Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Lotus 50 said:
Hmm... not sure what you're getting at here. Aren't you forgetting, however, that the atmosphere isn't just made of steady state layers - wind will move and mix molecules around?
Indeed!Thought experiments may be capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Although the chaff may be as important as the wheat.
The above may be a very, very crude radiative transfer model.
Lotus 50 said:
Hmm... not sure what you're getting at here. Aren't you forgetting, however, that the atmosphere isn't just made of steady state layers - wind/convection etc will move and mix molecules around?
Could I ask does the atmosphere act in the same way as a liquid, was thinking if molecules are heated there density will reduce and move up until they cool and come down, will not any heat generated in the upper atmosphere stay there till cooled.Edited by Lotus 50 on Friday 6th March 16:59
On a molecular level..
Molecules are constrained by gravity (F=mg). The higher elevation in the atmosphere they achieve - the higher their initial KE would have been. Their height is determined by KE=0 upon which their potential energy = mgh.
Althings being equal - the height energetic molecules attain will be given by:
h=(0.5*v^2)/g
Where h = height (m)
v = initial upwards velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2)
Simple Newtonian stuff.
Molecules are constrained by gravity (F=mg). The higher elevation in the atmosphere they achieve - the higher their initial KE would have been. Their height is determined by KE=0 upon which their potential energy = mgh.
Althings being equal - the height energetic molecules attain will be given by:
h=(0.5*v^2)/g
Where h = height (m)
v = initial upwards velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2)
Simple Newtonian stuff.
Just to add..
The planet/atmosphere system is not closed
The laws of thermodynamics which apply to closed systems do not apply.
The surface/atmosphere system is not in equilibrium
Fundamentals of Physics will apply.
Which makes all of this FUBAR scenario quite so fascinating.
Have a nice weekend!
The planet/atmosphere system is not closed
The laws of thermodynamics which apply to closed systems do not apply.
The surface/atmosphere system is not in equilibrium
Fundamentals of Physics will apply.
Which makes all of this FUBAR scenario quite so fascinating.
Have a nice weekend!
Was I the only one who heard a news story on the BBC last week saying that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere had stabilized? I did a quick search on the day I heard it (on R4 I think) but couldn't find any science to support the story, or indeed the story. Did I dream it?
I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
XM5ER said:
Was I the only one who heard a news story on the BBC last week saying that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere had stabilized? I did a quick search on the day I heard it (on R4 I think) but couldn't find any science to support the story, or indeed the story. Did I dream it?
I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-318724...I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
XM5ER said:
Was I the only one who heard a news story on the BBC last week saying that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere had stabilized? I did a quick search on the day I heard it (on R4 I think) but couldn't find any science to support the story, or indeed the story. Did I dream it?
I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
Could it be plan B, this would explain the pause but we need to keep a limit on CO2 or else it will all start again, I really wish I was not so cynical. I couldn't help thinking at the time that this would be rather a body blow for the AGW theory.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
PRTVR said:
Could it be plan B, this would explain the pause but we need to keep a limit on CO2 or else it will all start again, I really wish I was not so cynical.
Yup, and that is why the whole world have to sign up for the Paris fraud to save us all. Think of the children! jshell said:
Did you even read the headline?Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
i.e. the amount of CO2 we added to the atmosphere in 2014 was the same as 2015
but I forgot, its all a scam by a group of academics desperate to retain their low paid university positions, so nothing to see here
jshell said:
Wow apparently we can / will cap the surface temperature of the Earth 
TX.
MBBlat said:
jshell said:
Did you even read the headline?Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
i.e. the amount of CO2 we added to the atmosphere in 2014 was the same as 2015
but I forgot, its all a scam by a group of academics desperate to retain their low paid university positions, so nothing to see here
So now we have an excellent excuse to push for more and more and more in Paris.
The term snake oil salesman, should be renamed Global Warming Activist
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 19th March 08:50
Thanks Jshell.
Odd article don't you think. No reference to how emissions were measured or indeed any science behind the announcement at all.
In fact looking behind this at the IEA, they have nothing on their website to back up the claim other than "preliminary data". Ne reference to anything sciency at all.
Even the New Scientivist had the where with all to ask Why?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27165-co2-em...
Odd article don't you think. No reference to how emissions were measured or indeed any science behind the announcement at all.
In fact looking behind this at the IEA, they have nothing on their website to back up the claim other than "preliminary data". Ne reference to anything sciency at all.
Even the New Scientivist had the where with all to ask Why?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27165-co2-em...
Edited by XM5ER on Thursday 19th March 11:57
XM5ER said:
Thanks Jshell.
Odd article don't you think. No reference to how emissions were measured or indeed any science behind the announcement at all.
In fact looking behind this at the IEA, they have nothing on their website to back up the claim other than "preliminary data". Ne reference to anything sciency at all.
They publish this report every year with essentially the same methodology - the previous years ones are available if you want to check them out. This one will be out in June.Odd article don't you think. No reference to how emissions were measured or indeed any science behind the announcement at all.
In fact looking behind this at the IEA, they have nothing on their website to back up the claim other than "preliminary data". Ne reference to anything sciency at all.
I don't think it's a measurement. They calculate CO2 emissions based on the quantities of fossil fuels that have been burned in a year, which in turn is partly based on calculations from energy usage.
hairykrishna said:
They publish this report every year with essentially the same methodology - the previous years ones are available if you want to check them out. This one will be out in June.
I don't think it's a measurement. They calculate CO2 emissions based on the quantities of fossil fuels that have been burned in a year, which in turn is partly based on calculations from energy usage.
So a fair bit of guesswork going on then as the Chinese are not prone to full and open disclosure of their economy.I don't think it's a measurement. They calculate CO2 emissions based on the quantities of fossil fuels that have been burned in a year, which in turn is partly based on calculations from energy usage.
No such thing as climate change...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
Apologies if posted before but utterly awesome - in the proper sense of the word!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff