Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

If you have any more, please feel to add.

Certainly I won't do it for your interest. You're not reading what I have already put out there.

As I've already posted, your motivation isn't even topic-related. You just want to stomp around and impress the children. Ho-hum.

-dale

[QUOTE=tanq_tonic;400136]

Originally Posted by glyn

The earth (as I am sure that geologist Dale will verify) is an extraordinarily good thermal insulator.

Don't mischaracterize me. I am not a geologist.

-dale

[QUOTE=dalem;400140]

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Don't mischaracterize me. I am not a geologist.

-dale

My bad, I thought I remembered you saying that in some of the GF debates. Honest mistake. I clearly remember some science backgorund and honestly thought it was geology.

Or was it something like an astrophysics something or other? Sorry, but my memory doesnt go back that far to that level of detail.

tang

Originally Posted by dalem

Certainly I won't do it for your interest. You're not reading what I have already put out there.

As I've already posted, your motivation isn't even topic-related. You just want to stomp around and impress the children. Ho-hum.

-dale

I will take that from you that all we will hear from you now is "Mars Attacks" or "Mars is warming"..... otay.... I'll try and put on my "Dale o meter" hat to try super-esp the elusive answer to life, the universe, and everything that you obvioulsy don't dare repost.

Originally Posted by dalem

Of course the atmosphere is directly heated by the Sun. The heat is trapped at the surface in part by the Greenhouse Effect. The Earth is not a radiative body.

-dale

Everything I read on the subject says the sun's rays do not heat the atmosphere on their way to the earth, but rather by interaction with the earth. Thus the sun does not directly heat the atmosphere (not much anyway) and induces the earth to act as a radiative body.

I heard the same rumor, that heat is trapped by the Greenhouse effect, but I don't get the tie-in.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Everything I read on the subject says the sun's rays do not heat the atmosphere on their way to the earth, but rather by interaction with the earth. Thus the sun does not directly heat the atmosphere (not much anyway) and induces the earth to act as a radiative body.

I heard the same rumor, that heat is trapped by the Greenhouse effect, but I don't get the tie-in.

Solar radiation *can* heat *some* components of the atmosphere.

Some components like C02, H2O, methane, and some others are invisible to solar radiation, but absorb longwave radiation from the earth. These components re-radiate it at differing wavelengths.

But careful, I think we are traipsing too close to "puffheaded science" for some here who really just want to high five each other based on their political affiliation.

[QUOTE=tanq_tonic;400142]

Originally Posted by dalem

My bad, I thought I remembered you saying that in some of the GF debates. Honest mistake. I clearly remember some science backgorund and honestly thought it was geology.

Or was it something like an astrophysics something or other? Sorry, but my memory doesnt go back that far to that level of detail.

tang

My background is in both astrophysics and geology/paleontology, but I am neither a geologist nor an astrophysicist. I am a well-informed layman with a solid science background.

-dale

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I will take that from you that all we will hear from you now is "Mars Attacks" or "Mars is warming"..... otay.... I'll try and put on my "Dale o meter" hat to try super-esp the elusive answer to life, the universe, and everything that you obvioulsy don't dare repost.

Once again I will note that I have posted relevant information in other threads. To review, there is evidence of planetary warming on multiple bodies in the Solar system. It is unknown at this time whether such evidence is anything but coincidental and/or circumstantial (i.e. maybe Pluto is getting warmer and/but maybe it's purely due to localized phenomena as opposed to Solar incidence).

That puts the "it's the Sun, dummy" theory at right about the same level as the "it's our tailpipes, O Woe!" theory. To my mind, since we know the Sun is variable and in some ways, to what degree, plus the fact that historical trends seem to be decoupled to any CO2 drivers but do seem to be coupled to Solar drivers, I think the Solar Variance theory is much stronger.

How's that for Mars Attacks ESP, ya arrogant feck?

-dale

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Everything I read on the subject says the sun's rays do not heat the atmosphere on their way to the earth, but rather by interaction with the earth. Thus the sun does not directly heat the atmosphere (not much anyway) and induces the earth to act as a radiative body.

I heard the same rumor, that heat is trapped by the Greenhouse effect, but I don't get the tie-in.

Light/Energy/Photons (all the same kinda-really) travel from the Sun and intersect with the Earth. When the atmosphere absorbs this energy it necessarily heats up in various ways. Some of that energy is rereadiated - the stuff that goes "up" radiates into space, the stuff that goes "down" radiates down to the ground where it is absorbed there, heating the surface in turn.

Some Light/Energy/Photons are not absorbed by the atmosphere - they are instead reflected and bounce back into space.

Some Light/Energy/Photons are not absorbed by the atmosphere - they instead travel completely through and impact the surface. The Greenhouse Effect is a way of describing the following rough interaction:

Energy of particular wavelengths, generally the shortish ones beyond visible light, passes through the atmosphere and hits the ground, where it is absorbed. This absorbed energy necessarily heats the ground. When the ground radiates this energy away it is largely of the long-wavelength type, i.e. what we perceive of as heat or infrared. Since the lower atmosphere is not generally transparent to infrared radiation, this radiation is re-radiated back to the ground, heating it further.

Think of it as energy getting through to the surface but not making it back out. Over time this acts as a heat "trap".

Hope that helps more than it hurts.

-dale

Pal:

I realized in the hullabaloo that I had not answered your return question. Could you please be more specific as to which era in the earth's past you are referring to as the "mini-ice age"? The "Little Ice Age" (LIA in the paleo-climatology world) ?

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

I will take that diatribe as an indication that you can't come up with a study of warming on Mars. You could have just said so in one sentence, you know.



So asking for a backing that the global climate on Mars (that is aside from a National Enquirer article) is "complicat[ing] the obvious." Interesting point of view......



Trust me, I doubt that you could effectuate any change.



Oh goody..... debate by gross generalization. Very becoming. (see the point above)




I can readily see that, trust me.



Funny quote from someone who calls readily ascertainable evidence "puffheaded numbers"......

What causes the huge clouds over Venus? Why is it so hot on Venus and so cold on say Neptune. If there is increased warming on Mars, well then why?
Do you belong to the 'Flat Earth Society'? If the Sun increase its radiance by 25% what would the Earths temperature be and why? You get it?

BTW the national inquire usually supports your view.


NAVI

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Looking closely at the energy transfer and energy balance estimates. Finally, I did a lot of work looking at net GHG flux, the isotropic signatures of that flux, and the basic physics behind CO2 and other GHG reemission characteristics... The isotropic fingerprints of the net carbon flux shows sufficient fingerprints of anthro origin to lead me to believe that the amount of anthro CO2 is a pretty good first order approximation of the net flux.

Clarification question: Did you mean "isotopic?"

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Clarification question: Did you mean "isotopic?"

Yep, thanks for the spelling catch. In particular the C14:C13:C12 ratios....

(removed boorish return comments)