really complicated, and it requires a sophisticated approach. In my opinion, it is really too complicated for me to understand given my level of expertise, so I will listen to the consensus of the experts, and not pretend that I am qualified to second guess them. I will also recognize that scientific inquiry is ongoing, and that it never stops, and that nothing is ever settled.
Milton Findley (and Kerene)
A small piece of my mind...
|
|
|
|
