Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

 

 

I read it. "The ocean so effectively absorbs the solar shortwave, and deep enough for this longer period equalization than CO2." is an unquantified claim, not an explanation. It's also contradictory. Something that is an effective absorber would not have a deep penetration.

 

It's this lack of understanding you have that makes it impossible to talk about this with you.

 

The water is effectivley transparent to shortwave, but for short distance. It takes these several, and even hundreds of meters of depth to completely absorb the light that isn't reflected. Because the light is traveling so far before being fully absorbeed, it is effectively all absorbed. Longwave is absorbed at such a shallow depth, just microns, that it effectively radiates back out.

 

I don't know what else to say if you don't understand this simplicty. There is no sense in attempting a debate with someone who doesn't comprehend what I say.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

 

It's this lack of understanding you have that makes it impossible to talk about this with you.

 

The water is effectivley transparent to shortwave, but for short distance. It takes these several, and even hundreds of meters of depth to completely absorb the light that isn't reflected. Because the light is traveling so far before being fully absorbeed, it is effectively all absorbed. Longwave is absorbed at such a shallow depth, just microns, that it effectively radiates back out.

 

I don't know what else to say if you don't understand this simplicty. There is no sense in attempting a debate with someone who doesn't comprehend what I say.

 

The "simplicity" is wrong. If something is a good absorber, the light doesn't penetrate well. End of story. Attenuation follows an exponential decay (look at eq. 6.12 in the link below), and you have an attenuation coefficient for the material. So you can't have something that is "effectively transparent" and have it be "an effective absorber". The way you would describe that as water not being an effective absorber at short wavelengths, so it penetrates further.

 

When you post contradictory explanations (and no math or supporting material), it's probably best not to hang blame on the reader for lacking understanding. This is physics. I have a pretty decent understanding of this.

 

 

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm

If you look at fig 6.18, it shows blue light penetration. Best case scenario is ultra-pure seawater, sun directly overhead and you have 5% of the light getting 100m of penetration. For mid-latitude water, at 5% you only penetrate 20m. You lose with the angle just from geometry, and you tend to get more reflection. Also, as they explain, with stuff in the water you get more absorption.

 

 

The next question I would have is what fraction of the light is represented by the short-wavelength light that penetrates, because it looks to me like this is a small fraction of the total power, and so can't make a large contribution to thermal inertia. About half of the power of a blackbody at 5800K is in the IR. About a third is in the visible.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe7%2FSolar_spectrum_en.svg%2F2000px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSunlight&h=1500&w=2000&tbnid=yzLdGfM62JQ8hM%3A&zoom=1&docid=VtoMsm41C_w-oM&ei=lGhaVJbvA8qZgwTr6oL4Cg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygAMAA&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=7686&page=1&start=0&ndsp=47

 

http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When your attenuator is going so far, over 100 meters of depth...

 

Let me ask you this. If the visaible light enering the ocean isn't absorbed, what happens to it? What happens to it once it reaches, say, 400 meters of depth? I hope you don't think this energy vanished out of existance.


Added:

 

Layers of the Ocean

 

 

Epipelagic Zone - The surface layer of the ocean is known as the epipelagic zone and extends from the surface to 200 meters (656 feet). It is also known as the sunlight zone because this is where most of the visible light exists. With the light come heat. This heat is responsible for the wide range of temperatures that occur in this zone.

 

Mesopelagic Zone - Below the epipelagic zone is the mesopelagic zone, extending from 200 meters (656 feet) to 1000 meters (3281 feet). The mesopelagic zone is sometimes referred to as the twilight zone or the midwater zone. The light that penetrates to this depth is extremely faint. It is in this zone that we begin to see the twinkling lights of bioluminescent creatures. A great diversity of strange and bizarre fishes can be found here.

 

Bathypelagic Zone - The next layer is called the bathypelagic zone. It is sometimes referred to as the midnight zone or the dark zone. This zone extends from 1000 meters (3281 feet) down to 4000 meters (13,124 feet). Here the only visible light is that produced by the creatures themselves. The water pressure at this depth is immense, reaching 5,850 pounds per square inch. In spite of the pressure, a surprisingly large number of creatures can be found here. Sperm whales can dive down to this level in search of food. Most of the animals that live at these depths are black or red in color due to the lack of light.

 

 

The light that enters the surface and isn't reflected or absorbed by algae and other materials gets fully absorbed by around 1000 meters. The ocean absorbs this heat readily.




 

The "simplicity" is wrong. If something is a good absorber, the light doesn't penetrate well. End of story.

 

No, it isn't the end of story.

 

 


Attenuation follows an exponential decay (look at eq. 6.12 in the link below), and you have an attenuation coefficient for the material. So you can't have something that is "effectively transparent" and have it be "an effective absorber".

 

That's right, forget the context I put it is. I said "for short distances." Not my fault you disregard qualifiers of peoples words. The very minor absorption at short distances effectively absorb it all over great penetration depths.

 

 

The way you would describe that as water not being an effective absorber at short wavelengths, so it penetrates further.

 

When you post contradictory explanations (and no math or supporting material), it's probably best not to hang blame on the reader for lacking understanding. This is physics. I have a pretty decent understanding of this.

 

 

I thought I explained it well enough. Just how simple must I elaborate? You say you have a pretty decent understanding? Not from my view, when you fail to undertsand my words.

 

 



 

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter06/chapter06_10.htm

If you look at fig 6.18, it shows blue light penetration. Best case scenario is ultra-pure seawater, sun directly overhead and you have 5% of the light getting 100m of penetration. For mid-latitude water, at 5% you only penetrate 20m. You lose with the angle just from geometry, and you tend to get more reflection. Also, as they explain, with stuff in the water you get more absorption.

 

 

I edited a couple graphs some time back. Trust me, I do understand what is happening. I don't think you really do.

 

segelstein81-edit_zps76a54bf2.gif

 

 

 



 

The next question I would have is what fraction of the light is represented by the short-wavelength light that penetrates, because it looks to me like this is a small fraction of the total power, and so can't make a large contribution to thermal inertia. About half of the power of a blackbody at 5800K is in the IR. About a third is in the visible.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe7%2FSolar_spectrum_en.svg%2F2000px-Solar_spectrum_en.svg.png&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSunlight&h=1500&w=2000&tbnid=yzLdGfM62JQ8hM%3A&zoom=1&docid=VtoMsm41C_w-oM&ei=lGhaVJbvA8qZgwTr6oL4Cg&tbm=isch&ved=0CB4QMygAMAA&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=7686&page=1&start=0&ndsp=47

 

http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php

 

 

And do you think 1/3rd, absorbed deep enough that it doesn't immediately radiate back out is insignificamnt?

 

OK...

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited a couple graphs some time back. Trust me, I do understand what is happening. I don't think you really do.

 

segelstein81-edit_zps76a54bf2.gif

 

 

You'll notice on your graph that the penetration depth of the visible light is less than 100m, not more, which is what you claimed (more than once). And since the attenuation is exponential, it is preferentially absorbed at shallower depths.

 

 

And do you think 1/3rd, absorbed deep enough that it doesn't immediately radiate back out is insignificamnt?

 

OK...

I'm asking that you do some science here (rather than just spewing insults) and make an effort to quantify the effect you're claiming.

 

1-10 micron light has a penetration depth of just 10 microns. Thermal radiation that penetrates beyond this is not going to get "immediately radiated back out". It's going to have to get emitted and absorbed multiple times. But is that the primary heat transfer mechanism for liquid water away from the surface? No. An arbitrary volume is going to be surrounded by other water at almost the same temperature. The net radiation is tiny. Convection and conduction are going to be important effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You'll notice on your graph that the penetration depth of the visible light is less than 100m, not more, which is what you claimed (more than once). And since the attenuation is exponential, it is preferentially absorbed at shallower depths.

 

Yes, there are different metrics that can be used. I don't recall what the author of that graph used, but I think is was a percentage of the staring level.

 

With an expoential decay, you never actually reach zero? They have to use a designated cutoff value, and their value places it as the depths seen.

 

 

I'm asking that you do some science here (rather than just spewing insults) and make an effort to quantify the effect you're claiming.

1-10 micron light has a penetration depth of just 10 microns. Thermal radiation that penetrates beyond this is not going to get "immediately radiated back out". It's going to have to get emitted and absorbed multiple times. But is that the primary heat transfer mechanism for liquid water away from the surface? No. An arbitrary volume is going to be surrounded by other water at almost the same temperature. The net radiation is tiny. Convection and conduction are going to be important effects.

 

I will agree I could use a better term than immediate.

 

Yes, there will be thermal conductance. There will also be emission of radiation like any blackbody/greybody does, and evaporative cooling of the ocean. If I recall, consensus has it that evaporative cooling is greater than the radiative warming from longwave, but I would have to look that up again. It also depends on the prvailing winds as they change the velocity of evaporation.

 

You don't have as fast thermal radiative response at the very surface of the ocean with shortwave, as it warms the waters deeper than longwave can.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you always nit-pick to avoid a preoper debate?

 

OMG my irony meter just broke.

 

Am I to assume by your remark that you don't understand that with an expoential decay, you never actually reach zero?

 

After the fifth (or more) recent digs directed at me, insulting my intelligence, I have decided to bow out of the discussion. Any other response I could muster right now would be in violation of the civility rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OMG my irony meter just broke.

 

After the fifth (or more) recent digs directed at me, insulting my intelligence, I have decided to bow out of the discussion. Any other response I could muster right now would be in violation of the civility rules.

 

Funny thing is I edited and saved my changes before your response came in because I am trying to be more tactful than is natural.

 

I really get tired of repeating things and then yes, nitpick, at the depth of penetration. You should understand that there is no actual zero for an expoential decay, so what was I to assume you were doing? When I see that type of reply, I see it as appealing to those who do not understand at all, or that yuo don't. I see it as an attack on me, confusing the debate with irrelavant nuances.

 

Sorry if I'm wrong, but it baffles me that you know its an expoential decay, but then attack my stated depth of pentration just because my source was different.

 

 

Notice that to the left of the y axis, the graph approaches 0 but never touches 0.

http://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/precalculus/exponential_functions

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I explained it well enough. Just how simple must I elaborate? You say you have a pretty decent understanding? Not from my view, when you fail to undertsand my words.

 

!

Moderator Note

As everyone can plainly see, comments like this detract from the conversation. They're unnecessary, insulting, and uncivil. Reading subsequent posts, we see how misunderstanding your words wasn't anyone's fault but yours.

 

Can you PLEASE keep that in mind, and try to edit yourself before you press ENTER next time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQny chance I can post my points without being banned for not towing that alarmist line and haveing the temerrritory to ask reasonable question?

 

I'd give it a snowball's chance in hell

I am sure any banning would revolve around three spelling mistakes and one typo in a single, short sentence. Why not ask the question in an agenda-free way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure any banning would revolve around three spelling mistakes and one typo in a single, short sentence. Why not ask the question in an agenda-free way?

 

Regardless, it seems those who agree with consensus get away with more than those of us who do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regardless, it seems those who agree with consensus get away with more than those of us who do not.

Well, that consensus didn't pop up out of nowhere.

It arose because it's what the actual evidence supports.

in short, the consensus is probably right.

Is it unreasonable to give short shrift to those who continue to ignore the evidence or, equivalently, to allow a little more leeway for those who are actually correct?

The point of the forum is to advance understanding and knowledge. if you are steadfastly refusing to do that, should you expect an easy ride?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regardless, it seems those who agree with consensus get away with more than those of us who do not.

 

That's right. Those who agree with the consensus, get plus-points, for being compliant.

What else would you expect? People like to be accepted, and made welcome. They want to conform, and fit in. It's human nature.

 

So, when posting on these forums, you should never, on any account, deny this:

 

That changes in the Earth's climate are driven by man-made carbon emissions.

 

(Actually, even as I typed that, I couldn't help laughing!) But the laughter doesn't matter.. Just agree with this view, and you'll be OK, and get an easy ride.

Edited by Dekan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's right. Those who agree with the consensus, get plus-points, for being compliant.

What else would you expect? People like to be accepted, and made welcome. They want to conform, and fit in. It's human nature.

 

So, when posting on these forums, you should never, on any account, deny this:

 

That changes in the Earth's climate are driven by man-made carbon emissions.

 

(Actually, even as I typed that, I couldn't help laughing!) But the laughter doesn't matter.. Just agree with this view, and you'll be OK, and get an easy ride.

 

That is so immature. But I imagine you will be childishly proud of the negative votes it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQny chance I can post my points without being banned for not towing that alarmist line and haveing the temerrritory to ask reasonable question?

 

I'd give it a snowball's chance in hell.

Of course you can post your points without being banned for not towing a specific line. That's how science works, my friend. You should know this already if you've been posting here for any length of time.

 

Where you will get yourself into trouble, however, is if you fail to support your points with valid evidence, if you use logical fallacies and irrationality when making them, or if you simply ignore the vast mountains of evidence that are already in place supporting the position that disagrees with yours.

 

In short, you must do more than merely assert your uninformed opinion. You must instead support it and put forth evidence that is overwhelming and robust. In fact, your evidence must do a better job of explaining the facts before us and the reality in which we exist than all existing evidence and data which has come before yours from independent research domains across the last several decades.

 

As you seem to be aware, the existing data and evidence fully supports the assertion that human activities are the primary driver underlying our rapidly changing climate. There is no temerity involved in making this claim since it is unequivocally true.

 

More to the core of your point, perhaps if you began actually being reasonable and actually asked reasonable questions once in a while, and perhaps if you acknowledged and intelligently addressed the the rebuttals made of your assertions, then I'm sure you would be taken much more seriously. As seems plain to most members, that's not at all what you and others are doing here when denying facts about the issue of climate change.

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's right. Those who agree with the consensus, get plus-points, for being compliant.

I have never given plus points for people agreeing with me. I give them for a well reasoned point, interesting information, or sharp humour. My impression is that any reputation points others award to me have been awarded for the same reason. I don't recall any instances where I have received such points simply for reflecting the consensus.

 

I trust your realise that there is a massive difference between agreeing with a viewpoint simply because the majority hold it (compliance) and arriving at that viewpoint through careful consideration of the evidence (reason).

 

What else would you expect? People like to be accepted, and made welcome. They want to conform, and fit in. It's human nature.

Some of us like to be contrary. I often argue on forums for pan spermia, or the notion that the Vikings did find life on Mars. Not because I think the odds of either of these are high, but because they remain plausible, insufficiently considered and, yes, allow me to be contrary. If I could find some weakness in AGW I would be over on your side of the fence. I'm not. If the weaknesses are there neither you nor other AGW deniers have presented it.

 

(Actually, even as I typed that, I couldn't help laughing!) But the laughter doesn't matter.. Just agree with this view, and you'll be OK, and get an easy ride.

It is unfortunate, but AGW is not a laughing matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's right. Those who agree with the consensus, get plus-points, for being compliant.

What else would you expect? People like to be accepted, and made welcome. They want to conform, and fit in. It's human nature.

 

So, when posting on these forums, you should never, on any account, deny this:

 

That changes in the Earth's climate are driven by man-made carbon emissions.

 

(Actually, even as I typed that, I couldn't help laughing!) But the laughter doesn't matter.. Just agree with this view, and you'll be OK, and get an easy ride.

 

And never ask any questions or you will be told that you are using logical falisies.

 

That's why I'm a skeptic.

 

If the AGW thing was right there would not be such a rabid response to those who disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And never ask any questions or you will be told that you are using logical falisies.

 

Don't ask them if they are indeed logical fallacies. Is the issue here not understanding what the fallacies are?

 

Why wouldn't there be a "rabid response"? Do scientists sit idly by while creationism is taught in schools? Did scientists sit idly by while tobacco companies assured the population that cigarettes didn't cause cancer? Why would scientists respond differently to AGW?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And never ask any questions or you will be told that you are using logical falisies.

 

That's why I'm a skeptic.

 

Seriously, you haven't caught on to what a logical fallacy is and isn't yet? They don't usually happen in questions, they happen when someone puts forth an unsteady argument, sort of like what you've done here. Nobody should have to TELL you when you're doing it, you should be able to see that you're using a Hasty Generalization to argue that asking any question always results in calls of logical fallacies, because it's happened to you in some instances and now you're generalizing that to be all instances.

 

This is like saying, "Never try to have any fun at all, or you will be told you're not allowed to climb the power line towers!" Does that make sense to you? It doesn't make you a skeptic, it weakens your arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the AGW thing was right there would not be such a rabid response to those who disagree.

 

Do you recall when, presented with a peer reviewed paper outlining predicting an increase in heat wave related fatalities associated with climate change, you called it (to quote verbatim) "drivel", despite having absolutely no evidence to contradict the paper's findings?

 

I can only hope the irony is not lost on those reading along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that consensus didn't pop up out of nowhere.

It arose because it's what the actual evidence supports.

in short, the consensus is probably right.

Is it unreasonable to give short shrift to those who continue to ignore the evidence or, equivalently, to allow a little more leeway for those who are actually correct?

The point of the forum is to advance understanding and knowledge. if you are steadfastly refusing to do that, should you expect an easy ride?

 

Yep.

 

Call it what you want. Most the relevant material has levels of certainty at around 95%. Would you take a 20 chamber revolver, load one round in it, and say you could never die if you used it in Russian Roulette?

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep.

 

Call it what you want. Most the relevant material has levels of certainty at around 95%. Would you take a 20 chamber revolver, load one round in it, and say you could never die if you used it in Russian Roulette?

 

I think you have this ass-backwards. The gun is 95% loaded. You're the one banking on getting that single empty chamber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you have this ass-backwards. The gun is 95% loaded. You're the one banking on getting that single empty chamber.

 

LOL...

 

We have a different perspective, don't we?

 

Either way, would you call it a sure thing to die or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, would you call it a sure thing to die or not?

 

Complete Red Herring. I'd prefer to discuss why you contest the consensus. Do you work for an oil company, or some other industry that doesn't want to conform to tougher standards on carbon emissions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep.

 

Call it what you want. Most the relevant material has levels of certainty at around 95%. Would you take a 20 chamber revolver, load one round in it, and say you could never die if you used it in Russian Roulette?

OK,let's say that the papers typically give an error margin at the 95% confidence interval.

And lets say there are a hundred of them.

Then the odds of them all being wrong is of the order of 0.05 ^100

According to my calculator, that's zero.

it's obviously wrong, but for practical purposes it's near enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.