Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 33
Send Topic Print
Re: Climate Science (Read 75808 times)
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #165 - Aug 6th, 2010 at 10:02pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 9:48pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 9:44pm:
"http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_the_greenhouse_effect.htm"

"There are two meanings of the term "greenhouse effect". There is a "natural" greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth's climate warm and habitable. There is also the "man-made" greenhouse effect, which is the enhancement of Earth's natural greenhouse effect by the addition of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels (mainly petroleum, coal, and natural gas). In order to understand how the greenhouse effect operates, we need to first understand "infrared radiation". Greenhouse gases trap some of the infrared radiation that escapes from the Earth, making the Earth warmer that it would otherwise be. You can think of greenhouse gases as sort of a "blanket" for infrared radiation-- it keeps the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer, and the upper layers colder, than if the greenhouse gases were not there."


That's too basic an explanation for you to understand what's happening, but I'll explain more tomorrow.



The problem is, you seem to confusing the term 'excess Greenhouse effect' with "Greenhouse Effect"...

It's like many other things in life...
Doctors don't say 'TOO much salt' is bad for you...they say 'Salt is bad for you'....result? People stop eating salt and suffer problems from muscle cramps all the way up to cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest...

As with everything...All things in Moderation..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #166 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:00am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 10:02pm:
The problem is, you seem to confusing the term 'excess Greenhouse effect' with "Greenhouse Effect"...

It's like many other things in life...
Doctors don't say 'TOO much salt' is bad for you...they say 'Salt is bad for you'....result? People stop eating salt and suffer problems from muscle cramps all the way up to cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest...

As with everything...All things in Moderation..


Bah - it's exactly the same. A greenhouse effect is a greenhouse effect regardless of what causes it, and the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect  has varied significantly through prehistory. No question about that whatsoever. The irradiance of the sun has also varied with time. There is no question that there has been natural variation over time. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Let's get this straight too. There is no argument that it has been warmer or that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the dim and distant past. That's correct, but it's a red herring.

Now let's get down to talking about the basics.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
mozzaok
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #167 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:10am
 
The only thing which can stop an intelligent man from learning, is belief that he already knows.
Back to top
 

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #168 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:39am
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 9:53pm:
It's been a while, but as I recall it means that a 'black body' will radiate infrared radiation when cold.. and as it warms, emits other wavelengths and appears to change colour...


Pretty close.  Do you remember the The Stefan–Boltzmann law, which states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (black-body irradiance) J,  is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's absolute temperature T:

   J = σ T^4.

Where σ (sigma) is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant and is equal to 5.67E-08 J s^-1 m^-2  K^-4

We can use this theory as a first approximation even though neither the Sun nor the Earth are black bodies.

By using that equation, Stefan was able to calculate the temperature of the Sun with a reasonable degree of accuracy. He arrived at a temperature of about 5700 K, compared to today's estimate of the temperature of the Solar surface is about 5780 K.

Apart from that, we can predict the wavelength of light emitted by the Sun and the Earth from their respective temperatures.

Now the energy of black body radiation varies with temperature and wavelength. As the temperature of the black body increases, two distinct behaviours are observed. One effect is that the peak of the distribution shifts to shorter wavelengths. This is known as Wien's displacement law. There are various forms of this, and it's a derivative of Planck's Law of Black Body radiation.  

λmax = 2.897E-03 /T

Where λmax is the peak wavelength in meters or the wavelength at which we get maximum spectral emissive power. T is the temperature in Kelvins.

Here's a more mathematical description:

http://planetphysics.org/encyclopedia/WienDisplacementLaw.html

I should probably speak about Planck's law of blackbody radiation too.

Here's a reference:

http://astronomyonline.org/Science/PlancksLaw.asp

If I need to explain the relationship between energy and wavelength any further, just let me know.

On the diagram, you can see where terrestrial radiation sits in relation to solar radiation and all the rest. So in terms of the Greenhouse effect, this is where all the action is.

We're talking about roughly 15% of the incident solar energy being re-radiated in the form of long wave infrared radiation. It's what happens to that long wave radiation coming from the earth that largely determines the change in Energy Balance for the Earth.  

How are we going so far?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:49am by muso »  

energyspectrum.gif (21 KB | 54 )
energyspectrum.gif

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #169 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:56am
 
Paella, if you want to step in and help me organise my slightly disorganised description, please do so at any time.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #170 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:57am
 
mozzaok wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:10am:
The only thing which can stop an intelligent man from learning, is belief that he already knows.


Understanding that we know just enough to start asking questions, is almost always the hallmark of an intelligent person!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #171 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:01pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:00am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 6th, 2010 at 10:02pm:
The problem is, you seem to confusing the term 'excess Greenhouse effect' with "Greenhouse Effect"...

It's like many other things in life...
Doctors don't say 'TOO much salt' is bad for you...they say 'Salt is bad for you'....result? People stop eating salt and suffer problems from muscle cramps all the way up to cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest...

As with everything...All things in Moderation..


Bah - it's exactly the same. A greenhouse effect is a greenhouse effect regardless of what causes it, and the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect  has varied significantly through prehistory. No question about that whatsoever. The irradiance of the sun has also varied with time. There is no question that there has been natural variation over time. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Let's get this straight too. There is no argument that it has been warmer or that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the dim and distant past. That's correct, but it's a red herring.

Now let's get down to talking about the basics.


No it is different...

An INCREASE in Greenhouse Effect is different to the Greenhouse Effect...

It's is the Greenhouse Effect which makes the Earth capable of supporting human life..
With NO Greenhouse gases or Effect, the Earth's base temperature would be about -18Celcius..
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #172 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:04pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:57am:
mozzaok wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:10am:
The only thing which can stop an intelligent man from learning, is belief that he already knows.


Understanding that we know just enough to start asking questions, is almost always the hallmark of an intelligent person!


Thank you perceptions.....

As Dr Who once said "Never be too sure of anything, it's sign of limited intelligence"
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #173 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:14pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:01pm:
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:00am:
Bah - it's exactly the same. A greenhouse effect is a greenhouse effect regardless of what causes it, and the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect  has varied significantly through prehistory. No question about that whatsoever. The irradiance of the sun has also varied with time. There is no question that there has been natural variation over time. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Let's get this straight too. There is no argument that it has been warmer or that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the dim and distant past. That's correct, but it's a red herring.

Now let's get down to talking about the basics.


No it is different...

An INCREASE in Greenhouse Effect is different to the Greenhouse Effect...

It's is the Greenhouse Effect which makes the Earth capable of supporting human life..
With NO Greenhouse gases or Effect, the Earth's base temperature would be about -18Celcius..


Well yes, I was coming to that, but the point is that the mechanism is the same whether the greenhouse gases are natural or produced as a result of burning fossil fuels.

It's not a useful demarcation as far as atmospheric physics goes.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #174 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:02pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:14pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 12:01pm:
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 11:00am:
Bah - it's exactly the same. A greenhouse effect is a greenhouse effect regardless of what causes it, and the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect  has varied significantly through prehistory. No question about that whatsoever. The irradiance of the sun has also varied with time. There is no question that there has been natural variation over time. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Let's get this straight too. There is no argument that it has been warmer or that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the dim and distant past. That's correct, but it's a red herring.

Now let's get down to talking about the basics.


No it is different...

An INCREASE in Greenhouse Effect is different to the Greenhouse Effect...

It's is the Greenhouse Effect which makes the Earth capable of supporting human life..
With NO Greenhouse gases or Effect, the Earth's base temperature would be about -18Celcius..


Well yes, I was coming to that, but the point is that the mechanism is the same whether the greenhouse gases are natural or produced as a result of burning fossil fuels.

It's not a useful demarcation as far as atmospheric physics goes.


But it is a useful demarcation as far as holding conversation goes though....
The biggest problem with this sort of discussion is differences in definitions and context.

For example, when I say 'Greenhouse Effect' I'm referring to the natural 'insulation' system that regulates the Earth's temperature to a liviable range..

Where as it seems you are referring to the apparent increases in Greenhouse gases..

Same term, different meanings....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #175 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:32pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:02pm:
The biggest problem with this sort of discussion is differences in definitions and context.

For example, when I say 'Greenhouse Effect' I'm referring to the natural 'insulation' system that regulates the Earth's temperature to a liviable range..

Where as it seems you are referring to the apparent increases in Greenhouse gases..

Same term, different meanings....


Ok, I mean all greenhouse gases regardless of the source. Insulation is not the best term to use for the Greenhouse effect.

At this stage, we're going through the basics. The mechanism is exactly the same whatever the source of the CO2 or methane or nitrous oxide etc... is.

The only thing that happens when you add more greenhouse gas is that you get more warming - Of course it's not a linear relationship, but it is just more of the same.

Let's talk about the long wave radiation from the Earth and what happens next.

Do you understand the difference between greenhouse gases and other gases such as nitrogen and oxygen which have no greenhouse effect? (and yes, I know about ozone).
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #176 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:42pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:32pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 1:02pm:
The biggest problem with this sort of discussion is differences in definitions and context.

For example, when I say 'Greenhouse Effect' I'm referring to the natural 'insulation' system that regulates the Earth's temperature to a liviable range..

Where as it seems you are referring to the apparent increases in Greenhouse gases..

Same term, different meanings....


Ok, I mean all greenhouse gases regardless of the source. Insulation is not the best term to use for the Greenhouse effect.

At this stage, we're going through the basics. The mechanism is exactly the same whatever the source of the CO2 or methane or nitrous oxide etc... is.

The only thing that happens when you add more greenhouse gas is that you get more warming - Of course it's not a linear relationship, but it is just more of the same.

Let's talk about the long wave radiation from the Earth and what happens next.

Do you understand the difference between greenhouse gases and other gases such as nitrogen and oxygen which have no greenhouse effect? (and yes, I know about ozone).


Kind of....although ALL the atmospheric gases (including nitrogen and oxygen do contribute)....after all the whole atmosphere is part of the Greenhouse Effect.
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #177 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 2:32pm
 
Well you still seem to have a misconception as to what the Greenhouse effect is. The attached graph shows the spectrum of the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere both downwards from the sun (red) and upwards from the Earth (blue).

The  Greenhouse Effect is solely concerned with the section in blue - which is the upgoing thermal radiation from the Earth.

Note that this takes place on a band centred around 10 microns or so.

Around that wavelength, nitrogen is transparent to infrared radiation. While oxygen and nitrogen molecules do vibrate, because of their symmetry the vibrations do not create any transient dipole moment, and so cannot absorb or emit infrared radiation.

It's true that nitrogen does scatter at the UV end of the spectrum(Rayleigh Scattering), but not within that band of terrestrial long wave radiation. As you are aware, there is no significant heat transfer at UV wavelengths.

You will also notice a peak due to ozone.  Ozone is a greenhouse gas too, but it's a very minor player. Ozone tends to be very localised in the troposphere, and of course, it's also found in the stratosphere around 16km to 40km up (the ozone layer). It has about 25% of the Global Warming Potential of carbon dioxide, and is the fifth most important greenhouse gas overall after nitrous oxide. (1.Water 2. CO2 3. Methane 4. N2O and 5. O3)

However in terms of absorption of UV radiation, ozone is much more important.  

If we had a pure (dry) nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere we'd have no  greenhouse effect to speak of and emitted long wave IR radiation would escape into space.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #178 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 2:49pm
 
Also read replies 9 and 10 on the sticky thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247904929

It will save me cutting and pasting the information again.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Climate Science
Reply #179 - Aug 7th, 2010 at 2:50pm
 
muso wrote on Aug 7th, 2010 at 2:32pm:
Well you still seem to have a misconception as to what the Greenhouse effect is. The attached graph shows the spectrum of the radiation transmitted by the atmosphere both downwards from the sun (red) and upwards from the Earth (blue).

The  Greenhouse Effect is solely concerned with the section in blue - which is the upgoing thermal radiation from the Earth.

Note that this takes place on a band centred around 10 microns or so.

Around that wavelength, nitrogen is transparent to infrared radiation. While oxygen and nitrogen molecules do vibrate, because of their symmetry the vibrations do not create any transient dipole moment, and so cannot absorb or emit infrared radiation.

It's true that nitrogen does scatter at the UV end of the spectrum(Rayleigh Scattering), but not within that band of terrestrial long wave radiation. As you are aware, there is no significant heat transfer at UV wavelengths.

You will also notice a peak due to ozone.  Ozone is a greenhouse gas too, but it's a very minor player. Ozone tends to be very localised in the troposphere, and of course, it's also found in the stratosphere around 16km to 40km up (the ozone layer). It has about 25% of the Global Warming Potential of carbon dioxide, and is the fifth most important greenhouse gas overall after nitrous oxide. (1.Water 2. CO2 3. Methane 4. N2O and 5. O3)

However in terms of absorption of UV radiation, ozone is much more important.  

If we had a pure (dry) nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere we'd have no  greenhouse effect to speak of and emitted long wave IR radiation would escape into space.


Granted, but IF we had a pure (dry) nitrogen and oxygen atmosphere, we'd also be able travel from Australia to New Zealand by ski, snow-shoe or dogsled....
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 33
Send Topic Print