Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?

I will dig some stuff out later but I assure you that you attempted to compare apples with oranges. You also seem to assume corellation with one variable identifies cause. Given that less than 3% of the 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might be attributable to man, I think you need to back up your assertions too.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?

I will reply with Magelen spacecraft data collated here (it was used for blue sky research in this article and is unlikely to be tainted, the same graphs can be found elsewhere):

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

If you look for the intercepts of temperature and pressure there is not much varience with Earth at 1 bar despite Venus being much closer to the Sun and a completely different atmospheric composition. This would suggest that carbon dioxide is unimportant. A little effort would show you that the Venus surface is at 92 bar. Venus likely takes 4 times the radiative energy of the Sun compared to the Earth. Albedo is different and might account for some of it but given the dense clouds are lower?
There are abundant differencies between the planets to make your original comment a tad naive.
Earth dynamics are are not constrained to the atmosphere but it's oceans and it's geological core at temperatures to 1000s of celsius must be more important from an energy point of view. Why is it that some people can blame a trace atmospheric gas that is actually useful? Is maths/physics education in this country really so shit?

Boltzmann explains most of this.

One other thing, Vesus has little rotational speed and no moon contributing a gravitational influluence on it's surface and core dynamics.

 

[t3ch]

Our emissions are so bad it's effecting venus? Jesus people, we need to get our act together.

 

[visage]

I will reply with Magelen spacecraft data collated here (it was used for blue sky research in this article and is unlikely to be tainted, the same graphs can be found elsewhere):

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

If you look for the intercepts of temperature and pressure there is not much varience with Earth at 1 bar despite Venus being much closer to the Sun and a completely different atmospheric composition. This would suggest that carbon dioxide is unimportant. A little effort would show you that the Venus surface is at 92 bar. Venus likely takes 4 times the radiative energy of the Sun compared to the Earth. Albedo is different and might account for some of it but given the dense clouds are lower?

Greater atmospheric density does indeed play a part in the higher surface temperature of Venus. But even once that is taken into account, there remains a significant (circa 20 degrees) contribution from atmospheric CO2.

There are abundant differencies between the planets to make your original comment a tad naive.
Earth dynamics are are not constrained to the atmosphere but it's oceans and it's geological core at temperatures to 1000s of celsius must be more important from an energy point of view. Why is it that some people can blame a trace atmospheric gas that is actually useful? Is maths/physics education in this country really so shit?

Those points are, from a temperature balance POV, irrelevent, since they've been there for millions of years, so cannot affect the change in global temperature that we have witnessed. Planets receive radiation from the sun at a constant rate, and lose heat via radiation that is proportional to temperature.

Boltzmann explains most of this.

Not really, no. His methods are statistical, and rely on idealised models. You dont agree with models, remember?

One other thing, Vesus has little rotational speed and no moon contributing a gravitational influluence on it's surface and core dynamics.

So? Neither play a part in the thermodynamic balance of a planet. You seem to being engaging in FUDdery, whereby you throw a load of nonsensical scientific terms out in the hope of blinding your audience to that fact that none of them are in any way relevant.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Models are useful in science but you have to verify the results. I'm not sure my customers would be too pleased if I shrugged my shoulders and said it worked in the simulation.
You seem to ignore that science is a way of modeling the universe and is useful for understanding, it must be readily observed that human understanding is incomplete.
Your last comment is a cop out. My understanding of science and engineering will stand up to real world testing. I'm on here pointing out that despite what the politicians say the science and the solutions are most definately not settled. Tail wagging dog?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Greater atmospheric density does indeed play a part in the higher surface temperature of Venus. But even once that is taken into account, there remains a significant (circa 20 degrees) contribution from atmospheric CO2.

You use the term degrees! 20 Kelvin out of a thousand in a lightly sensored system, behave that is noise. You cannot even factor solar orbital radius. What other factors are at play in such a volatile and poorly understood system?

Those points are, from a temperature balance POV, irrelevent, since they've been there for millions of years, so cannot affect the change in global temperature that we have witnessed. Planets receive radiation from the sun at a constant rate, and lose heat via radiation that is proportional to temperature.

CONSTANT! You must be joking. I think you need a course in astrophysics, plate-techtonics, geo-magnetic physics and oceanography. With all due respect, your thinking seems to be entrenched, wedded to politics and inflexible to new ideas, quite unscientific concepts.
You have yet to post anything technical which supports the carbon dioxide driven climate hypothesis.

 

[visage]

You use the term degrees! 20 Kelvin out of a thousand in a lightly sensored system, behave.

Twenty degrees isnt a significant amount now? What would happen if the antarctic warmed by twenty degrees?

CONSTANT! You must be joking. I think you need a course in astrophysics, plate-techtonics and oceanography. With all due respect, your thinking seems to be entrenched and inflexible to new ideas, quite unscientific concepts.

Perhaps you like to explain the relevence of those fields to a whole-earth radiative balance? Solar radiation comes in, the atmosphere radiates back out. WTF has plate tectonics got to do with that?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Twenty degrees isnt a significant amount now? What would happen if the antarctic warmed by twenty degrees??

Deary me, I used Kelvin not a airy fairy concept of 'degrees'. Come back when you can understand thermodynamics, what energy and temperature mean. Your answers suggest that there is a blind acceptance of 'macro' physics but poor understanding of what happens under the bonnet. I doubt the Venusian probe measurements can be deemed as accurate as 20 Kelvin at surface levels.

Perhaps you like to explain the relevence of those fields to a whole-earth radiative balance? Solar radiation comes in, the atmosphere radiates back out. WTF has plate tectonics got to do with that?

The whole system is important, to suggest that a trace gas in the least massive part of the planet as a whole is the main climate driver is just plain stupid. The whole concept of 'greenhouse' gas is at best a misnomer. All gas molecules are free to energy exchange with their surounding gas, liqiud and solid molecules, I've not seen too much glass in greenhouses doing the same except in response to errant cricket balls.
Vis, you do not seem to grasp that you cannot by science make a stoic representation of fact. Approximations are possible in well understood systems, engineers exploit that. Your idea that we have anything like a good approximation to the earth, solar and galactic environment is silly.

Almost forgot: What do think is the energy source to drive the plate-tectonics, farting veggie dinosaurs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792 :facepalm:

 

[visage]

Deary me, I used Kelvin not a airy fairy concept of 'degrees'. Come back when you can understand thermodynamics, what energy and temperature mean. Your answers suggest that there is a blind acceptance of 'macro' physics but poor understanding of what happens under the bonnet. I doubt the Venusian probe measurements can be deemed as accurate as 20 Kelvin at surface levels.

A temperature difference of 20 degrees Kelvin is *identical* to a difference of 20 degrees C. The only difference between Kelvin and Celcius is where the scale starts.

From wikipedia:

In science and in engineering, the Celsius scale and the kelvin are often used simultaneously in the same article (e.g., "...its measured value was 0.01028 °C with an uncertainty of 60 µK..."). This practice is permissible because the degree Celsius is a special name for the kelvin for use in expressing Celsius temperatures and the magnitude of the degree Celsius is exactly equal to that of the kelvin

Im not going to take accusations that I dont understand temperature from someone who cant grasp that a difference of 20 degrees C and a difference of 20 degrees Kelvin are exactly the same.

And given that we've had probes on the surface of Venus for over 40 years then yes, we've had accurate temperature measurements for the entirity of that period.

The whole system is important, to suggest that a trace gas in the least massive part of the planet as a whole is the main climate driver is just plain stupid. The whole concept of 'greenhouse' gas is at best a misnomer. All gas molecules are free to energy exchange with their surounding gas, liqiud and solid molecules, I've not seen too much glass in greenhouses doing the same except in response to errant cricket balls.

Not all gas molecules are equal - they will all radiate and absorb at different wavelengths - the most striking demonstration of this being the colour of streetlamps, whose colour varies with whatever gas is used to fill them. So you have broad spectrum radiation incoming from the Sun, while the radiation that escapes into space is predominantly in the infra-red region. The differing opacity of greenhouse gases in these regions is what gives rise to the greenhouse effect - they allow broadband radiation in, while blocking significant parts of IR from escaping.

Vis, you do not seem to grasp that you cannot by science make a stoic representation of fact. Approximations are possible in well understood systems, engineers exploit that. Your idea that we have anything like a good approximation to the earth, solar and galactic environment is silly.

Almost forgot: What do think is the energy source to drive the plate-tectonics, farting veggie dinosaurs? http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792 :facepalm:

The plate tectonics angle is an intersting one, when relating to anthropeginic climate change. How can plate tectonics (which has been happeneing constantly for millions of years) be responsible for the warming we have only seen in the past 100 years?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

A temperature difference of 20 degrees Kelvin is *identical* to a difference of 20 degrees C. The only difference between Kelvin and Celcius is where the scale starts.

From wikipedia:



Im not going to take accusations that I dont understand temperature from someone who cant grasp that a difference of 20 degrees C and a difference of 20 degrees Kelvin are exactly the same.

And given that we've had probes on the surface of Venus for over 40 years then yes, we've had accurate temperature measurements for the entirity of that period.

I know what the Kelvin relationship to Celcius is, probably from before you were born. I think you will find that no surface probe of Venus has survived more than few minutes at specific points. Orbiters have taken atmospheric readings that agree with well tested instrumentation. You should look up the Venus man-made spacecraft/satellite record over the last 40 years. The suggestion is that you didn't research before making a statement.

Not all gas molecules are equal - they will all radiate and absorb at different wavelengths - the most striking demonstration of this being the colour of streetlamps, whose colour varies with whatever gas is used to fill them. So you have broad spectrum radiation incoming from the Sun, while the radiation that escapes into space is predominantly in the infra-red region. The differing opacity of greenhouse gases in these regions is what gives rise to the greenhouse effect - they allow broadband radiation in, while blocking significant parts of IR from escaping..

Have you ever heard of other energy exchange mechanisms? Conduction, convection and radiation that were all important when I was a lad. The later was considered, and should be, it is largely unimportant in heat exchange within the planet.
I'm half decent at quantum physics too, quantum energy exchange is irrelevent in a global heat exchange model.

The plate tectonics angle is an intersting one, when relating to anthropeginic climate change. How can plate tectonics (which has been happeneing constantly for millions of years) be responsible for the warming we have only seen in the past 100 years?

You have a hypothesis for the last 100 years which is open to challenge. Vulcanisism has been demonstrably shown to influence short term climate. What drives the vulcanism?

And finally...

You have yet to show me the glass in your greenhouse. Explain how the atmosphere can be modeled as a greenhouse and I will buy you a bottle of Bud.

 

[visage]

I know what the Kelvin relationship to Celcius is, probably from before you were born.

Perhaps thats why you appear to have forgotten it?

I think you will find that no surface probe of Venus has survived more than few minutes at specific points. Orbiters have taken atmospheric readings that agree with well tested instrumentation. You should look up the Venus man-made spacecraft/satellite record over the last 40 years. The suggestion is that you didn't research before making a statement.

How long does it take to record a temperature? Probes HAVE landed on Venus , and they HAVE returned temperature data - that is a scientific fact.

Oh, and the longest lived probe (Venera 13) seems to have operated for over 2 hours - rather more than a 'few minutes' as you assert - so perhaps you should refrain from accusations of a lack of research.

Have you ever heard of other energy exchange mechanisms? Conduction, convection and radiation that were all important when I was a lad. The later was considered, and should be, it is largely unimportant in heat exchange within the planet.
I'm half decent at quantum physics too, quantum energy exchange is irrelevent in a global heat exchange model.

The only mechanism that can transmit heat out into space is radiation. Conduction and Convection may have been important when you were a lad, but scientists prefer to focus on what matters in the system being considered - and when you're talking about a planet in a vacuum these latter mechanism cannot work.

You seem to be focussed on heat mechanisms within the earth - whereas climate change is concerned with the radiative balance of the earth as a whole. More energy coming in than going out = increase in temperature = increase in radiation of heat from the earth = balance restored. The opposite is, of course also true. Now, the heat generated internally is constant, certainly over the timescales we are talking about, given that it comes from radioactive decay within the earth.

You have a hypothesis for the last 100 years which is open to challenge. Vulcanisism has been demonstrably shown to influence short term climate. What drives the vulcanism?

How can volcanoes be responsible for global warming when they actually *lower* global temperatures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

And finally...

You have yet to show me the glass in your greenhouse. Explain how the atmosphere can be modeled as a greenhouse and I will buy you a bottle of Bud.

OK.

Solar radiation is broad spectrum radiation. Some is UV (the stuff that gives you a tan/cancer), some is visible radiation (sunlight), some is infrared - thats why sunlight feels warm. Obviously when sunlight is incident upon the earth this raises the earths temperature. On the other side, warm bodies emit heat - and the warmer the body, the greater the heat.

The greenhouse effect comes from the fact that certain gases react very differently dependent on the wavelength of the radiation passing through them.

CO2 allows most radiation to ass through unhindered, but it absorbs infrared.

I know you're a big fan of empiricism, so take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

So Co2 in the atmosphere allows most of the energy from the sun (covering a wide range of wavelengths) though to the earth, but, the radiation that is emitted back out (comprising mostly infrared radiation), is trapped. Thats your greenhouse.

 

[Boozad]

What warmed us up after the ice age?

 

[visage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

I wasnt taht we we warmed, its that the things that cooled us stopped.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Calor Gas.

 

[The Bear]

What warmed us up after the ice age?

The main factor for the coming and going of ice ages is the Earth's slight variations in the elliptical orbit and angle of tilt of the Earth, known as Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

It's in Vis' link but this is the main reason.

 

[Boozad]

The main factor for the coming and going of ice ages is the Earth's slight variations in the elliptical orbit and angle of tilt of the Earth, known as Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

It's in Vis' link but this is the main reason.

Interesting shit. I can happily read about the history of the planet for hours on end.

 

[The Bear]

There was a good 3-part BBC documentary on the seasons/weather a couple of months back called Orbit which dealt with the Sun/Earth relationship. Maybe it's on Youtube.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Perhaps thats why you appear to have forgotten it?

We can only have this discussion if we reference absolute zero. Kelvin has the same gradient as Celcius.

How long does it take to record a temperature? Probes HAVE landed on Venus , and they HAVE returned temperature data - that is a scientific fact.

Oh, and the longest lived probe (Venera 13) seems to have operated for over 2 hours - rather more than a 'few minutes' as you assert - so perhaps you should refrain from accusations of a lack of research.

If you had gone to Buxton instead of Hazel Grove on Sunday your bollocks would have been more frozen compared to the later location. Are you seriously suggesting that we have a decent surface instrument record of Venus? Did you consider that the temperature measurements in those hours and minutes might have bias due to atmospheric entry friction?

The only mechanism that can transmit heat out into space is radiation. Conduction and Convection may have been important when you were a lad, but scientists prefer to focus on what matters in the system being considered - and when you're talking about a planet in a vacuum these latter mechanism cannot work..

Do you understand that radiative absorption and reflection across spectra most definately keeps the planet at some kind of equilibrium? Albedo is most definately important, and on this ice, oceans and clouds must be the majors. A tiny adjustment to atmospheric CO2, which is a trace gas is unlikely to be important from a radiative point of view (Venus does not support this).

You seem to be focussed on heat mechanisms within the earth - whereas climate change is concerned with the radiative balance of the earth as a whole. More energy coming in than going out = increase in temperature = increase in radiation of heat from the earth = balance restored. The opposite is, of course also true. Now, the heat generated internally is constant, certainly over the timescales we are talking about, given that it comes from radioactive decay within the earth.

All man made of course /sark. The system dynamics are known to a point but that does not mean we can predict the future

How can volcanoes be responsible for global warming when they actually *lower* global temperatures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

I thought you guys had re-branded it to Climate Change.

OK.

Solar radiation is broad spectrum radiation. Some is UV (the stuff that gives you a tan/cancer), some is visible radiation (sunlight), some is infrared - thats why sunlight feels warm. Obviously when sunlight is incident upon the earth this raises the earths temperature. On the other side, warm bodies emit heat - and the warmer the body, the greater the heat.

Explain the radiative mechanism when the dark side of the earth is facing away from the Sun.

The greenhouse effect comes from the fact that certain gases react very differently dependent on the wavelength of the radiation passing through them.

CO2 allows most radiation to ass through unhindered, but it absorbs infrared.

I know you're a big fan of empiricism, so take a look at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

So Co2 in the atmosphere allows most of the energy from the sun (covering a wide range of wavelengths) though to the earth, but, the radiation that is emitted back out (comprising mostly infrared radiation), is trapped. Thats your greenhouse.

That BBC video is famed for being ridiculous, it is a closed system (just like a greenhouse) and does not represent the atmosphere. Boltzmann turned up again, have you ever taken a bicycle pump and blocked the outlet? Apply pressure, what happens?

You still haven't explained how radiation is trapped when molecules are free to distribute the energy (a good thing) unlike the elements of a greenhouse.

 

[The Bear]

A couple of new stories about a recent peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change by NASA's James Hansen:

http://t.co/mMgZuu4W

http://t.co/5rJxUoRi

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Well all this highbrow, engineers versus scientists is soemwhat boring as well as confusing to us mere mortals.

IF and i say if, because i simply don't know, and the only models i worked with had great tits, IF we are responsible for climate change and governments are serious about saving the planet, why not.......

1) Insist all new homes built in britain, consists of roofs constructed with photovoltaic cells in place. Bang the cost on the mortgage and we're off and running.

2) on the babsis that Honda already have a perfectly working hydro car, and the problem is the storing and distribution of Hydrogen for use by motorists, and the refusal of poetrol companies to even consider a hydrogen , (or gas pump) at their current petrol stations, then why does the government not simply give them two years to achieve both, or suffer a continuing fine for every petrol station that does not offer the new alternative fuels.

To me it seems climate change has been seized on by various governments around the world as a fabulous excuse to raise new, morally defensible taxes, that achieve little else except more cash in the government coffers.

If you wish to reply to my post, please do so in norma; standard english, and keep the gobbledygook heavyweight stuff for yourselves. I would hate to see you wasting valuable energy.