BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 And either way, you don't need to know the exact number to understand/form an opinion on AGW regarding how much to expect. That will be determined based on what goes on inside the climate system, not incoming radiation, which is a constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 huh? I have always abide by the IPCC #, what I was confused on was what your quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation#Temperature_relation_between_a_planet_and_its_star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·RE²), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·RE²). Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 342 W/m²). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 http://en.wikipedia....et_and_its_star http://en.wikipedia..../Solar_constant And what? Are you saying that during my time here, I've thrown that under the bus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 And what? Are you saying that during my time here, I've thrown that under the bus? I'm saying your claims of "half" and your lack of understanding of what people mean by "satellites measure..." is indicative of your lack of understanding of the basics of radiative transfer. And I'm saying that the author of this article is a kook for asserting otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm saying your claims of "half" and your lack of understanding of what people mean by "satellites measure..." is indicative of your lack of understanding of the basics of radiative transfer. And I'm saying that the author of this article is a kook for asserting otherwise. What? I was simply asking if he meant the atmosphere in its entirety, or 1/2, not accounting for the angle of impact, as if, the IPCC was suggesting that beforehand. Are you saying I think the earth is flat? I'd like an apology now that I think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 http://en.wikipedia....et_and_its_star http://en.wikipedia..../Solar_constant Hehe I guessed right.. that's exactly what I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 You mean the idea the earth is tilted? It's not the idea that the earth is tilted, it's the fact that the earth is a sphere not a cardboard board that faces the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Hehe I guessed right.. that's exactly what I did. I didn't know you had to "guess" the amount of energy recieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 What? I was simply asking if he meant the atmosphere in its entirety, or 1/2, not accounting for the angle of impact, as if, the IPCC was suggesting that beforehand. Are you saying I think the earth is flat? I'm saying I can read and it's pretty obvious what was said. I've got nothing more to say on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I didn't know you had to "guess" the amount of energy recieved. Well I do since I am not an astrophysicist and I forgot the formula for the surface area of a sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm saying I can read and it's pretty obvious what was said. I've got nothing more to say on the matter. You obviously can't, because you're essentially implying that I believe the earth is flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 dang 14 pages, I'm out for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Ironically, it turns out the author of this "article" literally is a flat-earther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Ironically, it turns out the author of this "article" literally is a flat-earther. he believes the earth is flat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It's not the idea that the earth is tilted, it's the fact that the earth is a sphere not a cardboard board that faces the sun. Yea I guess the tilt doesn't matter for an immediate measurement of solar radiation since there isn't any seasonality to this index... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 he believes the earth is flat? Well that's what his calculations assume, but he probably doesn't realize his mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Yea I guess the tilt doesn't matter for an immediate measurement of solar radiation since there isn't any seasonality to this index... Well there could technically be some seasonality because the atmosphere is probably not the exact same shape all year and the exact shape of the atmosphere would affect the average rate of energy hitting the top of the atmosphere. For example, during NH summer the atmosphere probably bulges at the north pole and contracts during winter, and would be more spherical in the inbetween months. The rate of energy gain is determined by the relationship between the area of the cross section of the earth and its atmosphere, divided by the surface area of the earth's atmosphere. Since the formula for the circular cross section is piR2 and the surface area of the sphere is 4piR^2 the relationship is 1/4. So 1368/4. But if the earth were a cube, for example, the relationship would be 1/6 (A cube has 6 sides, light hitting only 1 of them). So 1368/6. If the earth's atmosphere were an imperfect sphere, it would alter this ratio slightly. Since the shape of the atmosphere varies during the course of the year, I would assume that this has a very small affect on average rate of energy hitting the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 The problem is, is how broad the definition of the AGW hypothesis has become. Why did you write "is" twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Well that's what his calculations assume, but he probably doesn't realize his mistake. His calculations assume that the Earth is flat, directly facing/perpendicular to the sun's rays, and that there is no transfer of energy between the bright side and dark side and that we only care about the bright side. That may be true of a satellite measuring solar parameters... hence the ~1300 W/m^2 in that case... but to assert that about the Earth is to expose your lack of understanding of the basic principles that drive the Earth's climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Why did you write "is" twice? people obsess over grammar typo here, its ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 people obsess over grammar typo here, its ridiculous. it's* (sorry couldn't help myself) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 ok smart guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Why did you write "is" twice? I guess cause I is stupid..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 people obsess over grammar typo here, its ridiculous. No, this is different. I've heard people say "is" twice. But I don't remember ever seeing anyone write it twice. That takes commitment. Sorry...it just jumped out at me. I know this isn't a grammar board. It's a science board. I'll let you get back to sh*tting it up and making American Weather look bad. Don't mind me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 No, this is different. I've heard people say "is" twice. But I don't remember ever seeing anyone write it twice. That takes commitment. Sorry...it just jumped out at me. I know this isn't a grammar board. It's a science board. I'll let you get back to sh*tting it up and making American Weather look bad. Don't mind me. NBD.....I have no idea if it is grammatically correct or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokeupthisam Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I honestly breezed through it and, without clearing cobwebs from my brain and diving into some of the higher math, cannot judge the hypothesis present well enough to "toss it" or not. My point is that to put something out there pretty much naked, as this is, should very well be able to be quickly characterized as unsound or not (via poor reasoning, errors in calculations, etc.) If this paper is of "kook" material.....it would show as such quickly....without the "he is from such and such univeristy" ....or "only one person wrote" ...or "he is just a bio....blah blah blah... Someone that has earned a higher degree, should be at least afforded the curtousy to delve into the paper, irregardless of any ideological leanings or summary conclusions drawn...if it ends up being laughed at afterward, he will suffer consequences based on a stronger argument than the flimsy, irrelevant "he is a 'xxxx'...... argument. This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokeupthisam Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 the paper has been linked to; it's about 5 pages long. have at it. I remain unconvinced that a biologist studying the immune system has the key to the physics of climate change. And I remain unconvinced that a focus on credentials is the BEST WAY to refute an argument. A deflection tactic, yes; and frankly, transparently so. Kind of like having a discussion re: the efficacy of Obama's presidency to date, and someone chimes in that the whole analysis is irrelevant because Obama isn't qualified by birth to be POTUS.... Disagree with the calculations, or the conclusions, by posting a reply in kind, showing why the calculations are in error, or the conclusions scientifically invalid. Or prefix your assertions with three simple letters: I M O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 What did I miss since page 1? LOL Abstracts from two of the papers that help form the group of 20 experts that support Nahle's research findings: Data on the infrared radiation characteristics of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the form of absorption coefficients and line spacings averaged over narrow spectral intervals have been compiled from various sources. These data are to be used in heat transfer calculations from hot gases. In order to investigate the accuracy of the data, the simplest case possible is chosen: a comparison with the total emissivity charts of water vapor and carbon dioxide. It appears however that the charts are not entirely reliable as standards for comparison: it seems probable that Hottel's chart for water vapor gives too low values at temperatures above 900°C and that the partial pressure correction is temperature dependent. With the exception of some regions where judgment is difficult, the calculations using spectral data seem to represent total emissivities with a maximum error which is estimated to around 10%. Sources of error in the spectral data and in Hottel's total emissivity charts are discussed. Total emissivity charts, pressure and overlap corrections based on calculations with spectral data are presented. B. Leckner Descriptión: The treatment of radiant emission and absorption by combustion gases are discussed. Typical applications include: (1) rocket combustion chambers and exhausts, (2) turbojet engines and exhausts, and (3) industrial furnaces. Some mention is made of radiant heat transfer problems in planetary atmospheres, in stellar atmospheres, and in reentry plasmas. Particular consideration is given to the temperature range from 500K to 3000K and the pressure range from 0.001 atmosphere to 30 atmospheres. Strong emphasis is given to the combustion products of hydrocarbon fuels with oxygen, specifically to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and carbon monoxide. In addition, species such as HF, HC1, CN, OH, and NO are treated. C. Ludwig I can't readily find an abstract for the MIT paper, but in a pdf version, the paper does address absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide, at temperatures of 260F, 1000F, and 1700 F, at various partial pressures. Not satisfied with that, they did it for combustion achieving temperatures of 2500F, 2600F, 2700F, 2800F,. Then they did a mixture of 20 percent water vapor and 7.5 percent CO2. So what we have is a biologist in Mexico who goes out into a nearby field, takes one measurement on one day, and applies data for the physical reactions within high temperature combustion engines, and voila, declares that CO2 is a coolant. ---And a high school graduate who believes such scientists speak the gospel truth. As for Mr. Nahle, here are the degrees he professes to have: 1 MATHEMATICS: Degree on January 14, 1975. 2. EARTH'S SCIENCES: Meteorology, Climatology, Geology, Dynamic Geology, Geomorphology, Geophysics, Pedology (Soils Science) and Hydrology, Biogeography, Paleobiology. Certified on January 12, 1975. 3. PHYSICS: Degree on July 4, 1977. 5. Biotic Resources. Degree on July 4, 1977. 6. History of the Biological Doctrines. Degree on January 12, 1975. Note: There is no #4 in his list. The usual custom is to identify the conferring institution when it comes to degrees. But, let's put that aside, and examine the certification from the "University of Harvard" in Scientific ICAM research. 4. Certified on Scientific ICAM Research (University of Harvard and University of California, San Francisco, CA). Google ICAM research certification, and the first link is Nahle's c.v., But success is found with the second Google libk: To quote this article, copy the next two lines:Nahle, N. 2006. Didactic Article: The Concept of Symmetry in Biology. Biology Cabinet Organization. New Braunfels, TX. http://www.biocab.or...Asymmetry.html. No. 260. Published: 29th October 2006. Last Update: 9th February 2009. The Concept of Symmetry in Biology. By Nasif Nahle C1-L by Harvard University in Scientific ICAM Research. (Additional editing of this English text by TS) Symmetry refers to the homogeneity of a system. All living beings and all their thermal states are asymmetric. We say that a system is symmetric when each of its parts offers identical effects, characteristics and conditions through the rest of its parts, anywhere and every time that the system exists or produces its influences. The transition from a state where the most minimum value in which the symmetric system resides on the point of zero toward a state of asymmetry with a value from almost zero to one -or close to one- is called “Symmetry Breaking". (Barrow; 2000). 1 The laws of Nature are symmetrical because they produce their effects in the same way, at every place and every moment in the Universe; however, the results of the symmetrical laws are asymmetrical systems (states and/or structures). ....... To get his 'certification', perhaps Nahle studied under this doctor: https://research.bid...100&NoFrame=Yes or this one, http://labs.idi.harv...careernarrative or these, http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10029629 Ah, the University of Harvard is surely a wonderful place, I must find the address and visit it some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacChump Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The agw question will probably never be answered if we can't even reach a consensus on when the titanic sank...something to think about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 No, this is different. I've heard people say "is" twice. But I don't remember ever seeing anyone write it twice. That takes commitment. Sorry...it just jumped out at me. I know this isn't a grammar board. It's a science board. I'll let you get back to sh*tting it up and making American Weather look bad. Don't mind me. I may make it look bad, but posts like this make it look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.