First this... the Death Valley can come later. http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/german-super-volcano-erupt/ It doesn't have anything to do with global warming, but a super volcano under Germany??? [quote who="psychoak" reply="1004" id="3413364"]Still zero commentary on the wonderful Death Valley temperature history?[/quote] Yes it's an amusing story :) Fortu
Have you seen the error bars on the ice core data? Seriously ... Also, what relevance does an ice-age-driven climate have for the current situation where there are almost no glaciers. Why do YOU keep insisting that it's nonsense to look further back to situations that are more similar to what we are in now, and what we will be in in the near future. Just read this again (my previous post). <a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-d
[quote who="psychoak" reply="999" id="3413311"]Weathering requires new rocks, something that doesn't typically happen during glaciation.[/quote] Well.. I've read somewhere that weathering can speed up the absorption of CO2 by rocks. [quote who="psychoak" reply="999" id="3413311"]If the lag is only ~250 years, which jives with everything I've seen, then the two lines should occupy the same space.[/quote] Well... it doesn't jive with what we're s
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx This one is pretty interesting. Measurements with an uncertainty of just 14 ppm :) That's a lot better then the plant stomata. And it gives support for the ice core data. And it's by a nice female researcher too. Although there are no graphs, that's a shame. Bu
This is a nice compilation of data. It shows how reliable all of that is (or not) ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/ Except of course I disagree with the final conclusion. He draws a red line through noisy stomata data without an error bar... and that error is pretty big I would think. His conclusion of 250 years of lag is obviously ridiculous. I
[quote who="psychoak" reply="995" id="3413231"]Fiction, pure and simple. They pulled the temperatures out of their ass. When you assume 3C per doubling and then say oh look, it was 12 degrees hotter back here when CO2 was at 4800, you're engaging in circular reasoning, just as they are when they state the same about today. It is an assumption being used to prove an assumption.[/quote] They didn't pull it out of their ass. They observed anoxic oceans (which happens near 40 degr
First there was alcohol, then there was the mobile phone, then there was the google glass... just imagine what would happen if some woman has consumed alcohol on a party and is driving home, is wearing google glass because the trip is so boring, and her phone rings and it's her favorite boyfriend ... I think even a female would fail at multitasking at that point.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="990" id="3412930"]CO2 has a logarithmic effect, it's fairly obvious. If you double the concentration, you halve the distance the infrared travels between stops. This then doubles the amount of time that energy spends planet side.[/quote] You also have to deal with the top of the troposphere. There's a temperature inversion there, which blocks convection. The atmosphere cools down there mainly by radiation from CO2 and H2O (clouds radiating heat).</
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="988" id="3412839"] Okay, I can't help myself... Quoting psychoak, reply 978Solar radiation is a force. Is no one more serious than me going to address this?[/quote] The complete quote is this: [quote who="psychoak" reply="978" id="3412335"]Solar radiation is a force. What the energy is converted into[/quote] I think it was a typo or something. Anyway, radiation can act like a force, even if it's
What... crystaldiscinfo? Sounds useful. Is it reliable (I mean, no viruses, requests to install browser-add-ons and such) ?
Backup the data that is precious to you ... you're more likely to get a HDD crash than such a fishing attack I would think and that also destroys everything you've got.
Here's something else: http://m.everythingscience.co.za/grade-12/16-optical-phenomena-and-properties-of-matter/16-optical-phenomena-and-properties-of-matter-04.cnxmlplus This means: CO2 in the atmosphere will radiate energy only at certain wavelenghts that other CO2 molecules can capture. Thus, CO2 can form an
I don't want to go into such details anymore... I was refering to more robust data like vertical temperature profiles. That's all. This article is actually pretty interesting... http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=3&t=118&&n=491 I think it basically says that much of the heating by CO2 is because the heat stays longer in the atmosphere.
I've read and thought about it a little more. Imagine the extreme case of an atmosphere that would be completely transparent and doesn't capture heat itself. Its temperatue would be completely controlled by the temperature at the surface of the planet. It doesn't matter at this point how high the pressure is - it will be a very high pressure atmosphere at the surface, with the temperature of that surface. The air will transport heat up through convection, meaning the
[quote who="psychoak" reply="978" id="3412335"]Gravity pulls everything inward, the Sun makes some of it lighter than the whole. Gravity is responsible for much of the heating resulting from friction.[/quote] Well... all you're saying is that friction gives a contribution and that contribution is ignored by climatologists right? I can't really argue with that, except that I have no clue how large a contribution it really is. So let's just forget about gravi
Apocalypse from the X-men. Although he's not been in a movie yet, I'm pretty sure he'll be in a movie someday. Then he'll be the worst villain of all time: past AND future. Recently I saw DragonballZ: Battle of Gods. Now that God of Destruction is one funny villain :) For the rest I don't know... if a villain is crazy, that doesn't make him special or anything, it's just a madman. I prefer something that's a mix... some good, some evil.
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="971" id="3412208"]You see, whenever an ideal gas is under pressure, the temperature is constant...but we don't live in an ideal world do we? No, we live in the real world, with real gases, and the real gas law states very clearly that higher pressure in fact leads to higher temperature..[/quote] The same is true for an ideal gas, but I prefer to write it this way: Pressure = constant * Density * Temperature [quote who="psychoak" reply="974" id
What is the point you want to make with those links? Oh... I suppose you mean that temperature increases with pressure as you move down the atmosphere. But you know, the pressure itself doesn't create the heat. It just means that you if take a piece of atmosphere with a certain energy then as you move it down, its energy will stay the same. The volume will become smaller, the temperature increases somewhat. But what you fail to see is, that the pocket of ai
I dunno... if the basics of physics is not clear, how on earth can you agree on more complicated things like global warming? If I say heating from the sun warms our atmosphere, and someone else says it's the pressure that heats the atmosphere, then we're really living in 2 different planes of existence with different laws of physics. Such alien lifeforms will never agree on anything, because they exists outside of each other's reality.
[quote who="petrossa" reply="958" id="3411871"]I am glad we finally agree venus is hot because of pressure and not CO2 cutting that silly argument out of the CO2->warming thesis posed by those who don't believe in natural variation of climate. I knew that finally you'd come around.[/quote] What... I didn't say that, you misunderstood my examples ... I said pressure counteracts gravity without changing the internal heat of the gas ... The only heat
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="952" id="3411744"]Anthony Watts is a chump, I prefer to get my information from John Lear...[/quote] How wonderful the universe can be if you don't let physics and observations limit your imagination :) Sometimes I envy those people. They live a wonderful life where everything is perfect and full of beauty. Anyway... back on topic, I think there's a lot of confusion going on about what is en
[quote who="ZombiesRus5" reply="946" id="3411568"]Huh? Wind is the result of differences in Air Pressure! This is pretty basic stuff here.[/quote] I won't argue that. I only argue that gravity doesn't cause heating. [quote who="petrossa" reply="945" id="3411564"]permanent de/recompression causes permanent heating.[/quote] Only if you isolate it and don't allow the air to radiate out its energy... you can pump up the tire of a bicycle or a car, but t
I suppose you refer to wind and such things... but those variations are tiny and not a result of gravity. They are the result of the suns warmth and the rotation differential of the earth. If you would put air in an isolated box, then it will not get warmer even though gravity acts on it all the time. That's because of the equilibrium. If gravity would create heat, the air in the box would get warmer and you could run a power plant on it ... but that doesn't happen, it
You're talking about an ACT of compressing - you overcome the natural air pressure by brute force and force the air into a smaller volume. That's something different, that's "net force" * distance = energy. Gravity and pressure that are in equilibirum? Nothing happens, the sum of their forces = 0. There is no energy change. If you think that gravity creates heat, then please give me the law of physics that describes that amazing process. It would be
This paper offers more interesting criticism of warming effects of (small) additions of CO2. http://devinplombier44.free.fr/CoolingOfAtmosphere.pdf It also mentions Venus, but in a more interesting way than the other link. This paper argues that higher temperatures increase vertical convection, and thus lead to more effective cooling of the earth. Therefore, there is no sig
Sins Forums