| | |
|
|
|
PJ, he's saying that CO2 doesn't radiate heat away very well. It can conduct heat, but the only way it can conduct that heat is down, essentially. Conduction is the transfer of heat through matter. CO2 conducts heat quite well, yes, but it can't do so without touching something else. It doesn't work that way. In space, there is a vacuum (or rather, something so rarified that it amounts to a vacuum), and thus it is very difficult to conduct heat. Space is the ultimate insulator. It stops conduction cold (if you'll forgive the pun).
The only way to actually get the heat away from the Earth is to radiate it away. CO2 is lousy at that. However, it is good at absorbing heat radiated from other sources.
The CO2 absorbs the heat radiating away from the Earth. It then conducts this heat to other gasses in the atmosphere, rather than out into space. This slows down the rate at which heat can escape the atmosphere.
So yes, PJ, CO2 conducts heat very well. Just not into space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias said:
So yes, PJ, CO2 conducts heat very well. Just not into space.
OK, so you are in my corner. We agree. Everything you said is what I said. CO2 serves to transfer the heat around. Great. I'm glad you reiterated my position.
You are absolutely correct that for heat to escape the earth it needs to radiate away, off into space. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I'm certainly not.
Let's presume that CO2 merely does its job transferring heat around. Question: what effect will that "spreading of the heat around" have on the rate that heat ends up radiating away from the planet? I think the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates an acceleration of the heat radiating away, but I'm in the process of verifying. I apologize for the use of a technical term.
What I'm left with is:
More CO2 -> faster heat radiation away from the planet
Less CO2 -> slower heat radiation away from the planet
Again, not because of how CO2 radiates, but because of how heat radiates away fromt he planet when it is more evenly disbursed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
Here is the theory:
Humans are not the cause of climate change.
However, climate change is, in fact, happening.
Your question is: What now?
Well, Slovenia just reached it's record coldest temperatures (-49C) so I figure all this "Global Warming" should motivate us to get a lot of blankets.
If you're asking what the "human response" should be, you first need to address that nasty little semantic: Are you saying the earth is getting warmer or colder. Simply saying "Climate Change" is a cop-out.
Naturally, if you are a faithful globo-melt zealot, your response will be "we need to stop all manufaturing and production activity immmediately."
On the other hand, if you believe the earth is more in line with heading towards a major ice age, then you'll be more inclined to invest in topical equatorial real estate (for your great great great great great [several "greats" deleted] grandkids).
I'm looking more at the second option.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'm see where you're coming from. However, you're mistaken about the implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. An even distribution of temperature is actually the slowest model for loss of heat through radiation. Because the radiation is proportional to the temperature^4, localized hot spots lose heat faster.
Let's make a very simplified model. We have two areas. They're both 5 degrees. Their radiation is roughly the same. Now, if we take all the heat from one, and give it to the other, we have 0 and 10 degrees. Now, one would think the temperature output would be the same. It's actually 8 times the original.
Work it like this: 5^4 is 625. 2*625 is 1250. 10^4, however, is 10,000. So, concentrated sources lose heat the quickest.
Now, the problem with CO2 is that when it's radiating, up there in the atmosphere, it's also radiating back down. This means that some of the heat that would be escaping, radiating from rocks and clouds and the like, is bounced back down. There's still a fair amount of heat lost, but not as much as there would be if we didn't have CO2 in the atmosphere. A good thing, too. Earth couldn't support us if it didn't trap that excess heat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright my turn...
In order to transfer heat something must trap heat at one location and release it at another location. Each molecule only has a certain amount of heat energy it is able to store before its 'full'. If you have movement between one area and another then it'll pick up heat from one location and drop it off at another location. This is basically how the heatsinks in computers work too.
Now the density of the matter is also has an effect on its heat conductivity. We all know that water (a liquid) is better at moving heat around than say air (a gas) and that say an electric stove burner is much better at transferring heat than both of them (a solid).
The science behind Climate Change/Global Warming has already been explained. Vacuum or a near vacuum is an almost perfect insulator (good quality thermoses use a vaccuum between the interior and exterior layers so theres very little solid space touching between the two so theres much less heat transfer). And given that CO2 is something like 20 times more efficient at carrying heat than oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere we enjoy today. This means that it'll hold onto more heat and since vacuum is a very good insulator it means that the earth will warm up despite as you claim that CO2 is a coolant/refrigerant. In order for it do that it needs a place to transfer the heat away to. In the short term all it does is 'moderate' the temperatures of the world so cold places get warmer, and warmer places get cooler. Though eventually there wont BE any place for that excess heat to be transferred to.
Me personally I dont think that we should completely stop industrial stuff but I do think that if there are alternatives in place that could be used to make production 'greener' it should be done. I mean why the hell are we still burning oil/gas to melt steel when we can use a solar furnace or Fresnel lenses to focus the energy of the sun over a large area into a smaller point. Basically achieving the same effect as kids have been doing for ages with magnifying glasses to set paper on fire? It'd also be cheaper than buying oil/gas to do the same thing.
--------------------
Chakat Xantara
Everyday Helper 'kat of the unofficial MZDM Muck (muck.animaltracks.net:8888)
Find out more about MZDM Muck
|
|
|
|
|
|
After discussing this a bit elsewhere, I must confess an error on my part. CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't actually conduct heat well. It convects it. There's too much distance between molecules for there to be a great deal of conduction. Solid CO2 conducts energy very well, but that's because the molecules are next to each other. Gases, by and large, conduct heat very poorly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ozymandias said:
Gases, by and large, conduct heat very poorly.
Remember, my position has always been that the effect of CO2 increases, if anything, is negligible, that it isn't enough to affect anything that we could observe (because it's the sun that controls the temperature). Nonetheless, I have been striving to analyze the physics, and although our atmosphere in general makes for a good heat insulator, CO2 nevertheless does conduct heat better than most of the other gases in the atmosphere.
Ozymandias said:
Okay, I'm see where you're coming from. However, you're mistaken about the implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. An even distribution of temperature is actually the slowest model for loss of heat through radiation.
OK, I'm with you. I was certain of two possibilities, that a completely even distribution of heat in the atmosphere was either the fastest way to radiate all the heat off the planet, or it was the slowest (I know, nothing brilliant there). I'm still verifying this (it's actually a slight bit more complicated) but at today's date, I'm presuming it's the slowest. So what does that mean:
1) Yes, CO2 does contribute to global warming!
2) It can only contribute up to a negligible upper limit, and *CANNOT* create some spiraling out-of-control catastrophe-causing earth-changing cataclysm. In fact, the earth heading towards a full-blown ice-age will drive temperatures downward (with deferrence to the sun who will always have the final say as to what the earth's temperature is) and the atmosphere's CO2 will never come into play.
How about that?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xantara said:
Alright my turn...
In order to transfer heat something must trap heat at one location and release it at another location.
No, Xantara, "trapping" heat implies retention over time. Conducting or transferring heat implies absortion and a more or less instantaneous release/transfer.
This is why the word "trapping" (wrt heat and CO2) is a dead giveaway as to a losing argument.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, okay.
Why don't I just sit right up here and ask the question, then.
The heat theoretically bounces off the CO2 from the earth, back downwards, okay fine whatever..
Why wouldn't it just reflect the sun's rays out into space?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that, of course, is because CO2 is transparent to the visible spectrum, and that's where the sun's light spectrum peaks! So, most of the sun's light will pass right through the atmosphere, assuming there aren't any clouds in the way.
I'm glad to see, by the way, that PJ's finally come to grips with CO2 as helping keep the Earth warm. I'd also note to him that water vapor does a good job of it, too, and for much the same reasons. I'd mentioned that before, and was surprised he didn't comment on it.
When in clouds, water acts a little differently, because it's opaque. It keeps things cooler during the day due to reflection, but warmer at night due to preventing radiative heat loss.
I won't speak too much on the rest. I'm far from a doom-and-gloom proponent, but I like to see good physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Weaver said:
I'm glad to see, by the way, that PJ's finally come to grips with CO2 as helping keep the Earth warm. I'd also note to him that water vapor does a good job of it, too, and for much the same reasons. I'd mentioned that before, and was surprised he didn't comment on it.
H2O not only does a good job, it does a much better job than CO2. In some cases the increase in effectiveness of H2O over CO2 is purported to be 2500%.
So why are we, or rather why are environmentalists, ignoring H2O emissions in favor of screaming about CO2? Why would anyone worried about the effects of CO2 on global temperatures support hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which emit H2O as their primary byproduct, in sometimes very large quantities (BMW, I'm looking right at you and your hydrogen sucking behemoth)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
However, climate change is, in fact, happening.
Thalamasa, you never did answer the question. When you say "Climate Change," how exactly is it "changing."
By chance were you emphasizing that the earth is getting colder? ...as in the UK's heaviest snowfall in 19 years on 2 Feb 2009?
You said the theory is that even though humans are not the cause...it is, in fact, happening. What observations are you citing that create this premise for your question?
I'm guessing that you were probably citing Michigan's New All-Time Cold Record. Am I correct? After all, you have plenty of supporting evidence like this very recent example and this one and this one. Of course there was this aback in December (less than two months ago).
Nonetheless, I'm sure some clarification would be appreciated.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a really hard time with hypothetical questions, don't you, John?
The purpose of this thread is more 'Okay, so let's say humans aren't the cause of all the doom and gloom we've been hearing re: global warming and all that, but the global warming is actually there and real, doom and gloom included, what now'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
You have a really hard time with hypothetical questions, don't you, John?
Not at all. I enjoy hypothetical questions. They're the best.
It's just that your question was very pithy, and I was just asking for a little clarification.
You don't have a hard time with a little clarification, do you?
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
Rivek
|
|
|
|
Member #4579
|
|
Posts: 303
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:
Thalamasa, you never did answer the question. When you say "Climate Change," how exactly is it "changing."
It's hard to believe that anyone is so naive as to think that "Climate Change" can only mean an across-the-board equal increase or decrease everywhere on earth all at once.
Use your head, PJ. Perhaps the hot is getting hotter and the cold is getting colder, hm? You've already provided evidence of the cold getting colder, and I can vouch for the hot getting hotter given that 2008 was the third year of record highs in summer in a row for Houston.
Earth's climate is a system in balance. Break the teeth of one of the cogs and the whole system will go awry. And *gasp* it's not all going to break the exact same way zomg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rivek said:
It's hard to believe that anyone is so naive as to think that "Climate Change" can only mean an across-the-board equal increase or decrease everywhere on earth all at once.
...well then I submit this board is laden with naivety. You are the first to suggest divergent temperature changes.
Now take the opportunity to go on record with your assertion as to the direction of the "overall average global temperature" and your rationale.
Rivek said:
and I can vouch for the hot getting hotter given that 2008 was the third year of record highs in summer in a row for Houston.
...Strange, I thought 2008 showedHouston's getting colder.
I will reiterate, I don't think the climate is changing on any cataclysmic way, nor that humans are affecting the climate in any significant way. I think "global warming" (as well as the strangely undefined "climate change") is the scam of the century. I have no vested interest in such a theory.
Rivek said:
Earth's climate is a system in balance. Break the teeth of one of the cogs and the whole system will go awry. And *gasp* it's not all going to break the exact same way zomg.
Your words imply that a global environmental "cog" can have, or has had, a "tooth" broken. Which such tooth has broken and how did it break?
I'm just trying to use my head.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
Rivek
|
|
|
|
Member #4579
|
|
Posts: 303
|
|
|
Pentagon John said:\
...Strange, I thought 2008 showed Houston's getting colder.
I will reiterate, I don't think the climate is changing on any cataclysmic way, nor that humans are affecting the climate in any significant way. I think "global warming" (as well as the strangely undefined "climate change") is the scam of the century. I have no vested interest in such a theory.
That's the thing: Houston goes from another record-high summer to the heaviest snow seen in decades.
As to the cataclysmic/non-cataclysmic nature of this change, I can't say. I don't want to make any unfounded assumptions. But it is changing regardless. How far things will go, and whether or not we can do anything about it, is up to the future or our brightest nonpartisan scientists to tell us for sure.
Pentagon John said:
Your words imply that a global environmental "cog" can have, or has had, a "tooth" broken. Which such tooth has broken and how did it break?
I'm just trying to use my head.
That's the question isn't it?
I was just trying to analogize the fact that when things go off-kilter, no matter what's being discussed, things almost never happen the same way, just three feet/degrees/seconds off of the planned course. As to what broke, if anything did, I can't say - I'm not a climate scientist. Common sense is the basis for the few arguments I've given here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thalamasa said:
Here is the theory:
Humans are not the cause of climate change.
However, climate change is, in fact, happening.
Your question is:
What now?
Well if you're Canadian, get out the blankets because " Global Warming " is apparently creeping up on you.
--------------------
Defending the truth is tough, you try it!
|
|
|
| | |
Reply Main
New Thread
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Quote
