I would hate to think that my remark sent Photizo into rapture but it's entirely possible that yours struck a nerve. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here is an interesting diagram. This shows the absorption of Carbonic acid (HCOOH) as a function of relative humidity. If we react water and CO2 we get carbonic acid. As the amount of water increases in the atmosphere, and reacts with CO2 to form carbonic acid, the CO2 changes its peak to the wave number 1600, which increases with relative humidity. The little insert diagram, in the first graph, shows pure CO2 which absorbs at wave number 2345. The higher wave number of pure CO2 is warmer IR, while the addition of water to form carbonic acid shifts absorption to cooler IR. The wave numbers can be seen along the top legion of the second diagram for water. Water cools the impact of CO2 absorption. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Initially only near open bodies of water at the bottom of the troposphere. The troposphere gets both colder and thinner at higher altitudes, therefore the expectation is that the greatest amounts of additional water vapor (and it is absolute amounts and not relative concentrations which are important in absorption arguments) will be at the lower altitudes. But absorbing at more outgoing energy throughout the atmosphere is analogous to piling on more blankets on the bed, absorbing more incoming energy closer to the surface of the Earth is analogous to putting an electric blanket as the lowest level, because you are lowering the albedo of just the lower atmosphere, basically the same thing as heating the surface of the Earth. A tiny effect compared to the relative change in weighted optical density for the outgoing blackbody spectrum. Thus this is a mere distraction. Also, you are using made-up and baseless terminology. It's not warmer IR and cooler IR but rather shorter-wavelength IR and longer wavelength IR, respectively. The same energy can be transmitted at any wavelength and thanks to the precision of using the spectral diagram the tendency towards lower wavelengths in the blackbody law is just a general shift of a wide distribution at terrestrial temperatures. That's incorrect. Even the diagram shows there is generous overlap between the 310 K blackbody curve at the large, wide peak in CO₂ absorption near 10 µm. Thus more CO₂ increases the weighted optical density of the atmosphere at all terrestrial blackbody temperatures. No. The labeled diagram shows water is only a bit player in the incoming blackbody. Rayleigh scattering and oxygen absorption accounts for the major part of the failure of the atmosphere to transmit sunlight. For the second time, your claims of increased solar UV is not in evidence and appears to be more wishful thinking. How often are you going to parrot whatever you hear in the echo chamber without looking for scientific evidence to support it? Yes, I know that at higher temperatures, the atmosphere can hold more water -- this is why the climate sensitivity to doubling CO₂ is likely close to 3.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius and not roughly the 1.0 degrees predicted if there were no positive feedback mechanisms at all. But my issue was with altitude because the water vapor cannot magically get distributed throughout the atmsophere when the troposphere gets colder with altitude. Thus more water vapor might act not only as a powerful positive feedback mechanism but also contributed to increased cloudiness at night which is another positive feedback. Actually, water, CO₂ and carbonic acid achieve a chemical equilibrium. This argument is pointless since the equilibrium constant greatly favors CO₂ to the extent that if the atmosphere were replaced with water, only 0.17% of the CO₂ would become Carbonic acid which is a pointless effect as we are approaching a doubling of CO₂ over pre-industrial levels. Why do you clutch at such silly straws? Just how much confirmation bias do you have, when any unscientific conjecture you come across you use to prop up your failing world view? Why don't you acknowledge that you make terrible arguments? If they aren't terrible argument, why do you abandon them quickly and change the topic? Do you know what a Gish Gallop is?
\(pp_s(T) = 6.1094e^{\frac{17.625T}{T+243.04}}\) T is temp in celsius pp[sub]s[/sub](T) is the saturation vapor pressure at a given temperature in celsius. Or, put another way: \(\frac{de_s}{dT} = \frac{L_v(T)e_s}{R_v T^2}\) e[sub]s[/sub] = saturation vapor pressure T = Temperature L[sub]v[/sub] is the specific latent heat of evaporation R[sub]v[/sub] is the gas constant of water vapor.
Yes, Photizo. Because there is just one science, when people claim things the opposite of science they cannot be held to be scientists of good reputation. Fair and balanced news coverage doesn't mean if 98% of climate scientists agree that the cause of global warming is human actions burning fossil fuels, you don't "balance" that with a crazy person who says the Earth is cooling. In matters of fact, not everyone's opinion is equally valid. The Heartland Institute isn't a climate research organization -- it's a marketing firm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#May_2012_billboard_campaign http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024 And the claim of 97% consensus hasn't been debunked. http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm#quantification
Unless they frack the ground under your house without your permission, and if you complain they just take your land. Then you will be a strong wise homeless person, while the ten rulers live on the hilltop looking down at all that wisdom at their disposal, cheaply.
Science is not about consensus, but about facts. Consensus is connected to subjective opinion, like in politics or blind tastes tests. The equation E=MC2 is a science fact that can be proven by anyone who wants to run the experiment. You can belief this is false or are conditioned to say it it is stupid, if you run the experiment the data does not lie. It will prove itself. This is not the same as a consensus, like the consensus says Coke tastes better than Pepsi. The consensus is often based on marketing and is fickle like any fad. Once you hear the word consensus, think subjective motivations that lie beyond the facts of science, such as most of the funding coming from an administration that sees this as a means to end. I will join the consensus for $150K per year. If you give me Pepsi for a year that will be my favorite and I will help that become the consensus. I would bet that if half the funding that goes into the consensus, went to the other side, the ratio would change, since consensus is fickle not fact. Let us apply the consensus principle global warming is based on. The consensus of viewers believe that FOX news is the best news station. This is based on solid data connected to viewers. Anyone who does not watch FOX, since it is the consensus that FOX is the best, is a denier and is being irrational. If we use the current template, we now need to call such deniers names and attack them personally until they join. They will join, not due to data, but out of emotional fear of being abused. We can even deal with the holdouts by attacking their livelihood, until black mail forces them to join the consensus. Did I follow the template properly? I forgot about buying loyalty.
Science isn't about facts. Facts are the side effect. Science is about adopting the best possible useful generalization of human experience -- it's about useful, accurate, predictive descriptions of the behavior of phenomena. What is the current state-of-art most useful, most accurate predictive descriptions of human experience is accepted provisionally as fact. That's gravity, special relativity, evolution, plate tectonics and global warming. Firstly, I think you communicate as little about politics as you do science. Secondly, blind tastes tests is an effective methodology used to measure phenomena and ultimately, through science, establish a fact. Humans and rats agree, Coke scientifically really does taste better than Brand X floor wax. Actually, what experiment readily establishes is that \(E^2\) is close to \(m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2\) for experiments where the influence of gravity and electromagnetism are negligible. From this we generalize when gravity and electromagnetism and motion are negligible, \(E\) is well-modeled as \(mc^2\) and thus accept \(E=mc^2\) provisionally as established fact. But just as there are deniers of global warming and anthropogenic global warming, so too are there deniers of special relativity. I'm glad you see such deniers as a fringe element whose opinions cannot matter to science. Why should the deniers of anthropogenic global warming be treated any differently? Firstly, this is stupid for you to say when you have never run "the experiment" and so are in fact relying on scientists to accurately communicate to you the results of their measurements and trials. Secondly, no experiment can prove any equation since equality implies infinite precision and human tools and instruments are manufactured within finite tolerances. Science mostly looks to experiment to disprove ideas. A null hypothesis is formed (there were no gravitational waves detectable in the cosmic background radiation) and then precision experiments find that the null hypothesis has to be rejected and so ignorance is shrunk a little bit. Citation requested. It sounds like what you are describing is not an informed consensus of expressed opinion, but rather a measurement of otherwise uncommunicated opinion with a survey. This doesn't often happen in science because of the correspondence principle. Because science is about reliable generalizations taken from a shared source of reality, old, provably wrong ideas, that used to be provisionally accepted as the best generalization are replaced with improved models that echo answers that don't much differ from earlier results within an area of overlap. Thus in an age of Planck and Einstein, the mechanics of Newton are still good enough to get to the moon and back because the completely different model of quantum field theory in curved space time overlaps in physical predictions with Newton's description of trajectories of objects in Universal Gravitation. You are misusing the term "subjective" because you are alleging improper influence with objective amounts of cash. You are also saying that the Obama administration has global influence over 97% of the world's climatologists and time travel powers. That's some persecution complex you have built up in your head. But there you are, rallying against the sea because it has conspired to be wet when you know that is just the action of your enemies. Just because you are intellectually dishonest is no demonstration that anthropogenic global warming is a paid-for scientific hoax. If you had a demonstration that funding went into a consensus rather than research or that there were just two sides, or a way to test your hypothesis, I would take the bet. But you have built a tower of conjecture here. There has only been one test of this idea -- the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team. They report: "Global land temperatures have increased by ... about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years. ... Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions." The graph is a damming indictment of anthropogenic global warming even when oceans and the arctic ice cap are ignored. You have not established that the professional opinion of scientists as extracted from their peer-reviewed scientific publications in their field of expertise is a paid-for or ephemeral expression of fashion. You have asserted this, but you have not demonstrated this claim. Thus the null hypothesis, that 97% of the climate papers that express an opinion on the subject claim mankind is responsible for global warming for the reason that mankind is responsible for global warming, must stand as not rejected. Especially in light of the above experiment where BEST was funded explicitly to counter that readily apparent consensus. Fox News Channel has dominated American* television ratings over other channels with "News" in their names or initialisms. That's not the same thing as establishing that FNC is providing the best news or that it is a desire for news that causes people to watch it. * Also, by using only local surveys of American viewing habits, you ignore the potential for BBC, Al Jazeera or some PRC news show as being the top news show. I have often seen this mistake of confusing local weather with global long-term trends averages. You have put the cart before the horse again. I certainly choose not to watch FNC (although I quite like The Simpsons and Cosmos and 24 on the non-News Fox channel) for the reason that I deny that it is the best source of news. (I think a news aggregator like Google News is far superior both at tracking headlines and giving me in-depth coverage of what subject I want to read about.) It is fairly good at feeding people's sense of outrage. But as I have a reasonable basis for my opinion and practices and even my denial, you have no basis to call my denial of the proposition that people should watch FNC as irrational. You have not learned from the many times I have posted reasons why I consider your arguments to be counterfactual and/or irrational. Until you learn to reason properly, I fear I would feel awkward and embarrassed from any post you made where you expressed solidarity in opinion with me. I mean, you didn't even understand special relativity, but mindlessly parroted "E-MC2" [sic], so I wonder why you express any opinion on scientific matters since I see no demonstration of expertise. I think I was correct when I assumed you had a persecution complex. Maybe next Kevin Sorbo can wear that goatee and play a climatologist. If you want to dress up your opinions as relevant, then it behooves you to support them with fact-based rational argument. Columbus also was rallying agains 97% of those with expertise, against a science fad established by Eratosthenes about 2000 years earlier, but Columbus was wrong (on the shape and size of the Earth). He just happened to fail in an economically useful manner. Today we know the shape of the Earth differs from that of a sphere, but Eratosthenes is still right enough for many practical purposes (correspondence principle again) and Columbus is still utterly wrong. Other recent posts on the paucity of anti-science arguments on the topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming: [POST=3174463]post #45 of And the Forecast says...[/POST] "In science "It's not good enough" isn't an argument. You don't replace ignorance with wishful thinking and guesses. You don't replace partial knowledge with total ignorance. You replace inferior models with superior models. ... We've known since 1940 that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions were causing the amount in the atmosphere to rise. Before that we knew a factor of two change in CO₂ content would severely tax our civilization's ability to endure. " So Obama's time travel campaign is far ranging, isn't it? Also [post=3174651]post #47[/post], "One way to start [engaging in critical thinking about one's held beliefs] is to ask oneself what evidence would convince you that your held position is seriously wrong. One example of this for me is for some other physical model to fit the evidence better than every model of anthropogenic global warming. ... So far climate change denialists have advocated that these models are "not good enough" but haven't presented alternative models that actually work. This makes them silly advocates of ignorance. To take their professed opinions seriously would be to denigrate expertise. To ignore their ongoing misinformation campaigns is to concede the masses to evil of the bad teachers."
Scientific consensus is not the same thing as political consensus. Consequently, the consensus view is that it is correct, however, this was not always the case. Political consensus is not the same thing as a scientific consensus. What you are describing is not a scientific consensus. Global warming is not based on a consensus, it has a consensus supporting it. Global warming is based on the combined predictions of several independently derived theories and laws. No, you did not follow the template properly, you trolled.
The data says the earth's temperature has increased slightly over the past 50-100 years. This is fact and I agree. Where this fact becomes confused is in saying this temperature increase means manmade global warming. These are two separate things, but they are being sold as, one thing. As an analogy, it is like saying my team won the championship. This is true. The second thing is I am a big fan. If I sell these two separate things as one thing, then one would be led to believe my being a big fan is why my team won the championship. A clever political convergent theory might show how I cheered every win and wore the team colors each day that season. This can't be a coincidence. Let us go back to other hard data. The earth has warmed and cooled many times before the industrial revolution. There is hard data of periodic global climate change that cycles from warm to cool and back to warm, often with higher swings that we see today. The question I would ask is how would you explain this using only natural changes of the earth, since man was not yet around? How did the team win a championship before you were their biggest fan seeing this has occurred on many occasions before you were born? Manmade global warming, if true, is very new to the earth, and has no precedent in global history. It is like a prototype, that has no precedent in the history of hard data. How do you prove a phenomena (biggest fan), that only has one data point in the making, but no second data point to draw a straight line to draw any needed additional conclusions? One point allows any angle you want when you draw a line. If you found one piece of toast with the image of Jesus on it, what would that prove? One would call it a coincidence until more than one piece of toast appears. With two occurrences coincidence can be ruled out. This explain the political divide. Conservative is based on long term trends, some that go back thousands of years and is seen in hundred of cultures throughout history; marriage. Liberal or progressive is based on new, exciting yet unprecedented things that are pitch as better. Women's liberation had no trial data but was blindly accepted liberals without thought of consequences like increase child poverty. The natural global climate data has much data and precedent, while manmade is a prototype without precedent and without more than one data point in making, at best. One should be able to see the textbook appeal to liberals. One should also be able to see the textbook appeal to those who always prefer long term data with many occurrences of proof. It is a good magic trick and I can see how the manmade prototype would appeal to progressives.
More like 100-150 years. Well, that's a good start. Not quite. It is an observation that the earth has warmed over the last 150 years. It is an observation that over that time we have been dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is an observation that the earth emits IR radiation in a given range of wavelengths. It is an observation that carbon dioxide absorbs some of those wavelengths. It is an observation that this energy is absorbed as thermal energy. It is an observation that the ability of carbon dioxide to absorb those wavelengths is a function of its partial pressure. The hypothesis that ties these observations together is that because carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation at the wavelengths the earth emits the extra carbon dioxide we're dumping in the atmosphere absorbs more IR radiation as thermal energy some of which is been used to do work, some of which has raised the temperature. This is a false analogy. Your analogy offers no causal mechanism, the anthropogenic climate change mechanism does. Your analogy invokes a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, no such fallacy exists in the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. A combination of the milankovich cycles with natural variations in carbon dioxide levels, some of which have been caused by the changes in insolation induced by the milankovich cycles, some of which have been caused by other factors, for example, the uplift and erosion of the himalayas and the colarado plateu are thought to have contributed to the current ice age. The milankovich cycles, incidentaly, predict we should be entering a period of cooling. It's irrelevant because it's a false analogy. Actually, it does. - see my comments about the himalayas and the colarado plateu. By demonstrating a valid causal mechanism, as was done by Arrhenius over 100 years ago using the physics of his time. Another false analogy born of your belief that this is all some coincidence. This is political trolling. This is not the polictical subforum.
The thing about science is it is progressive in the most natural of senses -- the scientific methodology guarantees improvements are adopted solely for the reason that they are improvements. It is clear that wellwisher's arguments aren't getting better, therefore one may assume that wellwisher has no science on his side. And having no science on his side, his opinions are irrelevant to discussions of matters of fact. In addition to these posts, wellwisher demonstrates that his arguments are without merit because he immediately runs away from the arguments as soon as they receive a blow and doesn't bother to question if his adopted position is held for rational reasons.
The point I made is there are many data points that show natural warming and cooling, apart from man. I am not making this up. However, there is not even one (after the fact) data point that shows the impact of manmade effects, since man never did this before. This is based on historical data which has nothing to compare to. Which of the two can be used to draw an accurate curve, one half of a fuzzy data point, or many solid data points? One fuzzy data point allows one to draw many lines with many angles including illusionary and deceptive angles. You need an angle to create consensus science, since this is not how science works. The Malaysian Jet Liner crash used the same template of fuzzy inclusive data, allowing many lines of speculation at different angles; theories. Why did CNN draw so many angles through a partial data point and why did the liberals flock to this station to give CNN their best rating in years? This liberal psychological aspect is an important aspect of the political push behind this soft science. This is why consensus is important, even though science does not use consensus but facts and proof that can be generated independently. O'Reiley from FOX news got the airline crash right 2 weeks ago based on the limited hard data they had, but he was criticized by CNN so they could capitalize on the liberal fantasy fix that captives them. This is the same dynamics of manmade global warming and was a useful coincidence to show the divide in mindsets. Could you show me the data from a large scale pilot test, to see if this can work on a larger scale than a test tube? For example, does the weather around huge coal plants change due to the steady stream of CO2, hundreds of times higher than global concentration? It is useful to do pilot test before full scale up into production, unless the pilot test will not work.
The points you're ignoring are that: 1. The hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change predicts there should be. 2. Nobody, not one single person, who has ever studied climate change has suggested otherwise, in fact, studying past natural climate change presents our best opportunity of understanding our impact on the future. We do, however, have several points of data from natural climate change that show tha natural variations in greenhouse gasses cause or exaggerate natural variations in climate. I've even given you a very specific example. Explain to us what you understand a scientific consensus to mean. More political trolling. No, because the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis predicts that your 'pilot scheme' will not give a positive result. Why? Because that's not how climate works. What I can show you are plenty of examples of mankind affecting regional climates (for example the cooling effects of irrigation), or at least one example of mankind affecting atmospheric chemistry on a global scale (the ozone hole).
I used to be a development engineer, which meant I developed new ideas and technology, from test tube to production. The normal procedure was to learn about the topic, in light of the goal created by management. This involved library work, looking at the existing science and technology and learning about their limitations, to see if these could be extended or not. If not, you now had to look now at frontier data of the latest science in that area. You may need to research national lab data. This research stage is where manmade global warming is. They make use of the CO2 angle which is a good development starting point. Many things were tried and considered and CO2 showed the best promise to reach the goal. The next step is a test tube experiment and then scale up from test tube to a larger pilot test to prove the concept. The targeted science and tech is there to offer a framework to help define the pilot plant makeup as well as the types of tests that can prove the concept is scalable. Once you do the polite tests, other unexpected variables will appear that will then need to be ironed out. Or in some cases it may result in dropping that angle since it may work but is not scalable. Once the pilot test is running smooth and the data is hard to refute by anyone, including the critics, one is allowed scale up to production. After engineering builds the production facility, based on pilot data, the next step of development is production start-up, to troubleshoot and make adjustments, since all levels of scale up brings new challenges. Once this is ironed out and running smooth, you do the tech transfer to production, and then start as new project at the library and lab. The consensus is skipping the last few steps, and has substituted the prestige of consensus for pilot development data. Rather than hard data that will convince the sceptic they have a warm and fuzzy embrace for partial development work. The critics are still hungry for truth. The scale up and pilot test is being done using computer simulation models. This is useful but is not the same as reality tests. Reality tests would be harder to refute than a computer model, with possible hidden game engines to get what you need. Hard tests upgrade from consensus to real science.
