|
|
| Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed (509906) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 13 01:51:32 2009, in response to Re: It's official: Global warming is dead and ''anthropogenic'' same never existed, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 12 23:36:43 2009. Rather, you have. Furthermore, you have zero familiarity with the lack of scientific credibility of the IPCC.No, I've attempted to educate you because you appear to be utterly scientifically illiterate and you've remained stubbornly ignorant. Physics aren't partisan, they're not political. You can't rewrite the laws of thermodynamics in a committee, and because of this your patently nonscientific objections are completely and utterly baseless. Venus is 0.815 times the mass of Earth whereas Mercury is 0.055 times the mass of Earth. Not only a lot more surface area, but a lot more mass too. Mass has nothing to do with the energy retained by an atmosphere. Other than the first few feet of the crust, no planetary body in the solar system receives a significant part of the heat that drives its subterranean processes from the sun. Solar irradiance is normalized by area (wm-2), so surface area factors out as well. The only thing being compared here is the amount of energy being retained by a given portion of the planet's atmosphere at the surface. Because of the dense sulfur dioxide clouds in the upper atmosphere solar irradiance is lower at the surface on Venus than it is on Earth. The surface temperature being greater than those on Mercury are directly attributable to the energy retained by the carbon dioxide atmosphere. I don't care what Mercury's mass is, I'm simply using it as an illustrative example of the extreme temperature rather than writing "460 degrees centigrade". Venus and Earth are about as close to an apples to apples comparison one can find in the known universe. That's an assumption, not a scientific fact. The only honest word there is "possible", which still allows for "impossible". No it is a verfiable fact based on experimentation which can be performed in a laboratory and matched with data from direct observation of the atmosphere. It isn't hard to shine a light of a given frequency on a sample of gas and monitor the emitted radiation for longer wavelengths. . The IPCC's BS "global warming potential" is thoroughly unscientific Unscientific by what standard? Their results are based on theory tested through experimentation. Water vapor consists of over 95 percent of the so-called "greenhouse effect" that doesn't exist (using IPCC sophistry). The greenhouse effect is very much real, it's why we exist in the first place. The question is not whether global warming from all greenhouse gases natural and anthropogenic exists. It's plainly obvious that it does because temperatures do not fall to 4 kelvin every night. The IPCC is at this point mostly dealing with anthropogenic global warming. The question is whether we are having an effect on global warming, whether the anthropogenic global warming, the 5% above what water and natural carbon dioxide emissions, are enough to cause even minor changes. We currently have virtually no direct effect on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, so almost all global warming from that source is attributable to natural processes. However, the total quantity of gaseous carbon dioxide in the atmosphere released by natural processes is miniscule in comparison to the amount released by man made sources. It is possible that we'll see an increase in atmospheric water vapor as a secondary effect of global warming. If that comes in the form of clouds then the net effect could be one of cooling. But if it comes in the form of higher humidity in areas that are currently dry, the net effect would be positive. The big fear is that the positive feedbacks will compound and lead to a runaway global warming issue. That's of course on the edge of the current possibilities, but it's about as likely as the possibility that we have had zero effect on the atmosphere and that everything is self-regulating. It's the global warming doubters who are always complaining about the short term of the 150 year instrument record. As such crowing over a trend based on less than 10 years of data is completely hypocritical. |
|
|
|