Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

89 PW of energy falls on the earth (89 x 10¹⁵ W)

but keep in mind not all of it being absorbed.. depending on the terrain type..


we use 15 terrawatts (15 x 10¹² W)

So we currently consume a VERY small fraction of a percentage of energy compared to what the sun provides....hence we have one hell of along way to go before we get even close to this scenario cem

lets say today we simply release 1/1000..

(must admit its worse than I expect)

but question is for how long ?  :-/

but keep in mind not all of it being absorbed.. depending on the terrain type

As there is more water than landmass on the planet is the possibility for absorbition not greater in that case?

[cem_devecioglu]

now some parts from the link

This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects.   yess
The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption. 

There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive

nope.. all negative.. human based structures absorb more radiation from the sun compared to nature..

I feel, you're misunderstanding the point the author makes. He is taking about positive and negative feedbacks. Replacing a forest with a corn field is a negative feedback as it will reflect heat away from the earth's surface, whereas a urbanisation is a positive feedback as it absorbs IR radiation.

 

and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."

nope.. these are all combined effects and you cant cut critical parameters from the eqn

Cem, the paper merely deals with the greenhouse theory, as the author states. Of course there are many drivers of climate, such as ocean current oscillations, solar flux and goodness knows what else. He is merely stating that he is explaining the greenhouse effect in isolation.

 

Remember:
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.

Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.

thats purely an assumption not science as CO2 levels continously increasing and the ratio cant be fixed forever.. thats just for a specific point at time dimension :-/

Well, CO2 may be increasing but, at 390pp, or 0.039% of the atmosphere it wold take a long, long, time to alter these % ratios outside the bands mentioned. Also, the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm).

Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.

Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.

Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.

Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).

Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.

Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.

:-? thats completely wrong.. 

how do you define saturated.. you change the molecular composition ratios continously which can handle different enthalpy levels how can you say that.. :-?

No, it's not completely wrong. There are differing views on this, but only in the degree of saturation, I think. Let me explain with a bit of stolen text ( )

"Furthermore each constituent of an atmosphere reacts slightly differently to incoming radiant energy. As a result each constituent can only operate as a greenhouse gas with certain limited bandwidths of incoming energy. If there is not enough energy of the right bandwidth coming in then the greenhouse effect of a particular constituent stops. That is why it is often said that the greenhouse effect of CO2 declines logarithmically as the available bandwidth gets used up. Some say that at the current level of 380 parts per million we are close to saturation as regards more warming effect from extra CO2."

I can't say for sure that the foregoing is definitely the case, but given the spectrometry research which is still going on, we can say that it is clearly not an easily dismissed theory...at least not as easy as you dismissed it.

As I said, Cem, it makes a refreshing change to deal with the science and you have prompted me to dig deep into my stock of research papers! 

good one

[hotel21]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

[cem_devecioglu]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

 

[Dishevelled Den]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

[hotel21]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...

Don't mind me please peeps.  I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong.  Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload.  Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... 

[CaptainZok]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...

Don't mind me please peeps.  I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong.  Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload.  Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... 

Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?

[hotel21]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...

Don't mind me please peeps.  I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong.  Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload.  Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... 

Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?

Only if you promise to wear your tasselled hat and Paisley pattern smoking jacket, Cap'n.    

[CaptainZok]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...

Don't mind me please peeps.  I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong.  Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload.  Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... 

Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?

Only if you promise to wear your tasselled hat and Paisley pattern smoking jacket, Cap'n.    

It's in the wash after the weekend B.

[Dishevelled Den]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-)

A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...

Don't mind me please peeps.  I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong.  Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload.  Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... 

Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?

2130 hrs at the earliest Z.

At mess dinners the following would have been sung to any females present before getting down to the more serious task of acting the ejitt, consuming vast amounts of drink and generally talking balls; - it was the 70's after all.


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzYIpIUW7w&feature=related[/media]

[Nickbat]

Its nice here, innit?   8-)

Nicer than yesterday/early this morning.....   

Thanks for that......    

Much, much, nicer. I can personally vouch for that. 

Debating the actual science is not only less confrontational, it also highly educational. Thanks to all for their input and to Cem for kicking it all off!