Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Geophysical Counterpoints to Enhanced Greenhouse Theory


Newman

Recommended Posts

https://books.google.com/books?id=-mMWB7-B2ucC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=global+temperature+anomaly+to+earth's+orientation&source=bl&ots=FGVC8BjyHW&sig=PsCpxGeE5ogHYt96R1HQX5-P59Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi13bywjYbRAhUG9mMKHYywAFEQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would love for someone to put their 2 cents in on this book and John M. Quinn's thoughts. Now, the entire book is not available in this preview, but the pages that are shown are through permission of Dorrance Publishing. I very much agree with everything this scientist has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 2 cents is a real world observation made long ago, seems carbonated beverages LOST the carbonation quickly as they warmed "going flat".....and the entire real world record shows FIRST the temperature goes UP then the co2 level follow about 800 or so years later....and finally it is rather bizarre to claim the ONE component co2 is the driver of temperatures in such a complex system so complex in fact there are factors at play we have not yet identified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BillT said:

my 2 cents is a real world observation made long ago, seems carbonated beverages LOST the carbonation quickly as they warmed "going flat".....and the entire real world record shows FIRST the temperature goes UP then the co2 level follow about 800 or so years later....and finally it is rather bizarre to claim the ONE component co2 is the driver of temperatures in such a complex system so complex in fact there are factors at play we have not yet identified.

I assume you're referring to ice cores. There isn't an 800-year gap in those cores as this was later found to be an effect of (very) slow bubble migration within the cores. Once this physical property is adjusted for, the gap disappears, leaving about as perfect a correlation as you can find in nature. Your soda can observation of the reduced solubility of gasses at higher temperature nonwithstanding, I'm really confused as to where you got the impression that it was ONLY CO2 that was claimed as being the only driver. There's an avalanche of literature to suggest otherwise. Aerosols (natural and anthropogenic), water vapor, albedo, solar, dust and natural variability are all extensively studied within the literature (and that's just a partial list). We just happen to find that after all the chips are down on the table that CO2 is the biggest driver at this point in time.

 

I understand why folks have a hard time thinking it could be anything else other than the sun, but after careful measurement (and careful proxy records), TSI only varies about 0.1% off the mean value. Other similar spectral class stars show the same kind of variance. In this respect, our star is like others of its size -- a remarkably stable long-lived configuration that made life here possible in the first place. If it wasn't, life would have been aborted long ago in a deep freeze or frying pan. So, unless you want to refute decades of careful work in this area (not only by the climate science community -- but astronomy and astrophysics in general), I'm not sure what to tell you.

If you want a piece of simple proof, one need only look at the stratosphere. In an external sun-driven (or "geomag") warming, you would expect all levels of the atmosphere to warm. However, we do not see that. The stratosphere grows colder as the troposphere warms, something you would only expect if there were an excess of infrared radiation being trapped near the surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

co2 grabs a small portion of the ir wave then releases it, there is no "trapping" in this process.....why does the ir wave leave the earth and head towards space? then what power does co2 have to REVERSE that natural process of the IR waves leaving the earth? does co2 impart any force as it releases the energy? if i catch a cup of water from a stream then release the water back into the stream does it reverse its flow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BillT said:

co2 grabs a small portion of the ir wave then releases it, there is no "trapping" in this process.....why does the ir wave leave the earth and head towards space? then what power does co2 have to REVERSE that natural process of the IR waves leaving the earth? does co2 impart any force as it releases the energy? if i catch a cup of water from a stream then release the water back into the stream does it reverse its flow?

CO2 is transparent to shortwave radiation (e.g. sunlight), but opaque to longwave radiation (e.g. infrared). That's the reason you can't see CO2 with your eyes, but if you were to film a lit candle through a container of CO2 with an infrared camera, it would disappear. By the way, you can perform the latter as experiment at home. All you need is a transparent airtight container, candle, a bottle of CO2 or dry ice and a camera capable of seeing infrared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

CO2 is transparent to shortwave radiation (e.g. sunlight), but opaque to longwave radiation (e.g. infrared). That's the reason you can't see CO2 with your eyes, but if you were to film a lit candle through a container of CO2 with an infrared camera, it would disappear. By the way, you can perform the latter as experiment at home. All you need is a transparent airtight container, candle, a bottle of CO2 or dry ice and a camera capable of seeing infrared.

ty for that, but i see no answers to any of my questions in the response......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BillT said:

ty for that, but i see no answers to any of my questions in the response......

Well, being opaque to infrared is important to your question. If you add more, it follows that more infrared is absorbed and re-radiated by the gas as it tries to escape. This increasingly interferes with the Earth's natural blackbody radiation to space. I think a better way to view it (rather than "going in reverse") would be to view it as slowing the flow of heat to space. You already intuitively know this from real life experience. A cloudy night is warmer for the same reason that CO2 warms the planet -- it slows the flow of heat to space.

This causes the atmosphere and surface to warm, which raises the blackbody temperature and causes the Earth radiate infrared more strongly -- at least until equilibrium is reached again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

Well, being opaque to infrared is important to your question. If you add more, it follows that more infrared is absorbed and re-radiated by the gas as it tries to escape. This increasingly interferes with the Earth's natural blackbody radiation to space. I think a better way to view it (rather than "going in reverse") would be to view it as slowing the flow of heat to space. You already intuitively know this from real life experience. A cloudy night is warmer for the same reason that CO2 warms the planet -- it slows the flow of heat to space.

This causes the atmosphere and surface to warm, which raises the blackbody temperature and causes the Earth radiate infrared more strongly -- at least until equilibrium is reached again.

this point of "equilibrium" is something i find hard to accept, i do see there could be a hypothetical point of balance, but in the real world countless factors are constantly changing and that point will in turn always change, the system will seek to find that balance but never can because of so many changing factors.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...