My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

If you understand that Temperature is some measure of the "collisions" of gas molecules in a system, then it should be easy.

 

Starting from the right, as mentioned above, C/Co is just a measure of the change in concentration of the gas being measured. ....As for example, 500ppm/250ppm would be 2.0, a doubling; with "C" being the current concentration, and "Co" was the original concentration.

 

Moving left....

Taking the natural logarithm of that ratio basically converts the scale used to measure concentration (which greatly influences collisions of the gas particles) ...converts the scale... over to the scale that measures temperature (also a function of the collisions of gas particles).

 

The constant, 5.35, indicates the strength of the effect that changing concentration has on the temperature. It takes into account some intrinsic characteristics of the particular gas molecule in question, as well as other extrinsic factors (positive and negative feedbacks in the environment).

 

So (again reading right to left) the change in concentration, converted to a temperature scale by using the log scale, and then multiplied by a fudge factor, equals the change in temperature.

 

This is probably oversimplified (to the point of being wrong) as really we're talking about total energy (and not just collisions), but I think you'll get the idea of how concentration relates to temperature (one side of the equation relates to the other).

 

The devil is in the details of those "intrinsic factors," different for each gas; such as how easily a particle absorbs energy, and how it then responds, in both space and time.

===

 

As for a safety valve, there is only one that I know of:

See the ** quoted text (the 3rd & 4th quote sections) on this post:

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-35.html#post214501

 

Aside from this option, I think the pooch is screwed.

 

:eek:

[Flying Binghi]

Kininmouth letter

 

Do you know if they ever were answered?

 

Dont know yet Essay - will be interesting to see if it is answered.

 

Interesting numbers you put forward there Essay - well past my understanding. Closest I can come to understanding all that heating, reflected, etc is when I look at a FLIR screen while flying at night.

 

As the night progresses, the heat areas the FLIR see's tend to fade. I sometimes wonder while flying at night that if the sun did'nt raise the next morning, (God hit the off switch) how long before the global average temperature reached zero degrees C ? ... 12 hours, 24 hours ? :eek:

[Eclipse Now]

Thanks Essay, that's very useful and I've posted it in a few places where the critics just refuse to deal with the fact that the fundamentals are testable and repeatable in a lab. There seems to be this impression that it's all a misunderstanding from counting tree rings or glacial periods or some other historical phenomena. (Probably thanks to Al Gore's mishandling of the Milankovitch cycles in "Inconvenient Truth".)

 

Many sceptics are horrified when confronted with the fact that:-

a/ We know what Co2 can do by repeatedly getting the same results from a bit of lab kit! (Spectrometer)

b/ That this information can be extrapolated out quite easily by the Radiative Forcing... with some grounds for error... but the BASIC theory is intact.

 

That's when they'll usually start talking about Al Gore's lifestyle and how much Co2 that burns up.

[Flying Binghi]

Amazing, I start to draft a post and then change my mind- and low and behold, what do I get... thanks for confirming my suspicions :hihi:...........:eek:

 

 

(Edit, 27/02/09 - Hmmm )

[Eclipse Now]

Essay, do you understand what FB is on about now? I don't even want to go there...

[Essay]

Not a clue....

 

I'm worrying I may have stuck my foot in it.

Trying to cover the bases, I may have gone too far in listing contingencies.

Mentioning the various feedbacks associated with the constant may have suggested some opening to doubters, or something like that. As if doubt isn't an important part of science.

 

I know the constant is unique for each gas, dependant on it's intrinsic atomic properties; but I'm not sure if the constant also needs to account for feedbacks in that formula, when applied to the real world atmosphere.

But they have to account for that stuff somewhere....

 

;)

[Flying Binghi]

I sometimes wonder while flying at night that if the sun did'nt raise the next morning, (God hit the off switch) how long before the global average temperature reached zero degrees C ? ... 12 hours, 24 hours ?

 

No answer yet :( ...I thought with all these atmospheric bofins about it would be an easy question ? I'm wondering also, just what would the earths atmosphere temperature stabalise at if 'God' turned off the sun... and while were at it, what would Venus' temp stabalise at sans Sun ? - should be the same eh ? :)

 

Apoligies if you carnt understand me, its probably my Oz mountain man accent :)

[Zythryn]

I am not familiar with the heat retention of the atmosphere. I would suspect that if the sun disappeared it wouldn't take too long;)

Earth and Venus would both reach close to absolute zero I believe (probably about 3 degrees?) as both would be the same distance from the nearest heat source.

Currently they are NOT the same distance from the nearest heat source and have different atmospheric components so they do not heat to the same level.

And it isn't your accent, it is your sentence structure (or lack there of):)

[Flying Binghi]

And it isn't your accent, it is your sentence structure (or lack there of)

 

No aurguments there - any other takers :)

[Eclipse Now]

A much more relevant question to this thread is this:

 

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Mercury is the planet closer to the sun, not Venus! Could it be something to do with the atmosphere? :eek: Could it be that it's 96.5 % Co2? No, no! :) It's the fridge wormhole! :(

 

People don't realise that all the heat in our fridges is actually transported, via space-time wormhole, onto Venus. It's a proven scientific fact — I have my non-peer reviewed paper here ready to go! What, you're questioning me? :) That's narrow minded. I might have to hit my "IGNORE" button if you question me about it too much. Please allow me to discuss my theories, which are mine, which I am allowed to promulgate on any forum on the internet ever, because the theories are so wonderful. And relevant to the current discussion! ;)

[Flying Binghi]

Wheres that climate expert Essay ?

 

An easy hypothetical question I thought :) - if God turned off the sun, how long before the earths global average temp reached zero C ?

[Eclipse Now]

:) There you have it everyone. The Global Warming thread has now degenerated to satisfying this sceptic's bizarre fantasies. :hyper:

[Flying Binghi]

*intermission time*

 

thread has now degenerated to satisfying this sceptic's bizarre fantasies

 

Are you a sceptic Eclipse Now ?

 

..................:)

[Eclipse Now]

How about those spectrometers hey? Measuring Co2 wavelengths, and then a bit of math and we know how much extra energy is in the system. All from similar scientific disciplines that brings you microwave ovens, computers, cable TV... all that 'bandwidth' and 'fibre optics' stuff... all good hey? Except when they turn their scientifically deluded minds to global warming —*then all these scientists have a huge collective brain fart! You're happy to use your computer to send out messages basically calling into question the similar branches of physics, our understanding of light and energy waves, that allow the modern world.

 

Do they really get it right so many times —*except of course this time? :)

[Moontanman]

I sometimes wonder while flying at night that if the sun did'nt raise the next morning, (God hit the off switch) how long before the global average temperature reached zero degrees C ? ... 12 hours, 24 hours ?

 

No answer yet :( ...I thought with all these atmospheric bofins about it would be an easy question ? I'm wondering also, just what would the earths atmosphere temperature stabalise at if 'God' turned off the sun... and while were at it, what would Venus' temp stabalise at sans Sun ? - should be the same eh ? :hyper:

 

Apoligies if you carnt understand me, its probably my Oz mountain man accent :)

 

Earth's temp without the sun would be about 33K The Earth generates enough energy from the nuclear reactor at it's core to main tian this over millions of years. How fast it would get there is difficult to figure. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4C would take several weeks at least then the oceans would slowly drop as the ocean radiated it's stored heat. it might take a few years for the entire surface of the planet to drop to 0C but then the temps would start to drop faster due to no more water vapor and the reflective nature of all the ice. When all the CO2 froze out the temps would start to drop even faster. N2 would rain out then O2 would go from vapor to ice like CO2. 33K might take a few years to some decades but it would happen. Venus would loose it's atmosphere somewhat slower at first but once the CO2 began to rain out the temps would drop as fast as the earths.

[Flying Binghi]

...How fast it would get there is difficult to figure. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4C would take several weeks at least then the oceans would slowly drop as the ocean radiated it's stored heat. it might take a few years for the entire surface of the planet to drop to 0C but then the temps would start to drop faster due to no more water vapor and the reflective nature of all the ice. When all the CO2 froze out the temps would start to drop even faster...

 

Moontanman, my understanding of the underlined part of your post is a 4 degree celsius drop over several weeks - have I understood correctly ? perhaps a typeing error ?

 

The ISA surface temp (thats where we humans live) is about 15C International Standard Atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Flying Binghi]

By the way, I hope nobody minds taking a left field look at AGW - theres a thousand and one hard core pro/skeptic AGW forums about, maybe Hypo takes a different tack ? :)