Reply With Quote
PS You're welcome
And? Did you realize what epsilon in the model stood for?
Its right there in the diagram for you to see. Do you know what happens when you increase the greenhouse effect and how that changes that value? Why doesn't it have a value of 1? Why does a value of zero make the surface temperature too cold?
Your inability to understand these concepts are central to your inability to understand why we can measure the change in the GHE through outgoing IR radiation from the atmosphere as well. These are fundamental to understanding how the GHE works and while you may think you understand because you've read some on wikipedia or another webpage your complete inability to place them in a complete context says otherwise. You simply do not understand the radiative properties of the climate system and how GHG play into that and some god damn humility will do you a bit of good in these discussions. You DO NOT know more about climate science than me much less people who have actually accomplished the difficult task of getting a doctorate and publishing literature that is reviewed by their peers (not that this was a debate anywhere outside of your head). So, I'll do some teaching.
We'll be using this equation to get the appropriate surface temp.
When you use 1370 as the solar constant, .31 for the albedo and a value of .77 for the emissivity of the atmosphere you get surface temp of ~287K. This is pretty much correct. Now, when you drop the incoming solar radiation by 13.7 W/m^2 and leave everything else what we get is a decrease in temp to 285.6 or a drop of 1.4 deg K. HOWEVER, as the GHE goes up, we're doing two things. First, we're increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere and we're also decreasing the albedo. So, if we're conservative and decrease the albedo to a value of .30 and increase the emissivity to .78 and use the lower solar constant value then we get a change back to 287.3. In other words, right where we were at the start.
This is a very coarse approximation, but even with such a simple model it is easy to show that 1) there would be no ice age (with or without GHG increases) and 2) the scientists who are thinking of these ideas might just very well know what they are talking about a bit more than than some dude who gets paid to change a circuit board and solder every now and then.
PS You're welcome
I give up.
How many times have I said there would probably be no ice age.
I'm only saying the 1.7% would be more than what is needed to combat the assumed anthropogenic warming.
What the model and calculator do not apply is the change in water feedback from the solar change change. It is only applying this when there is a CO2 change. If you correct the coarse model for this, I'll bet it will be more than 2 degrees of change.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-16-2012 at 12:47 PM.
It does apply that. Its in the emissivity of the atmosphere. You simply don't understand what that value stands for. It stands for the GHE of the atmosphere which includes water vapor, ozone, co2, methane, CFCs, etc etc. Those gasses all contribute to the atmosphere transmitting less energy and absorbing more. You just don't understand this. Its bout time you gave up trying to act like you know more on this subject.
@ correct the coarse model that is modeling the GHE for the GHE. SMH. Thanks for the one final gem.
I know that water feedback is being applied to changes in CO2 levels. I'll bet if you check the model, it does not account for H2O feedback to solar changes.
....Why on earth do you think its specific to CO2 changes? The model gives you a change in temperature for a change in forcing. Water vapor then changes the forcing based on temp. In order to account for water vapor changes you just change the emissivity of the atmosphere. Water vapor does not respond to a change in a forcing but a change in a temperature If two forcings cancel each other out and there is no net change in temp then the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere does not change as it is a function of temperature.
Any other stupid drivel you'd like to leave the thread with? The ultimate irony here is that in your attempt to grasp at straws your arguing that the earth's cliamte has a higher sensitivity which invalidates pretty much every argument you've ever made in a climate change thread. Contradicting yourself is the hallmark of someone talking out their ass.
THIS is the model. Explain to everyone where the feedbacks are or are not accounted for. Thanks.
It only shows upward IR from the surface. It's missing latent heat and sensible heat transfers. With that model, the H2O levels cannot be changing. Not all energy goes into the atmosphere as IR.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-17-2012 at 08:44 AM.
Latent heat and sensible heat do not go out into space. The model makes not attempt to model the exchanges of heat within the layers of the atmosphere at it is a ONE LAYER model which treats the entire atmosphere as ONE LAYER in order to get the SURFACE temperature due to the GHE. It does so really well but if you'd like to explain how sensible heat or latent heat transfers within the atmosphere will affect it by all means continue to try to dig your way out of your hole.
And of course the H20 levels can change. Water vapor is a GHG. You account for increased GHG concentrations by modifying the emissivity of the atmosphere. I've already explained this to you several times. What other effect of water vapor change matters?
Everything else is always wrong. The guys with PhDs are wrong. The commmonly used one layer model is wrong. The IPCC is wrong. But the parts changer who never bothers to show an ounce of work is right based off his uneducated hunches. Sound about right?
Of course laten and sensible heat don't go into space. Why are you so dense? It goes into the "single layer atmosphere" from the surface.
What part of the formula is modifying the the emissivity for H2O based of temperature changes? I don't see it.
You can say that bull all you want. That formula is too simple to contain what you say it does.
It goes into the atmosphere from the surface?!?!?!?!?!? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOL
Maybe you wish to explain why it's called "latent" then, and why scientific literature shows it going into the atmosphere?
Its called latent because its stored heat you fool. It transports heat from the lower levels of the atmosphere into the higher levels of the atmosphere through the process of evaporation and condensation. Its just a heat transport method. It does not change the overall amount of heat in the atmosphere as a whole at all.
Yes, I know. It's a major transport method for water, which then has a primarily logarithmic response on radiative forcing.
So in your own words what is a logarithmic response?
Bzzz bzzzzztt... Bzzzz... bzzzzzz...
Well as has been pointed out, you read this off wiki and google searches. You already have demonstrated you don't understand linearity 'y = 3.1x' boy. So I am curious what you think a logarithmic response entails.
Fuzzy, just go yourself. You either go out of your way to misrepresent what others say, or you don't understand what they are saying. Keep it up and I will simply ignore you again like I used to. I have noticed you are worthless to any debate, you are just a constant troll. Are you ever going to contribute something?
LOL...
'y = 3.1x'
LOL...
My God you are re ed.
So then you don't know what a logarithmic response is.
You can tell me to get myself but we are not the only people that read this. Now people think you are even more full of . Bravo.
LOL...
It's not the linear y = 3.1x...
Looks like you don't know.
Wild Cobra 30
FuzzyLumpkins 26
MannyIsGod 27
Agloco 7
I never asked what it wasn't, dimwit, and it's readily clear that you don't know what it is.
I'll help you meet the WC standard of fluency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
you mr. mouse we ever getting a scoring rubric?
lol @ primarly logarithmic response on radiative forcing. I'm not sure if you realize but you're not going to wow me with your googled vocabulary when you don't even use them in the proper manner. Try again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
