[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[
How would that change the radiative
It wouldn't. Neither would it change the ability of a CO2 molecule to radiate up as well as down. Neither would it change the fact that upper atmosphere CO2 is colder than lower atmosphere CO2 and cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Water vapour has more effect than CO2 ever will.

But...it may shed some light on the politics of AGW and the glaring failure of Copenhagen to address real forms of pollution.

Yes a CO2 molecule will radiation in a random direction, but seeing as virtually all of the infrared radiation is reflected from the earth (and therefore headed up) and since half of that, once absorbed and re-radiated as infrared by a CO2 molecule, you get a net increase of heat radiated back to the earth when you increase the concentration of CO2.

And there is no violation of the 2nd Law unless you assume that the earth is a thermodynamically closed system. In fact, since the Earth receives energy from the sun, it is not a closed system, and therefore there is no violation.

Indeed, in that paper you previously published, they made the rather outrageous supposition that heat energy radiating from a cold body to a hot body was a violation of the 2nd Law. This is silly. In fact, all materials that are not at absolute zero radiate infrared energy--so both a warm and coo, body will irradiate each other. The second law says that in a closed system, the NET energy flow will be from the hot to the cold; it doesn't say there will be NO energy flow from the cold to the hot.

A warm body has a higher energy potential than a cold body, the flow is from from a higher energy into a lower. So it's not silly. Therefore the colder upper atmosphere receives energy from the lower warmer atmosphere. A body at absolute zero cannot get colder and when placed next to a body above absolute zero receives energy from the warmer body. It's the same as negative charged electrons (-ve) flowing to a positive source (+ve) (electrical current). A higher voltage source will always push current toward a lower voltage source. Again this is simple potential energy.

So what about the effect of water vapour?

[commanderkai]

sandorski sandorski:

commanderkai commanderkai:

sandorski sandorski:

Agreed. This isn't a Popularity contest, as much as Deniers want to make it out to be.

Um, actually the proponents of global warming started the popularity contest when they kept saying there was a consensus. Remember that word? All of the important scientists agrees, and you're dumber than them, so you better believe everything they say. That didn't last forever, and now you guys are complaining that it's now a popularity contest. It always has been one, and now you just don't like losing.

Complete Fail. Consensus is not a Popularity Contest.

It shouldn't be. But that's what it became. Scientists became political lobbyists. They suppressed dissenting opinions to help further show "Consensus" which then led to more funding for their research or their institution.

The pushing of this "consensus" by suppressing skeptics/deniers/opponents of AGW, the fudging and modifications of code and data, and the smearing of opponents as paid by "Big Oil" or whatever other bullshit, just shows AGW went from scientific debate, to a popularity contest by scientists to further push their beliefs on the public, even when they mislead the public to do so.

[ShepherdsDog]

Don't worry...this is going to turn into another Kyoto, as in it's all a bunch of BS and nothing will get done, but all the Scientism zealots will stand around and pat each other on the back.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But I'm interested in where it falls apart for you. Do you believe there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect? Do you believe that CO2 has been increasing over the last century or so? Do you believe that humankind has emitted about 150 pg carbon into the atmosphere? Do you believe that global temperatures rose about 0.8 deg over the last century? I mean, where do the wheels fall off for you?

Yes except to maybe the last one. I'll see what happens when people really stop fucking with the data, in maybe-15-20 years.

This also falls apart in another way for me. I really never stepped into AGW debates when it dealt mostly with science. I knowingly don't possess the knowledge on that, and you and Fiddle can go back and forth on that any day. I readily admit that, and you can post graphics, statistics, and paragraphs of information knowing I won't ever understand a word of it. It's not a proble, really. I'm not in the traditional sciences, but rather in the social ones. I look at the political and economic aspects of the AGW debate.

That's where it comes apart for me. Cap and trade, as it is proposed now, is a horrible idea (I had a discussion with Lemmy on this), and I see the move by scientists towards punditry and agenda setting is a bad move on their part, because, as you said, they'll get torn apart by right wing (usually, not exclusively, unless all lefties are pro-AGW) pundits, much like military officers are torn to shreds by politicians (usually on the left side, but not exclusively). The military doesn't really have a choice in the matter, they're a part of the government, and must deal and be accountable to politicians. What Climategate, to me, revealed that scientists are skewing with data to further an agenda. If they do this, they should expect, and they deserve to be pounded for it.

Now onto the rest of your post. I'll summarize them in one sentence per point. Hope you don't mind, I just don't want to quote paragraphs.

"The entire strategy of the AGW so-called "skeptics" is that people won't bother to figure out the facts for themselves, and that they'll listen instead to loud mouth demagogues. So far it's working."

I don't see this as being ANY different from the proponents of AGW. You really think that a majority of environmentalists receive their information from peer-reviewed journals? You really think your side of the aisle is any different, except their pundits are of the name of Gore, Suzuki, or Monbiot?

I know a majority of my side gets their opinions from right wing columnists, bloggers, and other pundits, but don't pretend a majority of your side gets their information from renowned scientists and scholarly journals. I don't have an issue with either side getting their information from whatever columnists or whoever else.

==Examples of right wing politicians being AGW supporters==

There's a difference between providing lip service and actively pursuing a political agenda in order to end AGW or climate change. You know this as well as I. If former President Bush pushed forth major changes to the economy to "Green" it, then yes, I'd say that "all politicians" do it. But they don't, at least not to the same effect or proportion. Also, do you really think I'm gullible enough to believe that all politicians speak their personal opinions or truths in public? Let alone any other leader, be it a celebrity, a political pundit, or even anybody on this site for that matter? No, not really. Where's that classic picture...
[img]
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com ... Theory.jpg[/img]

Trolls fit best in this description, but hell, anybody can fit in this.

Also. The Pentagon is a government agency. Government agencies follow its leader, even if it is off a cliff. I wouldn't put the Pentagon as a right wing institution, nor would I consider...the EPA, for example, as a major left wing institution, since both make and react to decisions based upon the executive and legislative branches of government.

==Handful of scientists==

Oh come on Zip. This scandal isn't just a few scientists playing with numbers, but seemingly the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, discussing destroying the "raw data", "hiding the decline", suppressing dissenting opinions, discrediting peer-reviewed journals who publish dissenting opinions, etc.

Yes I know, it's spin. You're downplaying this, and I'm up playing it. I spin for my side, you spin for yours. I could see this as the death blow for AGW (I don't, but I do see it as a pretty powerful blow) and you can see this as a few overzealous scientists going over the line (I don't think you do, but like I said. This is the Internet). If we were both seemingly popular pundits on our respective sides, you'd say I'm spinning, and I'll say you are. Thus is life.

==Big Scary Numbers==

I'm sure I could torture myself again and watch Al Gore's movie, but I won't. Both sides play big scary numbers. You might be focusing upon more abstract temperature changes, Co2 levels, among others, I'm more focused upon increased disasters, sea levels destroying cities, whatever else. That's the "big, scary numbers" as in, who wouldn't be scared of having Katrina sized hurricanes every year? I would be. Any non-sociopath would be too.

Edit: By abstract, I mean this (because I have this nagging feeling not being detailed will have this nitpicked). You can tell an average person that CO2 levels has increased over the past 100 years. This would really mean nothing to the average person. Tell an average person that the US will be facing Katrina sized disasters every year, or massive fires (as seen in California) every year (both ignoring the major human clusterfucks in both situations), then yes, that's when my belief that a "Big, scary number" was used NOT for science, but for scare tactics to further gain supporters.

Of course, I think AGW Doomsday predictions were at it's peak in 2005.

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

A warm body has a higher energy potential than a cold body...

No, a warm body radiates more in the infrared spectrum than a cold body.

$1:

Therefore the colder upper atmosphere receives energy from the lower warmer atmosphere.

...recieves NET energy. But the colder body still radiates infrared radiation that will be recieved by the warmer body. Energy flows in both directions, but NET flow will be from the warmer to the colder, as per the Second Law.

$1:

So what about the effect of water vapour?

A valid question! Who knows? If you subscribe to the positive feedback effect hypothesized by the IPCC, increasing CO2 will increase albedo of the planet (by melting snow areas which currently reflect most incoming solar radiation, and creating areas of bare earth which will absorb more incoming radiation). They also say that H2O will act in a manner to exacerbate CO2 warming (i.e. increase the positive feedback).

I'm not so sure. In most natural systems I've studied an equilibrium will "try" to maintain itself through negative feedback (for example, Le Chatelier's Principle in chemistry). Runaway positive feedback systems (such as, for exmaple, electric feedback in your guitar amp) are pretty rare in nature in my experience.

I know mostly the physics, not the earth science, so I don't pretend to know much on this end of things, but I suspect that the water vapor will counteract CO2 warming.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Don't worry...this is going to turn into another Kyoto, as in it's all a bunch of BS and nothing will get done, but all the Scientism zealots will stand around and pat each other on the back.

Not until we take over the world with our research dollars!

Canada hasn't given the farm away yet, and I don't think we're about to.

[EyeBrock]

Anything that Mugabe and Chavez endorse must be well suspect is all I can say.

When the despots and dictators say we should believe I worry.

[sandorski]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Anything that Mugabe and Chavez endorse must be well suspect is all I can say.

When the despots and dictators say we should believe I worry.

They endorse: 2+2=4, which is the overwhelming Consensus of Mathematicians.

[EyeBrock]

Oh well, maths guys, Mugabe and Chavez agree. It must be all true then!

I'm just gonna go outside a bit and belch some carbon. Obviously that's why all the crops are failing in Zimbabwe.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

That's where it comes apart for me. Cap and trade, as it is proposed now, is a horrible idea (I had a discussion with Lemmy on this), and I see the move by scientists towards punditry and agenda setting is a bad move on their part, because, as you said, they'll get torn apart by right wing (usually, not exclusively, unless all lefties are pro-AGW) pundits, much like military officers are torn to shreds by politicians (usually on the left side, but not exclusively). The military doesn't really have a choice in the matter, they're a part of the government, and must deal and be accountable to politicians. What Climategate, to me, revealed that scientists are skewing with data to further an agenda. If they do this, they should expect, and they deserve to be pounded for it.

Can't disagree with any of that.

$1:

Oh come on Zip. This scandal isn't just a few scientists playing with numbers, but seemingly the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, discussing destroying the "raw data", "hiding the decline", suppressing dissenting opinions, discrediting peer-reviewed journals who publish dissenting opinions, etc.

Yes I know, it's spin. You're downplaying this, and I'm up playing it. I spin for my side, you spin for yours. I could see this as the death blow for AGW (I don't, but I do see it as a pretty powerful blow) and you can see this as a few overzealous scientists going over the line (I don't think you do, but like I said. This is the Internet). If we were both seemingly popular pundits on our respective sides, you'd say I'm spinning, and I'll say you are. Thus is life.

I don't think I'm downplaying it too much. I voiced my concern loudly about this scandal, but despite these guys clearly acting to further their agenda, I don't see it as damaging to all the evidence supporting AGW.

$1:

I'm sure I could torture myself again and watch Al Gore's movie, but I won't.

I've never seen it either.

$1:

Edit: By abstract, I mean this (because I have this nagging feeling not being detailed will have this nitpicked).

Not today. Merry Christmas!!!