Satellite images show continued breakup of 2 of Greenland's largest glaciers

Aug 21, 2008
A 29 sq. km. (11 sq. mi.) area of the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland (80˚N, 60˚W) broke away between July 10th and by July 24th. Petermann has a floating section 16 km (10 mi) wide and 80 km (50 mi) long, that is, 1295 sq. km (500 sq mi); the longest floating glacier in the Northern Hemisphere. Photo courtesy Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University

Researchers monitoring daily satellite images here of Greenland's glaciers have discovered break-ups at two of the largest glaciers in the last month. They expect that part of the Northern hemisphere's longest floating glacier will continue to disintegrate within the next year.

A massive 11-square-mile (29-square-kilometer) piece of the Petermann Glacier in northern Greenland broke away between July 10th and by July 24th. The loss to that glacier is equal to half the size of Manhattan Island. The last major ice loss to Petermann occurred when the glacier lost 33 square miles (86 square kilometers) of floating ice between 2000 and 2001.

Petermann has a floating section of ice 10 miles (16 kilometers) wide and 50 miles (80.4 kilometers) long which covers 500 square miles (1,295 square kilometers).

What worries Jason Box, an associate professor of geography at Ohio State, and his colleagues, graduate students Russell Benson and David Decker, all with the Byrd Polar Research Center, even more about the latest images is what appears to be a massive crack further back from the margin of the Petermann Glacier.

That crack may signal an imminent and much larger breakup.

"If the Petermann glacier breaks up back to the upstream rift, the loss would be as much as 60 square miles (160 square kilometers)," Box said, representing a loss of one-third of the massive ice field.

Meanwhile, the margin of the massive Jakobshavn glacier has retreated inland further than it has at any time in the past 150 years it has been observed. Researchers believe that the glacier has not retreated to where it is now in at least the last 4,000 to 6,000 years.

The Northern branch of the Jakobshavn broke up in the past several weeks and the glacier has lost at least three square miles (10 square kilometers) since the end of the last melt season.

The Jakobshavn Glacier dominates the approximately 130 glaciers flowing out of Greenland's inland into the sea. It alone is responsible for producing at least one-tenth of the icebergs calving off into the sea from the entire island of Greenland, making it the island's most productive glacier.

Between 2001 and 2005, a massive breakup of the Jakobshavn glacier erased 36 square miles (94 square kilometers) from the ice field and raised the awareness of worldwide of glacial response to global climate change.

The researchers are using images updated daily from National Aeronautics and Space Administration satellites and from time-lapse photography from cameras monitoring the margin of these and other Greenland glaciers. Additional support for this project came from NASA.

Source: Ohio State University

Explore further: Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Vanishing ice warning for 'Africa's Alps'

Mar 16, 2014

In swirling snow, John Medenge prods a thin ice bridge over a crevasse with an iron-tipped spear, guiding climbers scaling the steep glacial wall using crampons and axes.

A look back and ahead at Greenland's changing climate

Feb 06, 2014

(Phys.org) —Over the past two decades, ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet increased four-fold contributing to one-quarter of global sea level rise. However, the chain of events and physical processes ...

Study: Columbia River glaciers, streamflow changes

Jan 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —The Columbia River is perhaps the most intricate, complex river system in North America. Its diverse landscape crosses international borders and runs through subarctic, desert and sea-level ...

Land bulge clue to aviation threat from volcanoes

Jan 12, 2014

Bulging in land that occurs before a volcano erupts points to how much ash will be spewed into the sky, providing a useful early warning for aviation, geologists in Iceland said on Sunday.

Greenland ice stores liquid water year-round

Dec 22, 2013

Researchers at the University of Utah have discovered a new aquifer in the Greenland Ice Sheet that holds liquid water all year long in the otherwise perpetually frozen winter landscape. The aquifer is extensive, ...

Recommended for you

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

1 hour ago

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

There's something ancient in the icebox

1 hour ago

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Image: Grand Canyon geology lessons on view

8 hours ago

The Grand Canyon in northern Arizona is a favorite for astronauts shooting photos from the International Space Station, as well as one of the best-known tourist attractions in the world. The steep walls of ...

First radar vision for Copernicus

8 hours ago

Launched on 3 April, ESA's Sentinel-1A satellite has already delivered its first radar images of Earth. They offer a tantalising glimpse of the kind of operational imagery that this new mission will provide ...

User comments : 70

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MikeB
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2008
It is summertime. Ice does melt.
lengould100
3.4 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2008
"Researchers believe that the glacier has not retreated to where it is now in at least the last 4,000 to 6,000 years."

Learn to read, MikeB.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2008
Is that what they BELIEVE? It must be, because I'm pretty sure the ancient Egyptians didn't keep satellite records of Greenland's glaciers.

Even if true this is not proof of anything other than the climate does change over time...woah newsflash. Please big daddy uncle MR. guvmint can I get some grant money too for that EARTH SHATTERING insight?
NotParker
3.1 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2008
The Vikings called it Greenland because it was GREEN. And they grew crops and thrived there.

Then it got cold again.

The warmest period in the last century was the 1920s-1930s for Greenland.

And these periods of warm and cold have occurred for millions of years.

Without SUV's being the cause.

http://www.scienc...3019.htm
NeilFarbstein
2.4 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2008
Anyone know projections for the rise of sea levels? Where i live the beaches might be totally washed away and big storms might destroy a lot of real estate.
GrayMouser
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2008
I'm waiting for the new sales brochures on tracks of farmland for sale in Greenland. The ones from before were a few hundred years before I was born...
DKA
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2008
The article does not intend to prove what is causing global warming. This is proven already (sorry for those who do not know why, I will not explain it to you). I would like to understand people who makes comment such as the one made by "MikeB". Is it possible to be that ignorant and read physorg.com? It is not logical and does not seem possible. Such people also did read the proofs (they can't be avoided). Can we call this "denial"? I am also affraid that they work for the oil industry? Or felt victims of the oil industry arguments? This is also possible because their arguments lack scope and logic. I guess that whatever valid argument linking global warming to Co2, they will denie it. Is this correct? Or are you willing, "MikeB" and others who don't know/beleive that Co2 is causing it, to discuss this rationally?
Velanarris
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2008
Or are you willing, "MikeB" and others who don't know/beleive that Co2 is causing it, to discuss this rationally?


Alright, I'll play this game. Ready? Go.

Human total Carbon contribution to the environment is less than 1/3 of a percent.

No Greenhouse effect models include water vapor in their calculations which is relevant for one reason.

-In the desert during the day it can reach 120 degrees F. At night it drops to 10-20 degrees F.

-In Massachusetts the temperature will hit 80 degrees F. At night it will remain 80 degrees F.

-Carbon is homogenous in the atmosphere, meaning it finds "social" equilibrium by spreading out to a point where the CO2 sample in one region of the world is the same as another.

-Difference between the desert and Massachusetts, ambient water vapor in the environment.

It's really simple guy. Even more so if you're into light spectrometry. The "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is overstated. If you removed 100% of the CO2 from the atmosphere the temperature would stay the same or rise. Co2 has no room in the absorption band to cause any effect on global warming. CO2 does however, have a positive to it being that more solar enegy is reflected back out into space by CO2.

Your turn.
MikeB
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2008
Or are you willing, "MikeB" and others who don't know/beleive that Co2 is causing it, to discuss this rationally?

Even during the ice ages ice was melting at the southern edges. Ice always melts when it gets warm enough. CO2 does not make ice melt. CO2 is exhaled by man. It is a plant food. It is used in commercial greenhouses to enable plants and food to grow better and faster. Greenhouses typically have CO2 levels of 1000 to 1200 PPM. The earth's CO2 level at the moment is app 380 PPM. It is not a problem, it is a benefit to mankind. Warming has always helped mankind from the Roman warm period, to the medieval warm period to our modern warm period. What is happening now is good for man. You will not like it when the glaciers start spreading down to Chicago...
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2008
Or are you willing, "MikeB" and others who don't know/beleive that Co2 is causing it, to discuss this rationally?


Alright, I'll play this game. Ready? Go.

Human total Carbon contribution to the environment is less than 1/3 of a percent.

No Greenhouse effect models include water vapor in their calculations which is relevant for one reason.

-In the desert during the day it can reach 120 degrees F. At night it drops to 10-20 degrees F.

-In Massachusetts the temperature will hit 80 degrees F. At night it will remain 80 degrees F.

-Carbon is homogenous in the atmosphere, meaning it finds "social" equilibrium by spreading out to a point where the CO2 sample in one region of the world is the same as another.

-Difference between the desert and Massachusetts, ambient water vapor in the environment.

It's really simple guy. Even more so if you're into light spectrometry. The "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is overstated. If you removed 100% of the CO2 from the atmosphere the temperature would stay the same or rise. Co2 has no room in the absorption band to cause any effect on global warming. CO2 does however, have a positive to it being that more solar enegy is reflected back out into space by CO2.

Your turn.

All of which is irrelevant to the issue of radiative forcing.

Are you wholly ignorant of how radiative forcing works?

Or, have you simply conveniently dismissed it?
Excalibur
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2008
Or are you willing, "MikeB" and others who don't know/beleive that Co2 is causing it, to discuss this rationally?

Even during the ice ages ice was melting at the southern edges. Ice always melts when it gets warm enough. CO2 does not make ice melt. CO2 is exhaled by man. It is a plant food. It is used in commercial greenhouses to enable plants and food to grow better and faster. Greenhouses typically have CO2 levels of 1000 to 1200 PPM. The earth's CO2 level at the moment is app 380 PPM. It is not a problem, it is a benefit to mankind. Warming has always helped mankind from the Roman warm period, to the medieval warm period to our modern warm period. What is happening now is good for man. You will not like it when the glaciers start spreading down to Chicago...

Past is not prologue. I.e., past causes are irrelevant to present results.

The balance of your post is nothing but gibberish, and speaks volumes re. your ignorance of the sciences.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2008
Past is not prologue. I.e., past causes are irrelevant to present results.


Wow there goes the scientific method right there. I thought science was in part based on being able to repeat experiments and predict the results thus providing evidence for your theory.

I guess our climate is just totally chaotic then? It doesn't actually go in cycles, but rather just willy nilly from one state to another? Better yet based on your statement it might just suddenly hit a state of total equilibrium and never change again, because if we can't look at the past and extrapolate the future how can you possibly know this might not happen?

Moreover if this is the case how can you predict the Earth will get ONE NIT hotter if (as you and your ilk believe) we add more CO2 to the atmosphere? If adding more CO2 to the atmosphere in the past (which is what in part you seem to think is responsible for an increase in temperature) is irrelevant to present results then why should we worry about adding anymore CO2 to the mix?

Careful with toying with your own axioms there bud...they might come back to haunt you.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2008
The balance of your post is nothing but gibberish, and speaks volumes re. your ignorance of the sciences.


Completely irrational. That's the problem with AGW faithful, the past was natural but the present can't have the same causes.

I prefer the old saying (as a model) "what goes around, comes around". The weather, despite being chaos driven, follows certain (very long term) patterns. Nothing that is currently happening violates those patterns. Following Occam's Law you would have to conclude that what is happening now is natural variation.
DKA
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2008

"Human total Carbon contribution to the environment is less than 1/3 of a percent"

You stop short of writing that this is too small to create a tempateure change. However small, carbon dioxine volume is directly related to the earth temperature. In the last 10 years as well as in the last 650 thousand ones. So the fact that the volume is too small to influence climat is not true and is not correct. What is correct is that the changes in dioxine volumes affect temperatures.

"No Greenhouse effect models include water vapor in their calculations which is relevant for one reason."
Which calculations are you refering to?
The United Nations publications clearly takes water vapor into consideration. Who said it does not? Have you read it?

As for the argument that greenland was once green, this is correct, but so what? Writing this does not mean that human dioxine production is not causing global warming. Changes of temperatures are caused also by other means than human released dioxine. Such as solar radiance. This can cause the earth to warm up slightly enough for part of greenland to warm. However the extreme increase "today" of dioxines impacts temperatures as well. It is not because one thing cause temperatures change that another thing, in this case human produced dioxines, can't do it either. This is not a relevent argument agaisnt human caused global warming in any case. So far, you have not convinced me of anything that could pretend that global warming is not caused by human activities. Not at all.
MikeB
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2008
DKA and Excalibur, Thank you for your critiques.
DKA you obviously Don't Know Anything about current climate studies. Excalibur, as the earth cools perhaps you should change your moniker to Excali brrrr.
Also I hate to banter with ghosts. Some people actually use their real names. At least the people worth knowing do.
Thanks again,
Mike Bryant
MikeB
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2008
Excalibur I think the newest information on radiative forcing will surprise you. Read it here:
http://climatesci...spencer/
barakn
3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2008
I see the usual factoids being bandied about. Just so we're clear on this, that "1/3 of a percent" figure is an underestimate of the ANNUAL human contribution, and since nature can't seem to keep up with our production, it continually builds up over time. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization. Velanarris is simply lying when stating that global climate models don't account for water vapor, as a simple Google search (e.g. GCM water vapor) would show. Take, for example, http://www.scienc...5749/795 .
deepsand
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
Excalibur I think the newest information on radiative forcing will surprise you. Read it here:
http://climatesci...spencer/
There can be nothing new re. the physical processes underlying radiative forcing.

Try studying the damned physics, rather than factoids that play to your pre-conceived conclusions.
deepsand
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
Past is not prologue. I.e., past causes are irrelevant to present results.


Wow there goes the scientific method right there. I thought science was in part based on being able to repeat experiments and predict the results thus providing evidence for your theory.

As re. mention of past not being prologue, is it the case that you:

1) Deliberately choose to obfuscate; or,

2) Are clueless as the meaning of such?
deepsand
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
The balance of your post is nothing but gibberish, and speaks volumes re. your ignorance of the sciences.


Completely irrational. That's the problem with AGW faithful, the past was natural but the present can't have the same causes.


And, your assuming facts not in evidence is logical? Ditto for your argumentum ad hominem.

You've just very nicely demonstrated your own lack of rationality.
deepsand
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
DKA and Excalibur, ...
Also I hate to banter with ghosts. Some people actually use their real names.

You also hate dealing with those facts which rebut your pre-conceived notions, as evidenced by your non-substantive responses.

As for your "real" name, such is wholly irrelevant to issues of physical fact, and mention of such merely serves as an attempt at mis-direction.
rubberman
3 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2008
Deepsand.....do you have a point? Or something other than "state of mind" evaluations regarding the originators of other posts?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2008
As re. mention of past not being prologue, is it the case that you:

1) Deliberately choose to obfuscate; or,

2) Are clueless as the meaning of such?


I'm sorry I think you dropped your point somewhere...wait is it possible that you missed the "point" every bit as much as Excalibur.

Let's see if I can explain it so you'll understand. There have been natural warming and cooling cycles in the past...even within recorded history. The only difference now is that we have a bunch of self righteous twits called climatologists passing themselves off as scientists trying to blame any warming trend they can find (or manufacture) on coal fired power plants in order to stir up the masses to the point that they'll dole some more milk out of the government teat.

Now he's the one who said past causes are irrelevant to present results, which is complete nonsense on just about every level you can think of. What he MEANT to say is that past causes which might debunk the AGW argument are irrelevant because such causes might do something evil like confuse him with facts.
dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2008
I've been watching CO2 and temperature variations for a few years now...and what I have seen are rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures. This years ambient temperatures have fallen by double-digits in a number of areas in the US. Where I live, three years ago the average temperature in summer was in the 100s. Last year it was in the 90s. This summer, with the exception of a few days on and off, on most days it was the mid to high 80s during the day, which has been surprising.

It recently snowed in Argentina and Malibu, CA, and China had its worst winter in 50 to 100 years depending upon who one speaks with in China. Something smells rotten in Denmark...

And, what of periods of glaciation when CO2 levels were well over 1,000 ppm? What gives if CO2 is such the nasty stuff the Gorians and his pet IPCC scientists claim it is?
MikeB
3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2008
My my my... deepsand. Such anger. Take a chill pill. The sun'll come out tomorrow. Anger is the final stage of denial. Come into the light of science. CO2 is not the boogie man. The sun rules earth's climate.
DKA
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2008

MikeB, I don't see any rational argument in your message but mainly emotional complains, which I would not recommend anyone to rely on to build a case agasint the United Nation publication. I can't see anything here, in your message "you don't know anything about climat", that is scientific. While the United Nation publication is full of scientific facts. Can you provide facts?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2008
The IPCC group's information is based on faulty data and ignored data as part of the mix. See the most recent studies done with the ice cores....
DKA
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2008
"The IPCC group's information is based on faulty data and ignored data as part of the mix"

Anyone can say this, but do you have fact at hand against the best researchers of all countries around the world? just provide only one fact, only one fact that will be reliable. So far I have not seen any in all the comments above that made it close to this. it is proven that dioxine/Co2 exausts cause temperature change in 100% of the scientific studies (of course I do not include in these studies comments made above by MikeB or dachpyarvile which are only vague and unreliable words.
MikeB
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2008
DKA, every graph, that shows CO2 and temperature, I have ever seen, including the one Al Gore uses in his movie, shows that temperature rise PRECEEDS CO2 rise. Why do a study? That is the way it works. Look at the graphs. What I think, does not matter. Don't rely on studies. Don't rely on models. Observations are the the backbone of science.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
"The IPCC group's information is based on faulty data and ignored data as part of the mix"

Anyone can say this, but do you have fact at hand against the best researchers of all countries around the world? just provide only one fact, only one fact that will be reliable. So far I have not seen any in all the comments above that made it close to this. it is proven that dioxine/Co2 exausts cause temperature change in 100% of the scientific studies (of course I do not include in these studies comments made above by MikeB or dachpyarvile which are only vague and unreliable words.


Here you go:

http://www.junksc...enhouse/
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
As re. mention of past not being prologue, is it the case that you:

1) Deliberately choose to obfuscate; or,

2) Are clueless as the meaning of such?


I'm sorry I think you dropped your point somewhere...wait is it possible that you missed the "point" every bit as much as Excalibur.

Let's see if I can explain it so you'll understand. There have been natural warming and cooling cycles in the past...even within recorded history. The only difference now is that we have a bunch of self righteous twits called climatologists passing themselves off as scientists trying to blame any warming trend they can find (or manufacture) on coal fired power plants in order to stir up the masses to the point that they'll dole some more milk out of the government teat.

Now he's the one who said past causes are irrelevant to present results, which is complete nonsense on just about every level you can think of. What he MEANT to say is that past causes which might debunk the AGW argument are irrelevant because such causes might do something evil like confuse him with facts.
Do not presume to speak for me.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.

The question, then, is whether those who cling to past causes as necessarily being present ones as well speak from sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

Velanarris
3 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.

The question, then, is whether those who cling to past causes as necessarily being present ones as well speak from sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


If I slapped you in the face when we first met at 3 years old, then again the second time we met at 9 years old, to assume I'm not going to slap you at 21 years old when we meet for a third time will leave you with a bruised cheek.

What you're saying is if I drop a coin and it lands heads or tails a thousand times but the last time it lands on edge, I should throw away all of my past data on a coin landing heads or tails and assume it will always land on edge because that's what my most recent observation states.

You have no right to post here, and thanks for the 1 when I posted the site you can't intellectually refute due to the accuracy of it's data.

Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
The IPCC group's information is based on faulty data and ignored data as part of the mix. See the most recent studies done with the ice cores....
Data does not trump the Physical Laws.

To repeat, STUDY the UNDERLYING PHYSICS of RADIATIVE FORCING, the application of which toward an understanding of what is today called "greenhouse warming" began over a century ago!
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.

The question, then, is whether those who cling to past causes as necessarily being present ones as well speak from sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


If I slapped you in the face when we first met at 3 years old, then again the second time we met at 9 years old, to assume I'm not going to slap you at 21 years old when we meet for a third time will leave you with a bruised cheek.

What you're saying is if I drop a coin and it lands heads or tails a thousand times but the last time it lands on edge, I should throw away all of my past data on a coin landing heads or tails and assume it will always land on edge because that's what my most recent observation states.

You have no right to post here, and thanks for the 1 when I posted the site you can't intellectually refute due to the accuracy of it's data.
You still have your logic backwards.

The relationship between cause and effect is NOT commutative.

While "A" may cause "B," it is fallacious to say that "B" must be caused by "A."
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
My my my... deepsand. Such anger. Take a chill pill. The sun'll come out tomorrow. Anger is the final stage of denial. Come into the light of science. CO2 is not the boogie man. The sun rules earth's climate.
Your specious claims speak of an obvious lack of an understanding of Physics. Repetition will serve you naught.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
Deepsand.....do you have a point? Or something other than "state of mind" evaluations regarding the originators of other posts?
The obvious point is that GW detractors labor under 1) a lack of understanding of the Laws of Physics, 2) the selective application of only those facts which seemingly support their cause, and 3) the use of logical fallacies.

In short, they engage in sophistry.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2008
As re. mention of past not being prologue, is it the case that you:

1) Deliberately choose to obfuscate; or,

2) Are clueless as the meaning of such?


I'm sorry I think you dropped your point somewhere...wait is it possible that you missed the "point" every bit as much as Excalibur.

Let's see if I can explain it so you'll understand. There have been natural warming and cooling cycles in the past...even within recorded history. The only difference now is that we have a bunch of self righteous twits called climatologists passing themselves off as scientists trying to blame any warming trend they can find (or manufacture) on coal fired power plants in order to stir up the masses to the point that they'll dole some more milk out of the government teat.

Now he's the one who said past causes are irrelevant to present results, which is complete nonsense on just about every level you can think of. What he MEANT to say is that past causes which might debunk the AGW argument are irrelevant because such causes might do something evil like confuse him with facts.
My understanding of the relevant Physics is such that no explanation by another is required.

And, my understanding of Logic serves to allow me to observe that you too, as noted by Excalibur, fallaciously take the relationships between cause and effect to be commutative.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.


I'll presume to do what I like bro, especially when it's blatantly obvious I wasn't trying to speak for you, but rather to ridicule you. Sorry if you couldn't tell the difference.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.


So then in simple terms the fact that C02 put in the atmosphere a hundred years ago might have caused some warming it's irrelevant to determine what is actually causing contemporary warming.

After all as Mr. Spock said up the thread while "A may cause B it's fallacious to say that B must be caused by A". In this case "A" being more Co2 in the atmosphere and B being warming of the Earth. So, according to your own logic, AGW may be a complete lie.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.

The question, then, is whether those who cling to past causes as necessarily being present ones as well speak from sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


If I slapped you in the face when we first met at 3 years old, then again the second time we met at 9 years old, to assume I'm not going to slap you at 21 years old when we meet for a third time will leave you with a bruised cheek.

What you're saying is if I drop a coin and it lands heads or tails a thousand times but the last time it lands on edge, I should throw away all of my past data on a coin landing heads or tails and assume it will always land on edge because that's what my most recent observation states.

You have no right to post here, and thanks for the 1 when I posted the site you can't intellectually refute due to the accuracy of it's data.
You still have your logic backwards.

The relationship between cause and effect is NOT commutative.

While "A" may cause "B," it is fallacious to say that "B" must be caused by "A."


So then your entire argument for AGW is completely invalid.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.

The question, then, is whether those who cling to past causes as necessarily being present ones as well speak from sheer ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.


If I slapped you in the face when we first met at 3 years old, then again the second time we met at 9 years old, to assume I'm not going to slap you at 21 years old when we meet for a third time will leave you with a bruised cheek.

What you're saying is if I drop a coin and it lands heads or tails a thousand times but the last time it lands on edge, I should throw away all of my past data on a coin landing heads or tails and assume it will always land on edge because that's what my most recent observation states.

You have no right to post here, and thanks for the 1 when I posted the site you can't intellectually refute due to the accuracy of it's data.
You still have your logic backwards.

The relationship between cause and effect is NOT commutative.

While "A" may cause "B," it is fallacious to say that "B" must be caused by "A."


So then your entire argument for AGW is completely invalid.
Non-responsive, non-substantive and non-sequitur.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
Do not presume to speak for me.


I'll presume to do what I like bro, especially when it's blatantly obvious I wasn't trying to speak for you, but rather to ridicule you. Sorry if you couldn't tell the difference.

In simple terms, so that the ill informed and illogical might understand, the fact that man once cooked by open flame alone is irrelevant to determining how a contemporary dish was prepared.


So then in simple terms the fact that C02 put in the atmosphere a hundred years ago might have caused some warming it's irrelevant to determine what is actually causing contemporary warming.

After all as Mr. Spock said up the thread while "A may cause B it's fallacious to say that B must be caused by A". In this case "A" being more Co2 in the atmosphere and B being warming of the Earth. So, according to your own logic, AGW may be a complete lie.
Non-substantive, non-responsive, non-sequitur and ad hominem.

Perhaps you'd like to throw in a straw man and a red herring to round out the fallacies you here employ.
Excalibur
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
Well, it comes as no surprise that those who deny the role of CO2 in GW have yet to take up the challenge and demonstrate an understanding of the Physics involved re. radiative forcing, and how it is that CO2 plays no part in such.

Absent such, they are but the noise of ignorance.
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
You do realize that radiative forcing is not applied correctly by the IPCC?
Ipcc - The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values. [2]

Which isn't wholly accurate. Actually radiative forcing is loosely defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause. "Net irradiance" is the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system and is thus measured in Watts per square meter.

You should also know that according to actually radiative forcing equations (when done properly) CO2 has a logarithmic relationship, not exponential. Meaning for every equal increase of a CO2 in the atmosphere it takes an exponential amount more on the next addition to affect the same delta in change.

IPCC won't tell you that between radiative forcing and spectroscopic banding that we're basically at the level of null delta with CO2, where it cannot affect any greater change or even match the proposed change that the IPCC blames it for.

Let's go further with this, the IPCC has an arbitrary and changing figure for the actual temperature change over the past 10 years. Why is it when examined, the actual measure of change is far less than the IPCC states, or why there really isn't a way to perform a proper measure of change in temperature according to IPCC standards?

I would say it's far more ignorant to not be able to measure a temperature change BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS correctly.

Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2008
That and IPCC greatly over estimates internal radiative forcing by assuming ou climate system is far more sensitive than past precident implies. From a former IPCC scientist:

http://scienceand...tem.html

Even your own aren't convinced of radiative forcing.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2008
Non-substantive,


Yes your response was that.

non-responsive,


That too..

non-sequitur


Well since you didn't respond to anything at all it's hard to accuse you of this one. You'd actually have to be saying something or making some kind of argument, which you aren't hand haven't been.

and ad hominem.


Is your little lip quivering?

Perhaps you'd like to throw in a straw man and a red herring to round out the fallacies you here employ.


Alternatively you could explain how more Co2 in the atmosphere (A) MUST be responsible for higher temperatures (B).

Because, and AGAIN I'll reiterate until you actually do respond to the point, according to you while A MAY cause B, it is fallacious to say that B MUST be caused by A.

Won't be holding my breath...
Velanarris
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


I've already done it, and used your own organization against you. Read the actual papers on radiative forcing. You aren't using an appropriate definition simply because an accurate definition wrecks your argument.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2008
Vel I was wondering if you could explain something to me. I've understood the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing with respect for CO2 for a while (basically "diminishing" returns situation). Is this because the absorption bands of CO2 are so narrow, or because there's only so much solar energy available to be absorbed and several sources are "competing" for this radiation (ie water vapor ect). Perhaps a combination of the two or is it for some other completely different reason?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 30, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


Either you are being deliberately obtuse or your mental skills really do fit my low estimates. He didn't say it plays NO role he said the nature of the role it does play is in doubt, EVEN BY THE IPCC.

Why don't you actually try reading one of his links instead of sitting in the corner with the other kids who color outside the lines and stomping up and down on that shoddily constructed straw man you're so proud of.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


I've already done it, and used your own organization against you. Read the actual papers on radiative forcing. You aren't using an appropriate definition simply because an accurate definition wrecks your argument.
No, you've simply made a claim, based on your interpretation of derivative works.

The question asked is regarding the underlying physical process itself; i.e., it is about the the principle, rather than interpretations of observations.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
Vel I was wondering if you could explain something to me. I've understood the logarithmic nature of radiative forcing with respect for CO2 for a while (basically "diminishing" returns situation). Is this because the absorption bands of CO2 are so narrow, or because there's only so much solar energy available to be absorbed and several sources are "competing" for this radiation (ie water vapor ect). Perhaps a combination of the two or is it for some other completely different reason?
Radiative forcing involves, NOT the INFLUX of radiation, BUT rather the RE-RADIATION of supra-IR as IR.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


Either you are being deliberately obtuse or your mental skills really do fit my low estimates. He didn't say it plays NO role he said the nature of the role it does play is in doubt, EVEN BY THE IPCC.

Why don't you actually try reading one of his links instead of sitting in the corner with the other kids who color outside the lines and stomping up and down on that shoddily constructed straw man you're so proud of.
Why don't you try paying attention to the claim by the GW detractors that mankind's input to atmospheric CO2 is of no consequence.

You can't have it both ways.

From your question re. radiative forcing it appears that you don't even understand what such is.
deepsand
3 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
Non-substantive,


Yes your response was that.

non-responsive,


That too..

non-sequitur


Well since you didn't respond to anything at all it's hard to accuse you of this one. You'd actually have to be saying something or making some kind of argument, which you aren't hand haven't been.

and ad hominem.


Is your little lip quivering?

Perhaps you'd like to throw in a straw man and a red herring to round out the fallacies you here employ.


Alternatively you could explain how more Co2 in the atmosphere (A) MUST be responsible for higher temperatures (B).

Because, and AGAIN I'll reiterate until you actually do respond to the point, according to you while A MAY cause B, it is fallacious to say that B MUST be caused by A.

Won't be holding my breath...
If you truly understood radiative forcing you'd know that ANY decrease in transparency at IR wavelengths, due to ANY CAUSE, that does not also cause an off-setting decrease in transparency at supra-IR wavelengths, MUST, for any body with an albedo less than 100%, result in a rise in temperature of that body.
Velanarris
2 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2008
If you truly understood radiative forcing you'd know that ANY decrease in transparency at IR wavelengths, due to ANY CAUSE, that does not also cause an off-setting decrease in transparency at supra-IR wavelengths, MUST, for any body with an albedo less than 100%, result in a rise in temperature of that body.


But you'd also know that true radiative forcing also has a negative feedback mechanism that increases with decreased transparency.

A lot of things in the atmosphere reflect more as they become less transparent, for example high altitude cloud cover. Which has been at an all time low.

The problem with the IPCC use of Radiative forcing is that they ignore all factors that have a negative wattage effect on radiative forcing, like aerosols and increases in cloud cover.
Velanarris
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2008
You know what, I'm done. Every time I read one of excalibur's or DKA's posts I hear a fat kid yelling "You've been Rhinered!" from his mom's basement.

Enjoy physorg guys. I hope the great expense you're causing by not reading the information for yourself is worth it. The price you pay for intellectual laziness is going to be much higher than any of you realize.
deepsand
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2008
If you truly understood radiative forcing you'd know that ANY decrease in transparency at IR wavelengths, due to ANY CAUSE, that does not also cause an off-setting decrease in transparency at supra-IR wavelengths, MUST, for any body with an albedo less than 100%, result in a rise in temperature of that body.


But you'd also know that true radiative forcing also has a negative feedback mechanism that increases with decreased transparency.

Radiative forcing has NO INTRINSIC FEEDBACK. There can, however, be a feedback loop created by the interaction of the resulting temperature change and the body in question.

In this case, there is in fact a very strong positive feedback loop, wherein rising temperatures cause additional melting of ice and white snow, thus reducing Earth's albedo, with the result that a greater portion of supra-IR radiation is absorbed, rather than being reflected, and re-radiated as IR.

As for any changes in reflectivity of clouds, such occurs mainly at visible & IR wavelengths, with little to no effect on UV; and, as the affected wavelengths are well below those of the absorption bandwidth of CO2, such has virtually no effect on the radiative forcing induced by CO2 itself.
Excalibur
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2008
The price you pay for intellectual laziness is going to be much higher than any of you realize.
How very self descriptive.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


Non sequitur. It's impossible to prove the absence of something that may not exist.

The normal practice of physics (and any other of scientific field) is that the makers of a theory (such as AGW) must prove their theory. Not the other way around.

From the point of view of falsifiability (if I give you false data can you prove it?) AGW fails. Nobody can prove that the data is pertinent (to a valid solution) or complete (have we forgotten something important to the correct solution.)
GrayMouser
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2008
No, you've simply made a claim, based on your interpretation of derivative works.


You mean like the IPCC?
Velanarris
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2008
If you truly understood radiative forcing you'd know that ANY decrease in transparency at IR wavelengths, due to ANY CAUSE, that does not also cause an off-setting decrease in transparency at supra-IR wavelengths, MUST, for any body with an albedo less than 100%, result in a rise in temperature of that body.


But you'd also know that true radiative forcing also has a negative feedback mechanism that increases with decreased transparency.

Radiative forcing has NO INTRINSIC FEEDBACK. There can, however, be a feedback loop created by the interaction of the resulting temperature change and the body in question.

In this case, there is in fact a very strong positive feedback loop, wherein rising temperatures cause additional melting of ice and white snow, thus reducing Earth's albedo, with the result that a greater portion of supra-IR radiation is absorbed, rather than being reflected, and re-radiated as IR.

As for any changes in reflectivity of clouds, such occurs mainly at visible & IR wavelengths, with little to no effect on UV; and, as the affected wavelengths are well below those of the absorption bandwidth of CO2, such has virtually no effect on the radiative forcing induced by CO2 itself.


Accurate but the key thing you're missing is this, when the heat rises water evaporates creating more cloud cover, thereby reducing the earth's albedo. The part you're ignoring is the fact that there is no increase in trapped IR by CO2. It reached maximum capacity at 0.0038ppm. So no extra IR trapped means no more heat energy increase.

CO2 cannot trap more heat as it's convected away into the stratosphere with the water moisture that crowds out CO2 at it's non-saturated wavelengths. As the precipitation falls the energy is lost to the ionosphere where it is carried by high energy ions off into space.

No, you've simply made a claim, based on your interpretation of derivative works.


You mean like the IPCC?
Bingo.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2008
Data does not trump the Physical Laws.


What? Reality always trumps physics theories!
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2008
There can be nothing new re. the physical processes underlying radiative forcing.


Lord Kelvin said:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Excalibur
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2008
Evades the question.

Radiative forcing is a physical process, not an artifact of observational data.

To repeat, explain how it is that CO2 plays no role in radiative forcing. Or, alternatively, how it is that radiative forcing plays no role re. climate.


Non sequitur. It's impossible to prove the absence of something that may not exist.

The normal practice of physics (and any other of scientific field) is that the makers of a theory (such as AGW) must prove their theory. Not the other way around.

From the point of view of falsifiability (if I give you false data can you prove it?) AGW fails. Nobody can prove that the data is pertinent (to a valid solution) or complete (have we forgotten something important to the correct solution.)

Radiative forcing is a simple physical process, one that is well and long understood, easily derived from the fundamental Laws of Physics.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that either 1) radiative forcing does not exist, or 2) it functions in a manner quite different from that described by classical Physics.
Excalibur
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2008
Where DO you get this junk science from?

Accurate but the key thing you're missing is this, when the heat rises

"Heat" does not rise, any more than "cold" sinks. IR is RADIATION; it is mediated by photons, which are without mass or charge, and travel in a straight line in the direction in which they were first impelled.
water evaporates creating more cloud cover, thereby reducing the earth's albedo.

Duh! Cloud cover, being composed of H2O 1) is transparent to short wavelengths, and 2) translucent to IR. Therefore, cloud cover INCREASES radiative forcing!
The part you're ignoring is the fact that there is no increase in trapped IR by CO2. It reached maximum capacity at 0.0038ppm. So no extra IR trapped means no more heat energy increase.

Pure hogwash.
CO2 cannot trap more heat as it's convected away into the stratosphere ...

RADIATION is NOT CONVECTED or CONDUCTED!

with the water moisture that crowds out CO2 at it's non-saturated wavelengths.

H2O "crowds out" CO2? More meaningless claptrap.
As the precipitation falls the energy is lost to the ionosphere where it is carried by high energy ions off into space.

Precipitation emits "energy" which is transferred to "high energy ions?" Shades of Buck Rogers!

To repeat, where DO you get this junk "science" from.
Excalibur
3 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2008
Data does not trump the Physical Laws.


What? Reality always trumps physics theories!
You mistake your interpretations of limited data for reality.
Velanarris
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2008
Where DO you get this junk science from?

Accurate but the key thing you're missing is this, when the heat rises

"Heat" does not rise, any more than "cold" sinks. IR is RADIATION; it is mediated by photons, which are without mass or charge, and travel in a straight line in the direction in which they were first impelled.
Right, but, in order for the IR to actually do anything it has to be absorbed. How do you think that works? The IR is absorbed by the molecule exciting it. This excitation makes the molecule more active in it's motion making the slower, "colder" molecules sink while the more excited "hot" molecules rise to the top where they can move more freely.
water evaporates creating more cloud cover, thereby reducing the earth's albedo.

Duh! Cloud cover, being composed of H2O 1) is transparent to short wavelengths, and 2) translucent to IR. Therefore, cloud cover INCREASES radiative forcing!
Wait wait wait. Firstly, H2O is not translucent to IR on all bands. Second, if H2O was transparent to shortlength energy and translucent to IR then H2O would have zero effect in Radiative forcing, not greater effect. Truth is H2O shares absorption bands with CO2 but atmospheric water vapor (read: clouds) reflect the sun's light thereby reducing the amount of Black body radiation for CO2 to absorb.
The part you're ignoring is the fact that there is no increase in trapped IR by CO2. It reached maximum capacity at 0.0038ppm. So no extra IR trapped means no more heat energy increase.

Pure hogwash.
Do the math yourself.

CO2 cannot trap more heat as it's convected away into the stratosphere ...

RADIATION is NOT CONVECTED or CONDUCTED!
No, but the heat can be. And the material that absorbs the radiation is before it re-radiates the energy at a higher altitude, readily conducts and convects energy. Besides re-radiation would occur further away from the earth, where more can escape as re-radiation is onmidirectional and not affected by the Earth's relatively weak gravity.

with the water moisture that crowds out CO2 at it's non-saturated wavelengths.

H2O "crowds out" CO2? More meaningless claptrap.
Yes, there's a lot more H2O than CO2 in our atmosphere, which means in terms of radiative forcing, there is less absorption potential due to the lack of ambient IR for CO2 to capture.

As the precipitation falls the energy is lost to the ionosphere where it is carried by high energy ions off into space.

Precipitation emits "energy" which is transferred to "high energy ions?" Shades of Buck Rogers!
Ok looks like you missed Earth Science in elementary school. Water is heated, meaning energy is added to it, which causes the water to become water vapor. It rises in the atmosphere where it releases the captured energy and turns back into water. The captured energy now radiates out in all directions, some of it returning to earth, most of it escaping to higher atmospheric shells. Once the energy makes it's way to the ionosphere (probably the most energetic shell of our atmosphere) it can escape into space, as either UV, Visible light, IR, Microwave, Radio, or ionized gasses, and probably many other things that aren't fully understood at this time.

To repeat, where DO you get this junk "science" from.


A better source than you get your lack of understanding from.
Excalibur
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2008
Velanarris, you keep veering away from the issue of radiative forcing, and into other mechanisms which, while serving to reinforce or counter such, in no way alter it.

It is still yours to explain how radiative forcing does NOT work as the Laws of Nature demand that it work.

To be specific, you must explain how it is that any compound which can absorb IR does 1) absorb such at a low altitude, 2) does NOT re-radiate such at low or intermediate altitudes, 3) does re-radiate such at high altitude, and 4) does NOT absorb such at high or intermediate altitudes.

In short, by what mysterious force does a compound absorb or re-radiate IR depending on the altitude?
Excalibur
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2008
Right, but, in order for the IR to actually do anything it has to be absorbed. How do you think that works? The IR is absorbed by the molecule exciting it. This excitation makes the molecule more active in it's motion making the slower, "colder" molecules sink while the more excited "hot" molecules rise to the top where they can move more freely.


And, the IR is constantly re-radiated, half of it downward.

Wait wait wait. Firstly, H2O is not translucent to IR on all bands.


So what? H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. are neither transparent nor opaque to IR; therefore, by definition, they are translucent.

Second, if H2O was transparent to shortlength energy and translucent to IR then H2O would have zero effect in Radiative forcing, not greater effect.


Only if one ignores the prevailing shorter wavelengths which penetrate, are absorbed by Earth, re-radiated as IR, absorbed by atmospheric H2O, CO2, CH4, etal., and re-radiated downward.

Truth is H2O shares absorption bands with CO2 but atmospheric water vapor (read: clouds) reflect the sun's light thereby reducing the amount of Black body radiation for CO2 to absorb.


Clouds do not stop UV. Again, ignores the prevailing shorter wavelengths which penetrate, are absorbed by Earth, re-radiated as IR, absorbed by atmospheric H2O, CO2, CH4, etal., and re-radiated downward.

The part you're ignoring is the fact that there is no increase in trapped IR by CO2. It reached maximum capacity at 0.0038ppm. So no extra IR trapped means no more heat energy increase.


So, a finite amount of CO2 can absorb an infinite number of photons? I don't think so.

CO2 cannot trap more heat as it's convected away into the stratosphere ...


RADIATION is NOT CONVECTED or CONDUCTED!

No, but the heat can be. And the material that absorbs the radiation is before it re-radiates the energy at a higher altitude, readily conducts and convects energy. Besides re-radiation would occur further away from the earth, where more can escape as re-radiation is onmidirectional and not affected by the Earth's relatively weak gravity.


Irrelevant to the issue of RADIATIVE forcing.

with the water moisture that crowds out CO2 at it's non-saturated wavelengths.


H2O "crowds out" CO2?

Yes, there's a lot more H2O than CO2 in our atmosphere, which means in terms of radiative forcing, there is less absorption potential due to the lack of ambient IR for CO2 to capture.


What the hell kind of double-speak is this?

As the precipitation falls the energy is lost to the ionosphere where it is carried by high energy ions off into space.


Precipitation emits "energy" which is transferred to "high energy ions?" Shades of Buck Rogers!

Ok looks like you missed Earth Science in elementary school. Water is heated, meaning energy is added to it, which causes the water to become water vapor. It rises in the atmosphere where it releases the captured energy and turns back into water. The captured energy now radiates out in all directions, some of it returning to earth, most of it escaping to higher atmospheric shells.


Again, most is NOT re-radiated OUTwards; the re-radiational pattern is omni-directional, with half being directed back toward the body in question.

Once the energy makes it's way to the ionosphere (probably the most energetic shell of our atmosphere) it can escape into space, as either UV, Visible light, IR, Microwave, Radio, or ionized gasses, ...


And, this transformation into other wavelengths, or from energy into mass, happens how?

... and probably many other things that aren't fully understood at this time.


Not understood by whom?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Oct 04, 2008
Velanarris, you keep veering away from the issue of radiative forcing, and into other mechanisms which, while serving to reinforce or counter such, in no way alter it.

It is still yours to explain how radiative forcing does NOT work as the Laws of Nature demand that it work.

To be specific, you must explain how it is that any compound which can absorb IR does 1) absorb such at a low altitude, 2) does NOT re-radiate such at low or intermediate altitudes, 3) does re-radiate such at high altitude, and 4) does NOT absorb such at high or intermediate altitudes.

In short, by what mysterious force does a compound absorb or re-radiate IR depending on the altitude?


So basically you have no idea what you're talking about and hedge this bet by waiting a few weeks after a post to respond.

Radiation certainly does convect. Thermal radiation is radiation.

As for the CO2 can trap an infinite amount of photons comment it's rather obvious you're completely missing the point. No, it can't. I stated it can't which is exactly why there won't be a net increase in trapped IR. Because it's already all been trapped. Unless you add more IR, which you can't because there is only one source for it, then there will not be an increase in trapped IR energyu on the bands in which CO2 has saturated.

In your diatribes on radiative forcing you ignore 1/2 of the equation because heat loss on a warming world is anathema to your talking points on AGW.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Sep 07, 2009
Somebody needs to revise the elementary school physics experiment wherein they fill one jar with CO2 and the other with air and monitor the temperature changes under a heat lamp.

Try doing this: alter the experiment by filling one jar with air from a house (houses contain more CO2 on an order of magnitude than outside air, some as high as 5000 ppm!) and another with air from the outside away from the house but not too close to the road.

Add to this controls to ensure that both jars receive equal heating by placing thermometers behind the jars. If the thermometer behind one jar is higher than the other, subtract the data from the other to equalize the control results outside the other jar receiving more heat due to inequalities in the heat lamp glass, and so forth.

Document the methodology and the results and make them available to the public so that your observations may be tested and the experiment repeated by others.

Let us know how that goes. :)

More news stories

There's something ancient in the icebox

Glaciers are commonly thought to work like a belt sander. As they move over the land they scrape off everything—vegetation, soil, and even the top layer of bedrock. So scientists were greatly surprised ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

Turning off depression in the brain

Scientists have traced vulnerability to depression-like behaviors in mice to out-of-balance electrical activity inside neurons of the brain's reward circuit and experimentally reversed it – but there's ...

Is Parkinson's an autoimmune disease?

The cause of neuronal death in Parkinson's disease is still unknown, but a new study proposes that neurons may be mistaken for foreign invaders and killed by the person's own immune system, similar to the ...