For all you who criticised when I suggested CO2 blocks incoming IR from the sun, NASA agree with me.
-
Remember some months back I suggested that the sun produces far more IR than the earth, and that equally CO2 would block that energy from the sun? Quite a few of you criticised me heavilly stating I didnt have a clue what I was talking about, that I was unqualified, an idiot, a troll, etc etc etc. Well, look what I just found from NASA: When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation[^] I did some calculations on the IR received at TOA (top of atmosphere) from the sun (based on a black body calculation of the IR produced by the sun, and divided by the square of the ratio of the arcs of the respective surfaces) and actually its prety similar to the amount of IR produced by the earth (OK, black body at the same temperature as the earth). (Note black body radiation rules arent totally accurate by the way so this is only approximate) So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Objection. Oversimplification. You assume that X + (-X) = 0... Except these are two different numbers. CO2 in the dense LOWER atmosphere warms the air, while CO2 in the less dense UPPER atmosphere cools the air (Actually just prevents it from warming, but same effect). You're assuming that these happen at the same rates and would cancel each other out, when they're happening at drastically different densities and temperatures. The truth is, you don't know if this would add up to a net warming or a net cooling effect. Report the story, sure... But don't make baseless assumptions just to make it look like it supports your viewpoint. EDIT to add: And by the way, if you're going to claim that NASA is supporting you, maybe you should link to the actual NASA article, instead of to the blog of some guy who shares your viewpoint, and copy-pasted half of a NASA article. The actual link is at the bottom of the post you linked.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, August 2, 2010 9:04 AM
-
fat_boy wrote:
So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Objection. Oversimplification. You assume that X + (-X) = 0... Except these are two different numbers. CO2 in the dense LOWER atmosphere warms the air, while CO2 in the less dense UPPER atmosphere cools the air (Actually just prevents it from warming, but same effect). You're assuming that these happen at the same rates and would cancel each other out, when they're happening at drastically different densities and temperatures. The truth is, you don't know if this would add up to a net warming or a net cooling effect. Report the story, sure... But don't make baseless assumptions just to make it look like it supports your viewpoint. EDIT to add: And by the way, if you're going to claim that NASA is supporting you, maybe you should link to the actual NASA article, instead of to the blog of some guy who shares your viewpoint, and copy-pasted half of a NASA article. The actual link is at the bottom of the post you linked.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, August 2, 2010 9:04 AM
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that X + (-X) = 0
Whereas it could easily be a commutative monoid rather than a group or a ring or a field. :-D ;P
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You assume that X + (-X) = 0
Whereas it could easily be a commutative monoid rather than a group or a ring or a field. :-D ;P
Picky picky... The point is that it's not really X + (-X), but X - Y... Different numbers ;P
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Picky picky... The point is that it's not really X + (-X), but X - Y... Different numbers ;P
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)In fact, X could be a vector and Y could be an octonian! :omg:
-
In fact, X could be a vector and Y could be an octonian! :omg:
Or he could just have a good point poorly made? Or he could have a good point poorly received due to past reputation.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
In fact, X could be a vector and Y could be an octonian! :omg:
I'm so glad I didn't major in math... I just looked up "octonian" in Wikipedia... "In mathematics, the octonions are a nonassociative and noncommutative extension of the quaternions. Their 8-dimensional normed..." And then my eyes just kinda glazed over.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Objection. Oversimplification. You assume that X + (-X) = 0... Except these are two different numbers. CO2 in the dense LOWER atmosphere warms the air, while CO2 in the less dense UPPER atmosphere cools the air (Actually just prevents it from warming, but same effect). You're assuming that these happen at the same rates and would cancel each other out, when they're happening at drastically different densities and temperatures. The truth is, you don't know if this would add up to a net warming or a net cooling effect. Report the story, sure... But don't make baseless assumptions just to make it look like it supports your viewpoint. EDIT to add: And by the way, if you're going to claim that NASA is supporting you, maybe you should link to the actual NASA article, instead of to the blog of some guy who shares your viewpoint, and copy-pasted half of a NASA article. The actual link is at the bottom of the post you linked.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)modified on Monday, August 2, 2010 9:04 AM
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming
Quite agree. It was only a hunch I had. I have no way of measuring the relative cooling/warming effects. But, if the models/agw theory hasnt taken this into accounf it could well be a big chunk of the reasoin the planet isnt responding to CO2 the way the theory says it should.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
maybe you should link to the actual NASA article, instead of to the blog of some guy who shares your viewpoint, and copy-pasted half of a NASA article. The actual link is at the bottom of the post you linked.
I had anothert link to the NASA article but I didnt bookmark it when I first read it a few days back.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming
Quite agree. It was only a hunch I had. I have no way of measuring the relative cooling/warming effects. But, if the models/agw theory hasnt taken this into accounf it could well be a big chunk of the reasoin the planet isnt responding to CO2 the way the theory says it should.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
maybe you should link to the actual NASA article, instead of to the blog of some guy who shares your viewpoint, and copy-pasted half of a NASA article. The actual link is at the bottom of the post you linked.
I had anothert link to the NASA article but I didnt bookmark it when I first read it a few days back.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
But, if the models/agw theory hasnt taken this into accounf it could well be a big chunk of the reasoin the planet isnt responding to CO2 the way the theory says it should.
It's possible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
But, if the models/agw theory hasnt taken this into accounf it could well be a big chunk of the reasoin the planet isnt responding to CO2 the way the theory says it should.
It's possible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
I'm so glad I didn't major in math... I just looked up "octonian" in Wikipedia... "In mathematics, the octonions are a nonassociative and noncommutative extension of the quaternions. Their 8-dimensional normed..." And then my eyes just kinda glazed over.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I'm actually not very familiar with octonians, but based on my understanding of them, here goes: The complex numbers were used to extend the real numbers so that every polynomial of degree n (highest power) could have exactly n not necessarily unique solutions; so, for example, x^5 = 1 has exactly 5 solutions. Quaternions were a kind of intellectual exercise to extend the complex numbers in a way that preserves certain properties of them - however, they have an interesting feature that given two quaternions A and B, A.B =/= B.A in general. This is called noncommutativity over multiplication. Octonians took it one ridiculous step further, and not only are they not commutative, they're not associative either, which means that (A.B).C =/= A.(B.C), unlike say real numbers where (5.3).4 = 5.(3.4) = 60.
-
I'm actually not very familiar with octonians, but based on my understanding of them, here goes: The complex numbers were used to extend the real numbers so that every polynomial of degree n (highest power) could have exactly n not necessarily unique solutions; so, for example, x^5 = 1 has exactly 5 solutions. Quaternions were a kind of intellectual exercise to extend the complex numbers in a way that preserves certain properties of them - however, they have an interesting feature that given two quaternions A and B, A.B =/= B.A in general. This is called noncommutativity over multiplication. Octonians took it one ridiculous step further, and not only are they not commutative, they're not associative either, which means that (A.B).C =/= A.(B.C), unlike say real numbers where (5.3).4 = 5.(3.4) = 60.
*backs away slowly* I think trig and matrices, for 3D transformations, are about as far as I intend to go in terms of math... I barely managed to pass the required statistics course in college.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Remember some months back I suggested that the sun produces far more IR than the earth, and that equally CO2 would block that energy from the sun? Quite a few of you criticised me heavilly stating I didnt have a clue what I was talking about, that I was unqualified, an idiot, a troll, etc etc etc. Well, look what I just found from NASA: When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation[^] I did some calculations on the IR received at TOA (top of atmosphere) from the sun (based on a black body calculation of the IR produced by the sun, and divided by the square of the ratio of the arcs of the respective surfaces) and actually its prety similar to the amount of IR produced by the earth (OK, black body at the same temperature as the earth). (Note black body radiation rules arent totally accurate by the way so this is only approximate) So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
The only way I could even see that working would assume an even distribution of CO2 across the atmosphere, which from what I know would be total bunk. What it would cause would be varied levels of insulation across the globe, which would travel along with the rest of the weather patterns. Which could include both capturing heat and pushing it along with the CO2 to create more extreme heat waves, or stagnant CO2 could deflect enough heat to cause lower temperatures. Which all seems to be a very good reason to use the correct term of climate change(as that's what people are actually concerned about rather than some arbitrary measurement of warming), even without assuming humans are behind it, it would be in our interest to have a clue what we could be doing to ourselves.
-
Remember some months back I suggested that the sun produces far more IR than the earth, and that equally CO2 would block that energy from the sun? Quite a few of you criticised me heavilly stating I didnt have a clue what I was talking about, that I was unqualified, an idiot, a troll, etc etc etc. Well, look what I just found from NASA: When carbon dioxide gets into the thermosphere, it acts as a coolant, shedding heat via infrared radiation[^] I did some calculations on the IR received at TOA (top of atmosphere) from the sun (based on a black body calculation of the IR produced by the sun, and divided by the square of the ratio of the arcs of the respective surfaces) and actually its prety similar to the amount of IR produced by the earth (OK, black body at the same temperature as the earth). (Note black body radiation rules arent totally accurate by the way so this is only approximate) So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Ahem. http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3549692/Oh-I-cant-be-bothered-anymore.aspx[^] So your big threat/promise was good for about a week. Just can't leave it alone, can you? Even CSS has enough imagination to change subjects occasionally. :rolleyes:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
fat_boy wrote:
So, given that the effect of CO2 cant be detected in the earths temperature record one possible reason is thats its net effect is zero. ie, while trapping radiation from the earth it also blocks it from the sun.
The only way I could even see that working would assume an even distribution of CO2 across the atmosphere, which from what I know would be total bunk. What it would cause would be varied levels of insulation across the globe, which would travel along with the rest of the weather patterns. Which could include both capturing heat and pushing it along with the CO2 to create more extreme heat waves, or stagnant CO2 could deflect enough heat to cause lower temperatures. Which all seems to be a very good reason to use the correct term of climate change(as that's what people are actually concerned about rather than some arbitrary measurement of warming), even without assuming humans are behind it, it would be in our interest to have a clue what we could be doing to ourselves.
Distind wrote:
The only way I could even see that working would assume an even distribution of CO2 across the atmosphere
You mean vertically I assume? Yes, its a hunch. Neds measuring. But, take a look at this graph. It shows that a fair amount of solar energy is blocked by the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ahem. http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3549692/Oh-I-cant-be-bothered-anymore.aspx[^] So your big threat/promise was good for about a week. Just can't leave it alone, can you? Even CSS has enough imagination to change subjects occasionally. :rolleyes:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
I'm actually not very familiar with octonians, but based on my understanding of them, here goes: The complex numbers were used to extend the real numbers so that every polynomial of degree n (highest power) could have exactly n not necessarily unique solutions; so, for example, x^5 = 1 has exactly 5 solutions. Quaternions were a kind of intellectual exercise to extend the complex numbers in a way that preserves certain properties of them - however, they have an interesting feature that given two quaternions A and B, A.B =/= B.A in general. This is called noncommutativity over multiplication. Octonians took it one ridiculous step further, and not only are they not commutative, they're not associative either, which means that (A.B).C =/= A.(B.C), unlike say real numbers where (5.3).4 = 5.(3.4) = 60.
-
Almost anything is polssible given the state of ignorance about what does affect the climate.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Almost anything is polssible given the state of ignorance about what does affect the climate.
Including AGW? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Almost anything is polssible given the state of ignorance about what does affect the climate.
Including AGW? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
Check and mate :laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
fat_boy wrote:
Almost anything is polssible given the state of ignorance about what does affect the climate.
Including AGW? :)
Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.
-
Check and mate :laugh:
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)
