We can’t have huge copy paste nonsense, even in the pit. There are some standards.
I heartily agree.
I’m not sure their analysis of performance accurately accounts for circumstances where the electrons enter an excited state due to radiative enhancement of the albedo.
Not quite. It is valid to speak of the earth’s IR or UV albedo. The word can also refer to the total reflectance of all EM radiation.
The heat at the core of the earth is due to decay of radioactive elements, and has nothing to do with sunlight.
Also, you’re wrong: the sun affects earth’s temperatures high in the atmosphere, and, in fact, a small distance down into the sea. Even into the earth: go to the desert and dig a little in hot sand.
You’re oversimplifying things horribly.
No, you are flat wrong on this in regards to IR.
Infrared does not reflect like visible light (UV is another story). Here’s an experiment so you can see for yourself (or just trust the experimenter is telling you the truth)
“Black and white paper (and indeed most terrestrial surfaces) have very similar albedos in the infrared.”
Now in regards to CO2 (and water vapor), something important to remember when calculating and talking about sunlight and the greenhouse effect, is that the gases and atmospheric effects works for energy in both directions. The same gases that keep the lower atmosphere warmer (greenhouse effect) also decrease the amount of IR reaching the surface from the sun, just as the atmosphere also decreases the amount of visible light reaching the surface. (consider the heat/light from the setting sun, as compared to at noon)
Using a heliothermometer de Saussere showed that solar radiation intensifies with altitude. What he didn’t know, is that almost all of the IR coming from the sun (which is 55% of the energy of sunlight) is blocked from reaching the surface. As greenhouse gases increase, the blocking of IR is both increased, and occurs at a higher altitude.
The higher up one measures, the hotter sunlight is. Both in visible and infrared.
I wish I could see the look on GIGOs face as he put that into his skepticalscience app. No, you aren’t going to find anything about that on skepticalscience either.
You have to go to an infrared astronomy source to learn about the atmosphere and IR energy. Which is actually very well studied, since observing the Universe in the bands of IR not blocked by our atmosphere is a huge part of astronomy.
Damn, andros, ninja’ed AGAIN !!!
This.
“The atmosphere, heaven above us all, is a global common—yet it is used as a waste-dump for greenhouse gases by the few.”
Ottmar Edenhofer,
chief economist of PIK and director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change
If we could just get the few to stop, maybe by force, we could clean up this mess right quick. I mean, it’s obvious that it’s not the billions of people who use fossil fuels each day to survive that is the problem here. It’s those few that are doing it.
Ooooooh, I am sooooooo in twouble now! Pwease don’t crucify, thumbscrew, fold, staple, or mutilate me, Mister Moderator!
You’re lucky he’s not one of the people who adds you to his fake ignore list! Then you’d really be in trouble!
Okay, cool. It gets absorbed, and then some of it is re-emitted. The greenhouse effect means that less of it is re-emitted.
I was wrong on the mechanism of absorption. Great. I’m not a climate scientist. (I’m also willing to admit when I’m wrong, something you don’t have the credibility to pull off.) I’m still right on the overall effect: more solar energy is being retained, overall, because of greenhouse gases, and this leads to warming.
I would quibble a few points with the learned Mr. Di Fool. First off, the Heisenberg Dueling Scar was a form of ritual scarification practiced by militant young Prussian physicists of the early 20th Century. Mr. Di Fool mistakenly conflates it with a Belgian waffle.
Secondly, he does not acknowledge his debt to Russel and Whitehead’s Postscript to Principia Mathematica. The discerning reader will see at once that I refer to their postulate that the incomprehensible is, by definition, irrefutable. (Regrettably, this addendum is not widely available, as it was only published in British.)
Beyond these, I have no criticisms, and clench my teeth in vexed admiration.
The links I posted to the new MIT study weren’t some random walk in the steaming hot house. They came up with the new claim that the warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect (AGW, global warming, the CO2 theory) happens quite quickly (years, decades at most, not centuries), which is to say the earth reaches it’s new equilibrium temperature quickly, so that an increase in greenhouse gases leads to the planet quickly changing states, reacting to the physical changes almost right away.
This is exactly what watchwolf was talking about. There is no extra energy to drive the warming, and once a greater greenhouse effect is happening, the earth is slightly warmer, and then simply radiates away at that slightly greater temp. This is in essence basic global warming theory. Raise the greenhouse gases, earth gets warmer. Lower them, earth goes back into a glacier building phase of the ice age. (we are in an ice age right now, just a warm spell of one)
So why is the MIT paper important? Because the story that global warming (AGW) means greater IR leads to warmer planet isn’t what they say actually happens. In the basic theory as it warms there is more water vapor, which leads to more warming, and the greenhouse effect just keeps increasing, and warming continues. So that if we stopped increasing CO2 right now, we would still see centuries of warming. (some say catastrophic warming) Some say we are fucked because of this.
Basic global warming theory predicts as CO2 increases, less IR is radiated away, or rather it takes longer for the energy from sunlight to leave. CO2 “traps” extra heat, and that is what warms the planet. This is the CO2 theory of climate change.
The MIT study says this does not happen.
I’m not going to read it to you, but hopefully that line will cause you to be interested enough to read the press release.
“While one would expect the longwave radiation that escapes into space to decline with increasing CO2, the amount actually begins to rise”
And since there is no way to mention this with out the usual idiots groaning or gnashing their teeth, I have made a connection with that study, and the theory of Cohen.
There is no source to link you to on this, since I did it, and I will not publish. (yay, cheers, I can hear the joy)
Cohen states clearly, that the global warming theory can not, and does not, explain or predict colder winters with more snow, due to AGW.
yadda yadda yadda
For the struggling actually interested person, the short story is this.
The MIT paper says the continued warming will be from SW (visible light) due to changes from the CO2 warming, and that is what will cause continued warming. Not more IR, LW radiation, but from Short Wave), visible light, less ice and snow, more warming, more open water.
Cohen says changes (do to warming) from CO2 actually is causing the colder winters, due to changes in albedo, from warming. Mostly early and heavy Siberian snow.
I know this won’t really matter, but it’s enjoyable thinking about these things. That’s why I do it.
This is stupid and it goes a long way to indicating that you are not really capable of understanding English, logic, or science.
For me to have implied something, there must be an actual statement in my text that would lead one to draw a conclusion, whereas, you may draw a false inference by simply misreading, (deliberately or in ignorance or stupidity), what I posted.
Remember, my statement was:
So, I note that evidence has been presented the the equilibrium stuff is hypothesized for a planet with no atmosphere. (No statement regarding radiation, either pro or con.)
I note that there is a statement by scientists that one known planet has an actual temperature twelve times as great as its theoretical equilibrium value. (No reference to radiation.)
I finally note that the scientists looking at that planet have attributed the difference to a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. (Still no reference to radiation.)
In other words, I have made no reference to radiation and no claim that it does not occur on Earth. I have not implied that; you (falsely) inferred it.
What I did imply was that in a planet that had an atmosphere, the radiation effect would be overwhelmed by various features associated with the atmosphere–and I pointed to linked sites to support that implication.
In response, you posted
That is simply false. There is nothing in my statement to indicate that Earth radiates nothing. Your post indicates a stupid logical failure. Certainly, the Earth radiates heat. Nothing in my post denies, challenges, or even mentions that fact . However, for your “equilibrium” to be effective, there must be nothing that could interfere with that radiation and my actual implication was that Earth, having an atmosphere, has an agent that will interfere with that radiation. To falsely claim that I implied that “the Earth doesn’t radiate at all” is both stupid (since nothing in my statement supports the claim) and dishonest (since you are attributing, to me, a statement I did not make).
Spelled your name right.
Do you know what it says about you that you brag about people on your ignore list? Do you know what it says about you that you would threaten to put someone there? It says you have to hide in the Middle school library during lunch because all the bullies are looking to beat you up (Cheerleaders too huh, that’s sad). Except 13-years-olds general know this is not a thing to brag about. So I’ve got you in the First Grade classroom with your hands over your ears singing “nah nah nah nah I can’t hear you”. The sad part is the typical human child has mastered the skills of ignoring by their first year.
So this is intended to be an 18 point insult, because I’m entitled to a triple digit score from you … sir … please make it so.