• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Interim update of IPCC AR5 published

Threegoofs said:
LOL. ‘Downplay it’?

It directly comes out and says the low range is probably not happening, despite your intensive ‘analysis’ of the most recent observable data (which you say doesn’t count anyway because it’s warm....errr....an anomaly!).
Click to expand...
And that statement is contrary to the observable data.
In which other area of Science do they attempt to disregard the empirical data?
 
Threegoofs said:
If only they knew climate science as well as you, armchair crusader!
Click to expand...
Actually they discuss this very topic in the report, which you might know if you had read it.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf
Publications since AR5 continue to show equilibrium
sensitivity estimates across the IPCC range. Those
based on past observations and energy-balance models
generally produce lower values than those derived
from the more complex global climate models, including
some suggesting ranges extending to values lower than
those of AR5.
Click to expand...
So they are saying that equilibrium sensitivity estimates based on past observations
generally produce lower values of ECS than those based the more complex global climate models.

The simple explanation when the models do not agree with the empirical data, is that the models
used some flawed assumptions, but here they attempt to say the future climate will react differently than the past climate.
 
longview said:
Actually they discuss this very topic in the report, which you might know if you had read it.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

So they are saying that equilibrium sensitivity estimates based on past observations
generally produce lower values of ECS than those based the more complex global climate models.

The simple explanation when the models do not agree with the empirical data, is that the models
used some flawed assumptions, but here they attempt to say the future climate will react differently than the past climate.
Click to expand...

Given that the past climate didn't have human beings pumping vast quantities of CO2 into it, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the future climate may react differently to the past climate. We're heading into unknown territory, climate-wise.
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the past climate didn't have human beings pumping vast quantities of CO2 into it, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the future climate may react differently to the past climate. We're heading into unknown territory, climate-wise.
Click to expand...
Since they are speaking of empirical data, they are talking about the instrument record 1850 onward,
and CO2 has been increasing most of that time.
We are learning more all the time, but the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 appears to be on the low
end of the IPCC range.
One thing we know for certain, the forcing from each unit of CO2 will be less than the one before it.
We are already above 50% of the forcing from the first doubling of CO2 (52.5%),
so the entire remaining 58% of the first doubling will produce less forcing than we have already seen.
The CERES satellite data says the flux or top of the atmosphere energy imbalance, is considerable
lower than expected, which means the negative feedbacks exceed the positives one.
 
longview said:
Well first the greenhouse theory do not allow more energy to enter in from space!
Click to expand...

More compared to the amount that is being radiated back into space. Not more than there was before.

longview said:
And they cannot demonstrate this in a lab, as boundary conditions exists in the lab that do not in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

The greenhouse effect caused by these gases can be, and has been, demonstrated in a lab.

longview said:
The point I am making is that the statement in the Royal Society report,
"One important advance is that it is now known that as the climate warms it becomes less effective at emitting heat to space",
is in disagreement with the basic principals of Physics.
We know the 2nd law to thermodynamics, says that as the difference in energy increases, so does the flow of energy.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. That's not what the 2nd law says. No accepted statement of the second law of thermodynamics states that the greater the gradient, the greater the rate of transfer of energy from one sink to another. A greater concentration of energy does not bear on the rate of increase of entropy.
 
ashurbanipal said:
More compared to the amount that is being radiated back into space. Not more than there was before.
Click to expand...
So as I said more energy does not enter the system because off greenhouse gasses!


The greenhouse effect caused by these gases can be, and has been, demonstrated in a lab.
Click to expand...
What can be demonstrated is that CO2 has absorption and emission spectra, and that CO2 supports
the quantum energy states we expect from a dipole molecule.


No it doesn't. That's not what the 2nd law says. No accepted statement of the second law of thermodynamics states that the greater the gradient, the greater the rate of transfer of energy from one sink to another. A greater concentration of energy does not bear on the rate of increase of entropy.
Click to expand...
If the planet is warmer the gradient is greater!
 
longview said:
So as I said more energy does not enter the system because off greenhouse gasses!
Click to expand...

Sure. No one is claiming otherwise. No one has claimed otherwise. So, once again, I have no idea what your point is, or why an exclamation point would be necessary.

longview said:
What can be demonstrated is that CO2 has absorption and emission spectra, and that CO2 supports
the quantum energy states we expect from a dipole molecule.
Click to expand...

Sure, that can be demonstrated.

longview said:
If the planet is warmer the gradient is greater!
Click to expand...

So what? Nothing about that supports your point.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Sure. No one is claiming otherwise. No one has claimed otherwise. So, once again, I have no idea what your point is, or why an exclamation point would be necessary.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the slow response,
Post number 42, you said,
If energy flows out faster than it flows in, we have cooling. If energy flows in faster than it flows out, we have warming.
Energy is not flowing in faster.


Sure, that can be demonstrated.
Click to expand...
What we cannot demonstrate is the actual mechanism that causes CO2 to warm the atmosphere.
The interactions with the other gases, input energy, ect, are too complex to model in the lab with any accuracy.


"If the planet is warmer the gradient is greater!"
So what? Nothing about that supports your point.
Click to expand...
That is the second law of thermodynamics, the greater the energy gradient, the greater the energy flow.
as yousaid in post #56
 
longview said:
If energy flows out faster than it flows in, we have cooling. If energy flows in faster than it flows out, we have warming.
Energy is not flowing in faster.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Energy is flowing in faster than it is going out.

longview said:
That is the second law of thermodynamics, the greater the energy gradient, the greater the energy flow.
as yousaid in post #56
Click to expand...

No it isn't, and no I didn't. It's almost like you read something and then think it said the opposite of what it said...
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes it is. Energy is flowing in faster than it is going out.



No it isn't, and no I didn't. It's almost like you read something and then think it said the opposite of what it said...
Click to expand...

The energy is still not flowing in faster!
I apologize, you did say the opposite in post #56, and I misread it,
but that does not change the fact that for a system seeking equilibrium between sinks,
the greater the difference in energy, the greater the flow.
Think about it this way, in the oven analogy if you were standing next to the oven at
200 degrees F vs 450 degrees F, which one would be throwing off more IR photons?
 
longview said:
The energy is still not flowing in faster!
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's flowing in faster than it's flowing out. There is a net energy gain, interval over interval, on the surface of the earth ("surface" meaning the crust, oceans, and atmosphere) right now.

longview said:
I apologize, you did say the opposite in post #56, and I misread it,
but that does not change the fact that for a system seeking equilibrium between sinks,
the greater the difference in energy, the greater the flow.
Think about it this way, in the oven analogy if you were standing next to the oven at
200 degrees F vs 450 degrees F, which one would be throwing off more IR photons?
Click to expand...

1. That has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, and especially the second law--even if it's true.

2. I don't think it's true anyway, at least not the way you seem to mean. The 450 degree oven would eventually throw off more IR photons in total. But the difference in rate vs. the 200 degree oven would be negligible, ceteris paribus. That's why it takes longer for the 450 degree oven to cool down as compared to the 200 degree oven. You could change that by changing the level of insulation in the two ovens--a 450 degree oven with much more insulation will emit less energy per interval than a less insulated 200 degree oven.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes it is. It's flowing in faster than it's flowing out. There is a net energy gain, interval over interval, on the surface of the earth ("surface" meaning the crust, oceans, and atmosphere) right now.



1. That has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, and especially the second law--even if it's true.

2. I don't think it's true anyway, at least not the way you seem to mean. The 450 degree oven would eventually throw off more IR photons in total. But the difference in rate vs. the 200 degree oven would be negligible, ceteris paribus. That's why it takes longer for the 450 degree oven to cool down as compared to the 200 degree oven. You could change that by changing the level of insulation in the two ovens--a 450 degree oven with much more insulation will emit less energy per interval than a less insulated 200 degree oven.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point, they are saying the higher heat earth will be less efficient in throwing off heat
than the lower temperature earth. The greater the gradient the greater the flow.
More photons will come off of a warmer earth, not less.
 
longview said:
You are missing the point, they are saying the higher heat earth will be less efficient in throwing off heat
than the lower temperature earth. The greater the gradient the greater the flow.
More photons will come off of a warmer earth, not less.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was that the Royal Society didn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, according to you... the guy who doesn’t understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.... [emoji38][emoji23]
 
longview said:
You are missing the point, they are saying the higher heat earth will be less efficient in throwing off heat
than the lower temperature earth. The greater the gradient the greater the flow.
More photons will come off of a warmer earth, not less.
Click to expand...

No, that is not correct--as the discussion of ovens was meant to convey. It's possible, in the sense of being consistent with the laws of physics, that a hotter earth could be more efficient at radiating heat into space. It's also possible, in the same sense, that a hotter earth could be less efficient at radiating heat into space. As it happens, the latter is actually the case--but again, that fact doesn't contradict any law of physics.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, that is not correct--as the discussion of ovens was meant to convey. It's possible, in the sense of being consistent with the laws of physics, that a hotter earth could be more efficient at radiating heat into space. It's also possible, in the same sense, that a hotter earth could be less efficient at radiating heat into space. As it happens, the latter is actually the case--but again, that fact doesn't contradict any law of physics.
Click to expand...
It might help to think of the system as a pressure system with an orifice, the orifice does limit the flow, but as the difference in pressure
grows, the orifice becomes less effective in limiting the flow. (more molecules can squeeze by because they have greater pressure behind them.)
Ether way a warmer earth radiates more than a cooler earth, not less.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yes it is. It's flowing in faster than it's flowing out. There is a net energy gain, interval over interval, on the surface of the earth ("surface" meaning the crust, oceans, and atmosphere) right now.



1. That has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics, and especially the second law--even if it's true.

2. I don't think it's true anyway, at least not the way you seem to mean. The 450 degree oven would eventually throw off more IR photons in total. But the difference in rate vs. the 200 degree oven would be negligible, ceteris paribus. That's why it takes longer for the 450 degree oven to cool down as compared to the 200 degree oven. You could change that by changing the level of insulation in the two ovens--a 450 degree oven with much more insulation will emit less energy per interval than a less insulated 200 degree oven.
Click to expand...

You have no clue about physics.

The rate at which a body gives off radient heat, IR photons, is directly proportinal to its' temperature. On the Kelvin scale. Measured from absolute zero.

The body which starts at 450f will take longer to cool than the one which starts at 200f because it will take time to get to 200f.
 
longview said:
Ether way a warmer earth radiates more than a cooler earth, not less.
Click to expand...

The point you're missing is that (by analogy), the orifice is altered by other mechanisms based on the rate of flow. The orifice has a mechanism such that it closes up when the rate of flow increases.
 
Tim the Plumber said:
The rate at which a body gives off radient heat, IR photons, is directly proportinal to its' temperature. On the Kelvin scale. Measured from absolute zero.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Cooling curves are not linear; "directly proportional" implies that they are.

Ceteris Paribus, the body that is heated to 450f will throw off more IR radiation than the same body heated to 200f, but the difference will be negligible--it would be less negligible if the difference were, say, 5,000f to 200f.

However, the point my other interlocutor is missing is that it's not ceteris paribus. The body in question (the earth, the oceans, the atmosphere) changes in several characteristics when it is heated. The other point he missed is that this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics--he should have cited Newtonian cooling curves.

Tim the Plumber said:
The body which starts at 450f will take longer to cool than the one which starts at 200f because it will take time to get to 200f.
Click to expand...

Yes, correct.
 
ashurbanipal said:
The point you're missing is that (by analogy), the orifice is altered by other mechanisms based on the rate of flow. The orifice has a mechanism such that it closes up when the rate of flow increases.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have said a fixed orifice. but that does not change the fact that a warmer earth radiates more than a cooler earth.
 
longview said:
Sorry, I should have said a fixed orifice. but that does not change the fact that a warmer earth radiates more than a cooler earth.
Click to expand...

No. To continue your analogy, what the report is saying is that the orifice is not fixed. Various mechanisms change those properties of the earth that affect its ability to radiate heat--over and above the greenhouse effect.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No. To continue your analogy, what the report is saying is that the orifice is not fixed. Various mechanisms change those properties of the earth that affect its ability to radiate heat--over and above the greenhouse effect.
Click to expand...
Except that the observations are the exact opposite of what the report is stating, the earth becomes a more effective radiator as it gets warmer.
Think about it for just a second, CO2 forcing is on a doubling curve,
Each unit warms less than the unit before it, because the warmer earth radiates better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom