Reply With Quote
global warming is fake al gore made it up so you can pay a carbon tax to manbearpig
global warming is fake al gore made it up so you can pay a carbon tax to manbearpig
The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.
the earth endures many warming/cooling processes in the historical circle and right now it's in the process of getting warm which'll last a few centuries. a few centuries from now the earth will start cooling down and history will repeat itself over and over again, thats not what the emission of greenhouse gas can make any significant impact on imho
Can you provide an example of the correct calculation for us? What leads you believe that blackbody calculations were used?
Also, if you could explain the basic science behind radiative forcing and blackbodies with an emphasis on how and why any differences could impact calculations.
I don't need an essay, just 5 or 6 sentences to explain these things to the less informed. Thanks in advance.
If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious. Personally, I question if you are as good at science as you claim. You have no interest in bringing such scientific knowledge into this discussion. You only try to shut those of us down you disagree with. You have the proper educational skill set to take any misuse of terminology on my part and use against me. I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.
I will say this. Black body heat is a fourth power calculation. Direct surface temperature when equalized to radiating back out is increased, but not linear like watts (joules, etc) vs. temperature normally do. In I increase my radiant energy by 1% (1.01) then my surface temperature is increased by 0.249% (1.01^0.25). This same upward radiation goes back to 1% higher. 1.00249^4 = 1.01.
These percentages used are fine for non atmospheric celestial bodies. Reducing the suns energy to 98.3% hitting the earth changes the black body temperature to 99.67 percent before greenhouse warming. A -18 C changes to -19 C (255k * 0.983^0.25 = 254k). Only a 1 degree change, but this is before any changes of forcing by greenhouse gasses, where temperature is proportional to watts. The power traveling and heating the atmosphere is changed by about the same percentage. I find contradictory numbers for the total (not flux) radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses, but it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 325 watts/sq meter. I think we can agree on giving this a +/- 25%. In this feedback system, and yes, greenhouse gas forcing is technically a feedback system... the amplified effect is proportional to the source, being the sun. When you reduce this 325 watts/square meter to 98.3%, then it is now about 319 watts/sq meter. A reduction of 6 watts/square meter, which puts us far less than any anthropogenic forcing adds.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-09-2012 at 02:41 AM. Reason: changed 99.97 to 99.67
Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun.
Yet you bothered to respond. Thanks again for the information.
Scientists can surely tell us what happened "12 Billion" years ago what took place where everything settled in the universe, how the earth cooled and formed life and yet they can only give us a few months notice on an asteroid some geek happened to see with his radio shack telescope?
I am not going to use your use of terminology to discount what you say. I am going to use your napkin math and simpleminded approach to thermodynamics to make fun of you.
This is no different than using a solubility chart to describe the gas emissions of the ocean. It's dumbed down such that even a fool such as you can kinda understand it. When it comes down to it though you do not understand it but instead try to apply the dumbed down version to what is obviously a much more complex system.
He asked you for the equations. Did you provide them? Nope you just give us a dumbed down version of thermodynamics
Lets first talk about your assumptions:
Is the Earth an idealized black body? No it is obviously not. Do you try and model it like it is anyway? Yup.
Do you in any way try and consider the thermodynamic properties of the materials that do make up the Earth? No, obviously do not. All you are able to consider is an idealized system and do a very poor job at it.
Is the temperature distribution on the surface of the Earth uniform? No it is obviously not. This one goes back to your poor critical thinking skills. How many times have you regaled us with tales of urban heat islands? Can you figure out why these two notions do not coexist? There are so many variables in this consideration that you, well, that you do not even remotely consider.
Is the Earth irradiated at the same rate over an equal distribution? No it obviously doesn't. You may recall the Earth spins with an axis that is not close parallel with the axis around which it orbits the sun.
Now lets consider how you try and apply these poor assumptions. First you tell us how the system is nonlinear. In this you are correct. Where you completely fail is in describing how an ideal body would behave at the temperatures the Earth is at. Is describing a body's behavior that is not the Earth at temperatures around 0 degrees F a good way to describe the Earth at the temperatures that it actually is at? Of course it's not. If the function is not linear that means the behavior is not going to be consistent across the range. Initial conditions, dimwit.
Are the mechanics of how the sun irradiates the Earth such that you can consider how said energy is going to warm the surface before you consider how it warms the atmosphere? Of course not. This too should be obvious but does that stop you? Of course not. Stupid is as stupid does.
This is just stuff that I come up with off the top of my head. But for you to think that the thousands of scientists, whose specialties range much more diverse than an associates degree from an analog of Mansfield Tech in the early 1980's, do not consider basic thermodynamics you not only insult yourself but you insult them.
Now I know you are going to say the exact same you did when we were talking about capacitors and the solubility of the ocean and say that what your saying is true and I cannot disprove it. I am going to say the same thing i told you those times. i don't care to discuss your stupidity. I want to discuss things germane to the discussion at hand.
We are not talking about basic thermodyamics that you understand poorly. We are talking about the behavior in actual systems. Wikipedia is not a good starting point in topics on the thermodynamics of the earth.
Show some pride and just stop.
What a complete fail fuzzy.
Percentage changes still matter. That's why I didn't need to go into details, and I was not shooting for the nth digit accuracy.
You are obviously, oblivious, to what matters.
Need I remind The Fuzzy Troll what I said before the explaination:
If I thought this was a serious question other than you being an ankle biter, or if I thought others understood, I might take your serious.Do you really expect me to spend as much time with someone who I find less than serious to offer a better explanation?I do not trust that you will seek the truth, but rather focus on any misplaced words I will undoubtedly use.
I will say this.
I find it really, really pathetic that you wrote such a long winded and meaningless response.
As I stated nonlinear means different behavior across the range. You simply do not understand. Of course they matter but not as matter as getting the correct initial conditions. Lets take x^2 for 1 to 2 you go from 1 to 4. That is a 400% increase. From 9 to 10 you go from 81 to 100. That is a 23% increase. It's simple yet you do not understand. That makes you worse than simpleminded.
Seriously, you need to stop trying to talk about complex systems from your simple mind.
Here you are, once again, telling people what your limited mind thinks I am saying.
You are wrong.
You are stupid.
You are a ing troll.
Do you have any idea how lame and incorrect your example is to my example? I guess not, which really shows off your stupidity. 1 to 2 is a 100%, or 200%. 2^2 is 4, or 400%.
9 to 10 is an 11.1111% increase 1.11111^2 is 1.2346... your 23%... I see you didn't follow my math. I do understand these nonlinear functions.
I see you are a single step person. If I leave out any step as to how I arrive at a solution, you say I'm wrong. Well guess what simpleton... I can do things several steps ahead. I don't have to solve problems step-by-step. Not my fault you cannot think past a step at a time. I have a really hard time "dumbing it down" for imbeciles like you.
says someone who knows basically nothing besides highschool knowledge w/o googling
smh
I was, at least, quite cordial about it.
Das ist selbstverständlich........
My inquiry was intended to give you enough rope to hang yourself with. Thanks for obliging.
I have a hard time tolerating trolls.
Oh, by all means...
Explain how I was wrong.
Bet you can't.
See...
You can't either.
You know that when you make your lame ass reason, I will show you why you are wrong.
Or... Like I said to Agloco:
Do you seek the truth, or not?
Do you wish yo air our any misunderstandings, or not?
This from a self-confessed troll. That's rich.
I understand your point however. I don't suffer fools easily, which is why I insist you clarify your stance whenever I catch you posting bull about blackbodies and what not.
I simply asked why you thought that this groups estimates were off by an order of magnitude. You attempted an explanation and came up short. Feel free to hate me or your high school Algebra instructor for that.
Either way, I've got a hot date with a lady named Marnier. Have a good evening.
Liar. I didn't say magnitudes, and neither did you. I questioned if they misplaced a decimal point.
Can we have an honest debate, or are you going to spin lies?
You still didn't say how. I think that's because you do not understand.
Now I did make an error, and edited a post. I said that the 1.7% reduction changes blackbody temperature by 0.9997. Typo... (0.983^0.25 = 0.9967,) not 0.9997... I didn't make a mistake on the approximate 1 degree that changes. The earths temperature, however, cannot be calculated using black body formulas. Again that is a mistake I think they may have made, thinking they can cool the earth by 1 degree. The effect would be far greater, and the primary functional changes in the greenhouse gas response, will be a linear change. Yes, there are non linear responses as well, but they are too small to worry about.
Now, what the 99.67% matters with, is the surface temperature with no atmosphere. I pointed out this makes for a 1 degree reduction, and one of my assumptions of what they did wrong:
Now in misplacing a decimal, this again, was an assumption:The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.
"I'll bet" is not saying "I know."The amount of percentage they speak of would put us into an ice age I think. I'll bet they misplaced a decimal or used black body calculations instead. Radiative forcing on atmospheric temperatures are not 4th power functions like blackbody calculations are.
Don't you get it. I saw right away that 1.7% is too much. I assumed two possibilities. I never stated that these were the only possibilities. Now this reduction of 1.7% becomes 98.3%. I think what you, Fuzzy, and Manny are missing is that even though the increase in greenhouse gas forcing is nonlinear (primarily logarithmic) in respect to changes in gas levels, it is linear in respect to source input power, i.e.... the sun... Now I only mentioned the approximate forcing by greenhouse gasses of about 325 watt/sq meter. The total combination of the direct, indirect, and greenhouse gas warming is about 520 watts/sq meter. 98.3% of that is 511 watts. Their plan will probably reduce the total radiative forcing by about 9 watts/meter. Is this really their plan? Now it probably isn't enough to take up to an ice age, I didn't do any math before making that statement. It is still, a severe change, unless that is the level they think they need to combat.
If you wish to claim I am wrong, then please explain. No more ankle biting please.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
