It has nothing to do with religion... it is just basic physics. Ok I'll try to explain in another way why http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/ misses the point. He says that the earth has almost no CO2. Then he says that if you exrapolate our atmosphere to -100 km you get high temperatures. Then he says that warm
What do you mean? The link is not complete. I don't think you can buy a new laptop for playing games for less than 700 euros... 400 dollars sounds far too cheap to me. But really... if it's for playing games, then don't waste your money on a laptop! It has limitations due to cooling problems and size limitations. Inferior CPU, inferior graphics card, inferior screen, inferior HDD ... everything is inferior so just don't do it.
[quote who="petrossa" reply="935" id="3410952"]9000 kPa atmospheric pressure would occur on earth at an altitude many miles below sea level. No such place exists, but if it did – it would be extremely hot, like Venus.[/quote] If you would extrapolate temperatures of our atmosphere down to -100km below sea level, yeah this would be the case. [quote who="petrossa" reply="935" id="3410952"]The high temperatures there can be almost completely explained by atmospheric pressur
[quote who="petrossa" reply="932" id="3410746"]Ever heard of gravity? The gas isn't normally compressed. So it wants to decompress all the time. The gas is continuously compressed. So continuously heated up. The energy put into the system via gravitational pull must go somewhere. In the end you get a balance between cooling off/heating up and you reach a stable end temperature[/quote] I suppose I was a bit blunt in my previous post... this time I've taken more time to write an
Maybe we should keep the CO2 in the atmosphere at 400 ppm ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/27/good-news-elevated-co2-may-extend-interglacial-prevent-next-ice-age/ If I've to choose between slightly elevated temperatures and devastating ice ages... I'd go for the slightly elevated temperatures :) So we shouldn't abando
[quote who="Krazikarl" reply="926" id="3410079"]What this means is that what you "feel" here on Earth is largely IR, which is why you have the strong IRheat connection in people's minds, despite the fact that they are different things.[/quote] Yes ok... I understand now. We feel a bit of everything. Still... how can a laser burn you and a large amounts of LEDs would not? I mean, it's all energy, even if you have a white skin you can't reflect everything, only a lit
[quote who="Jafo" reply="927" id="3410088"]The bit I refered to was that either the energy is absorbed OR it is NOT [it's reflected]. The two options ARE absorbed or reflected.[/quote] Yes sure... but all the short-wavelength-radiation that gets absorbed will be emitted as long-wavelength-radiation. And since only about half is reflected, the remaining half will become long-infrared. As far as the ice cores and the ice ages are concerned... I&
[quote who="Jafo" reply="923" id="3409992"]There are only those two options, so yes....[/quote] Ok.. so basically all the high-fequency energy (both visible light and short-wavelength-infrared) gets absorbed and all of it is emitted back at high-wavelength-infrared radiation. Well... that's a wavelength band where the sun has little to offer. Ok now the rest. [quote who="psychoak" reply="914" id="3408966"]Localized variations well in excess of 1
So... am I right if I say that the earth absorbs all the possible radiation that hits it (as long as it's not reflected), heats up a little, and emits all of it again as far-infrared ? http://homepages.ius.edu/kforinas/ClassRefs/GlobalWarming_files/greenhouseeffect.htm In figure 7.5 they put the solar spectrum next to the spectrum from the earth's surface.&
Lucky you, it's getting pretty cold here in the Netherlands. I want the summer back!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png Check the spectrum and the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O (the red spectrum). Also notice how little infrared energy already reaches the surface in those bands. So I guess you're right that infrared reaches the surface... but what's important is the infrared that's in those absorption bands. Hardly any of that reaches the surface.<
Don't buy a laptop for games!!! This laptop looks pretty bad from the specs. It looks like one of those models that are used for browsing on the internet, typing/mailing, and at most play a movie. The screen is too small and has low resolution, you have to look down which is bad for your neck, and the CPU is slower because it has to run with little heat production (because a laptop is hard to cool). Also, laptops are relatively expensive, a "normal" com
[quote who="psychoak" reply="910" id="3408473"]They also block the infrared from the Sun, knocking out over half the energy being transmitted to ground. [/quote] You are talking about clouds that reflect sunlight I suppose. You should realize that clouds can exist because of heat? There has to be heat and warmth before a cloud can even exist. So who cares that a cloud blocks energy, it's already warm and on top of that, the clouds help us keep warm. &n
[quote who="psychoak" reply="910" id="3408473"]Put several thousand candles worth of LED lighting in a room and see how hot your skin feels.[/quote] I've never tried that, but you'll probably burn your skin as well as your eyes, for the same reason that a bright laser beam will burn you. Your eyes are more sensitive to light btw, you cannot look directly into the sun even though your skin just feels warm. It's the photons that make you warm. Bright light has high-e
[quote who="psychoak" reply="908" id="3408413"]The heat you feel on your skin is mostly from the infrared.[/quote] Ok, maybe I was wrong in that one aspect. Let's see... no looks like I was right about that: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=86 see the last paragraph. Even a white body absorbs some energy and heats up. Because it's white, it will also have more trouble rele
[quote who="psychoak" reply="906" id="3408400"]Venus has an albedo of .9. That's a 90% reduction. It gets about a third heat from the Sun than Earth does, despite it's relative proximity. It glows like a star because damn near all of it reflects back out. So yes, some light does reach the surface. Some dogs are born with three legs. The photos also showed volcanic rock covered in soot for a surface.[/quote] It doesn't matter that a lot of light is reflected back. The thing
[quote who="psychoak" reply="902" id="3408387"] CO2 is an insignificant little blip in the greenhouse effect. It doesn't even have the advantage of water, which forms a precipitate and rains back down, returning some of the heat it transported up.[/quote] Uhm... rain is a mechanism of transporting heat UP not DOWN. When a droplet forms, heat is emitted high up in the atmosphere. And there's a feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Modeling suggest that 1 degree rise in
[quote who="psychoak" reply="902" id="3408387"] Then again, he might just be that stupid. He is after all the moron that thinks Venus is hot because the CO2 traps all that infrared from the Sun it never gets in the first place...[/quote] What the hell is that about... Venus gets plenty of light and part of it even goes all the way down, it's sort of twilight at the surface. There were photographs of that... And CO2 doesn't trap infrared from the sun. It traps infr
[quote who="psychoak" reply="899" id="3408363"]Exactly. It makes no sense. Why? Because CO2 does dick and you're convinced it's the whole shebang. It's a byproduct of the temperature change, not the cause. The oceans slow down temperature changes because they take so much longer to change themselves. This is why CO2 lags, because it had fuck all to do with the actual temperature increase or decrease in the first place, and is simply a result of the oceans changing their capacity t
Someone who knows what he's talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Hansen He's saying something about the Keystone Pipeline : "He claims by opening the Keystone XL spigot, it would be game over for the climate." Why would he say such a thing... I think because the Athabasca tar sands hold 2 trillion barrels of reserves, 17
But also my apologies for getting frustrated... it's impossible for me to show you the difference between human timescales and geological timescales. The icecore data are good enough for modeling on geological timescales, I think 200 years of lag hardly matter if you're looking at processes that takes 10,000 years or longer. For those purposes, ice-core data are suited because the aging uncertainty simply doesn't matter. For making conclusions on human time scales..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core "The layer of porous firn on Antarctic ice sheets is 50–150 m deep" Also, one year is compressed into a layer of less than 1 cm thick. How the hell are you going to get perfect data from that, huh? There's a lot of potential for noise and even biased noise. So BEFORE you start shouting that CO2 lags T, you should be very, very, very sure that those ice cores are
[quote who="psychoak" reply="892" id="3408168"]As CO2 levels gradually change over time, the average age of the air and the average CO2 levels would stay in sync.[/quote] They don't. A running average like that introduces a time lag. Anyway read something like this. http://robertkernodle.hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geop
[quote who="psychoak" reply="889" id="3408025"]They measured the age of the ice and the age of the air and what do you know, they got a couple hundred years of lag! Funny how it's the same range as the more dependable but shorter range cores from areas that get more snowpack each year and create glacial ice layers in just a few decades, ain't it?[/quote] The air is mixed with fresher air before it gets finally trapped in the ice which means that you measure an "average" proper
[quote who="psychoak" reply="883" id="3407733"]The lag is fact. Period. [/quote] It isn't. It's not going to be "fact" until you can show the world measurements that are completely free of noise and artifacts. This can only be done by observing the temperature record first-hand, instead of estimating it from ice cores. We'll have to wait till the shit hits the fan before you are "sure" about it. Maybe you'll even doubt it by then... oh wait people don't liv
Sins Forums