Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[BenBurch]

Malcolm what we have here is an energy trap.

The atmosphere is transparent to visible light, but not to IR in the range that corresponds to the temperature of the Earth.

So light comes in, is absorbed, and warms the earth. The warm earth then emits IR, but the atmosphere blocks it.

The atmosphere absorbs the IR and warms up.

And then re-emits the IR in a random direction. Half will go up towards space, and half down towards the planet.

Since it it opaque to IR, it takes quite some time for energy to escape the system in this way, and during that time a lot of it re-visits the surface.

When you increase the thickness of this atmospheric blanket, you make the amount of time energy resides in the system higher, and so effectively increase the temperature of the Earth.

Simple, isn't it?

Seriously, I can teach you this stuff. You are smart enough to get it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It didn't really take much seraching to turn up scientific studies such as Veron et al 2009
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19782832

If CO(2) levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030-2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from multiple synergies arising from mass bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts.

Note that there's nothing in that quote about temperature. The observed Red Sea temperature rebuts the alarmist view of the impact of warming on coral. Nearly all of the tropical Pacific is colder than the Red Sea.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

When you increase the thickness of this atmospheric blanket, you make the amount of time energy resides in the system higher, and so effectively increase the temperature of the Earth.

Simple, isn't it?

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit? I don't see any limits in what you wrote, but I have a hard time imagining that the Earth could get warmer than the source, the Sun itself, for example.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

The atmosphere is transparent to visible light, but not to IR in the range that corresponds to the temperature of the Earth.

So light comes in, is absorbed, and warms the earth. The warm earth then emits IR, but the atmosphere blocks it.

The atmosphere absorbs the IR and warms up.

And then re-emits the IR in a random direction. Half will go up towards space, and half down towards the planet.

Since it it opaque to IR, it takes quite some time for energy to escape the system in this way, and during that time a lot of it re-visits the surface.

When you increase the thickness of this atmospheric blanket, you make the amount of time energy resides in the system higher, and so effectively increase the temperature of the Earth.

Simple, isn't it?[

It's only simple as long as you ignore the complicated. If the atmosphere gets warmer, more water vapor enters the atmosphere. The more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more solar energy is reflected away from the earth (the albedo goes up). The less energy reaching the earth, the lower the atmospheric temperature.

This is called a feedback system, and is an example of the sort of loop which forms the heart of Lovelock's Gaea hypothesis.

And speaking as an electrical engineer, I can assure you that feedback systems, particularly multiple interconnected systems, are never simple.

Seriously, I can teach you this stuff.

You might want to reconsider.

 

[Halsu]

It's only simple as long as you ignore the complicated.

I take this as an acceptance of the principles of the greenhouse effect and the warming effect of atmospheric CO2. You seem to understand the basics now, as you now switch to the feedbacks caused by these.

Very good. This is progress.

If the atmosphere gets warmer, more water vapor enters the atmosphere. The more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more solar energy is reflected away from the earth (the albedo goes up). The less energy reaching the earth, the lower the atmospheric temperature.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. So, it's not as simple as you write above - the current estimates are that the net effect of more moisture in the atmosphere are a positive feedback, not negative, IIRC.

And speaking as an electrical engineer, I can assure you that feedback systems, particularly multiple interconnected systems, are never simple.

The principles of those systems can be, and usually are simple (like the clouds and albedo, or CO2 trapping heat). What's more difficult is to calculate the real world end result accurately.

Before we get into feedbacks, uncertainties and stuff, could you please confirm the previous baby step (about natural variation, below)??

****

- You agree that the atmosphere traps heat.
- You agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth.
- You agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when variables change.
- You agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.
- You agree that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming.
- You agree that human activity is the main cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
- You agree that human activity causes a global warming influence.

In fact, your comment brings us to the next baby step. We both seem to agree that both "natural" and "man made" forces affect the temperature.

Next baby step: Do you agree that the man made warming influence can be obscured by other forces, sometimes even causing the global temperature to decline temporarily?

 

[Mikemcc]

Note that there's nothing in that quote about temperature. The observed Red Sea temperature rebuts the alarmist view of the impact of warming on coral. Nearly all of the tropical Pacific is colder than the Red Sea.

Why delete out the first quote then, you know, the one that mentioned temperature...?

That's called cherry picking and is dishonest.

 

[CapelDodger]

The more water vapor, the more clouds.

Nope. Clouds are made of liquid water, not vapour, and their formation depends on relative humidity, not absolute. Relative humidity doesn't change with warming. Lots of people make this mistake, but if you think about the process of cloud formation you'll see the problem.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit? I don't see any limits in what you wrote, but I have a hard time imagining that the Earth could get warmer than the source, the Sun itself, for example.

It's limited by the amount of greenhouse gases present.

A surface could get hotter than the radiating source with ridiculously thick blankets of greenhouse gases, I suppose, but there's really no point in going there. We're talking about an increase of 40% in CO₂ so far, to about 400ppm. It's what happens in that kind of circumstance that we need to consider.

The greenhouse effect is real, whether or not you can get your head around it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Note that there's nothing in that quote about temperature. The observed Red Sea temperature rebuts the alarmist view of the impact of warming on coral. Nearly all of the tropical Pacific is colder than the Red Sea.

A project to replace Pacific and Caribbean corals with Red Sea corals is destined to fail, not least in attracting funding. The waters of the Red Sea are very different from the Pacific, and that's what the coral communities there have evolved to thrive in. How they'll get on as the Red Sea warms is yet to be seen, of course.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's only simple as long as you ignore the complicated.

(Oh! Something meaningful will surely follow!)

If the atmosphere gets warmer, more water vapor enters the atmosphere. The more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more solar energy is reflected away from the earth (the albedo goes up). The less energy reaching the earth, the lower the atmospheric temperature.

<platitudes edited>

Summary: if it gets warmer ... the lower the atmospheric temperature. A jolty Gaia.

Great! The same quality of Yogi Berra's "Nobody goes there any more. It's too crowded".

Either your system oscillates or at least has ripple.

(through the door) Next!

You might want to reconsider.

No, he shouldn't.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I take this as an acceptance of the principles of the greenhouse effect and the warming effect of atmospheric CO2. You seem to understand the basics now, as you now switch to the feedbacks caused by these.

Very good. This is progress.



Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. So, it's not as simple as you write above - the current estimates are that the net effect of more moisture in the atmosphere are a positive feedback, not negative, IIRC.



The principles of those systems can be, and usually are simple (like the clouds and albedo, or CO2 trapping heat). What's more difficult is to calculate the real world end result accurately.

Before we get into feedbacks, uncertainties and stuff, could you please confirm the previous baby step (about natural variation, below)??

****

- You agree that the atmosphere traps heat.
- You agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth.
- You agree that there's an energy balance that will always seek a new equilibrium, when variables change.
- You agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.
- You agree that a rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming.
- You agree that human activity is the main cause for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
- You agree that human activity causes a global warming influence.

In fact, your comment brings us to the next baby step. We both seem to agree that both "natural" and "man made" forces affect the temperature.

Next baby step: Do you agree that the man made warming influence can be obscured by other forces, sometimes even causing the global temperature to decline temporarily?

I'm pretty sure WhatRoughBeast is not Malcolm's sockpuppet (though I can't swear they are not cut from the same piece of fabric)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit? I don't see any limits in what you wrote, but I have a hard time imagining that the Earth could get warmer than the source, the Sun itself, for example.

Oh, c'mon Malcolm. If you add 0.5 to 1, and then 0.25, and then 0.125 you have a system "without limit"? Maybe someone else could explain it to you, as I forgot you don't know math but opinionate in physics

 

[aleCcowaN]

Note that there's nothing in that quote about temperature. The observed Red Sea temperature rebuts the alarmist view of the impact of warming on coral. Nearly all of the tropical Pacific is colder than the Red Sea.

Besides being cherry picking season in your orchard, is this intervention of yours just another case of "monkeys live in tropical heat and survive so polar bears are safe"?

Answer us, Malcolm, what is "coral", a species? a genus? a phylum? an order? a class? a family? Oh! I forgot you don't know biology neither.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Oh, c'mon Malcolm. If you add 0.5 to 1, and then 0.25, and then 0.125 you have a system "without limit"? Maybe someone else could explain it to you, as I forgot you don't know math but opinionate in physics

Explain what? Ben's model mentioned inputs and insulation, as though all entries in the account are positive. That implies that a candle across the room will heat an insulation-wrapped thermometer until the glass and mercury vaporize. I doubt it.

Apparently, all Alec Cowan knows is post-moodern gibberish and ad hominem. Note that there was no ad hominem in my response to Ben.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Besides being cherry picking season in your orchard, is this intervention of yours just another case of "monkeys live in tropical heat and survive so polar bears are safe"?

Answer us, Malcolm, what is "coral", a species? a genus? a phylum? an order? a class? a family? Oh! I forgot you don't know biology neither.

"Intervention"?

Without looking, I'll guess "class". Easy enough to look it up. See "Tree of Life".

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

A project to replace Pacific and Caribbean corals with Red Sea corals is destined to fail, not least in attracting funding. The waters of the Red Sea are very different from the Pacific, and that's what the coral communities there have evolved to thrive in. How they'll get on as the Red Sea warms is yet to be seen, of course.

Corals get around (as their reproductive strategy would suggest). Here.

 

[lomiller]

Not to me. Does this effect operate without limit?

Strawman. He never said it operates without limit, nor would explain the limits to you help your understanding of the basic principle. Learn to walk first.

 

[lomiller]

It's only simple as long as you ignore the complicated. If the atmosphere gets warmer, more water vapor enters the atmosphere. The more water vapor, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more solar energy is reflected away from the earth (the albedo goes up). The less energy reaching the earth, the lower the atmospheric temperature.

This is called a feedback system, and is an example of the sort of loop which forms the heart of Lovelock's Gaea hypothesis.

And speaking as an electrical engineer, I can assure you that feedback systems, particularly multiple interconnected systems, are never simple.



You might want to reconsider.

You may want to reconsider.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The feedback loop you describe doesn't exist, but it's positive feedback that amplifies any forcing.

 

[lomiller]

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. So, it's not as simple as you write above - the current estimates are that the net effect of more moisture in the atmosphere are a positive feedback, not negative, IIRC.

Too weak a statement. Water vapor that has not condensed sufficiently to be a cloud is a strong positive feedback. Clouds themselves in the whole are close to neutral with their greenhouse effect being close to their reflective but may net out to a slight positive feedback.

Overall clouds can't "cancel" the positive feedback of water vapor and there are multiple lines of evidence to show this but the most straightforward is that if they did the earth couldn't warm and exit a glaciation because the new clouds would put the breaks on warming. To explain glacial cycles you need water being a relatively strong positive feedback.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

He never said it operates without limit, nor would explain the limits to you help your understanding of the basic principle.

Engrish, prease. I did not say Ben implied "without limit". I observed that Ben did not include limits, which must exist. Obviously there are limits.

Learn to walk first.

Learn manners.