Climate change is unavoidable, so is a warmer or cooler climate more desireable?

MK001 wrote:
So the description below of the simple process is absolutely false then?

"The CO2 lets sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat (infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths."

Its not really a magic gas is it! it is just following a process that must obviously lead to more infrared radiation returning to earth than if it was not there?

MK001 wrote:
Now you are confusing me! Infrared energy does not have a thermal component until it hits something it is an electromagnetic wave. So the supposed temperature of the gas is irrelavent it aborbs and then re-radiates IR some of which goes back to earth and irradiates what it hits hence warming it. Simple. It violates no law it is just redirecting energy.

MK001 wrote:
You are still mixing heating and emitting. The absorbed IR excites the CO2 molecule which then re-emits the IR in all directions until it reaches a calm state. So still nothing to do with violating Laws of thermodymamics.
Thoughjts

MK001 wrote: So the supposed temperature of the gas is irrelavent it aborbs and then re-radiates IR some of which goes back to earth and irradiates what it hits hence warming it. Simple. It violates no law it is just redirecting energy.

rahul wrote:
Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.

...deleted link to propaganda...

MK001 wrote:
Ibdaman

I am just trying to understand why you keep talking about magic properties when what I want to know is why you cannot accept the absorbtion and reradiation of IR by CO2 happens! it is nothing to do with temperature.

If you can tell me what the temperature of an IR wave travelling through space is I will concede your point, otherwise you don't really have a point.

Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?

Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?

Into the Night wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?

His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

He also jumped to the conclusion of the Global Warming argument as a non-sequitur, not realizing he crossed into a circular argument.

Can I get in on this?

You know how sometimes people make mistakes that are later corrected?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Leafsdude wrote:
ITN, have you read John Tyndall's 1861 paper "on the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours"? Would you care to present your reasons for why it is faulty?

His analysis confused the opacity of a gas with it's absorptivity at certain IR wavelengths.

Perhaps you can explain the difference between opacity and absorptivity to us, and point out where Tyndall confused the two.

Leafsdude wrote:
What reason do you have to believe Tyndall tested for opacity and not for absorptivity?

Leafsdude wrote: Actually, not once does Tyndall ever mention global warming or climate change or even some vague term that one could translate as either.

John Tyndall's Bakerian Lecture, Read February 7, 1861: DE SAUSSURE, FOURIER, M. POUILLET, and Mr. HOPEINS regard this interception of the terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.

Leafsdude wrote: When and where was Tyndall's experiment corrected?

antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.

hannsmith wrote:

antialiased wrote:
Why do most people believe that global warming is bad?

Let me explain. I take it as given that homo sapiens have contributed to climate change. It also should be accepted that earth is currently in an ice age (icehouse phase). Additionally, due to positions of land masses and other factors, it seems likely that the interglacial period we are in would end in a glacial period (colder temperatures). I also take it as accepted that the climate is constantly changing and that the icehouse state is the exception, not the norm for earth. And finally, that the climate is in a constant state of flux and change is inevitable (we are not yet advanced enough to control the climate precisely enough to maintain the current climate).

Therefore, why should humanity want it to get colder instead of warmer?

We have to pick one, assuming we have the ability to influence the climate state. Either will have positive and negative implications for species currently alive. However, from the geological record, it would seem that greenhouse earth may be more conductive to rapid species expansion and evolution. This seems like the sort of question that isn't being discussed and I am making my first post in this forum precisely because I would like some rational reason to believe that icehouse earth is better than greenhouse earth. Thank you in advance for your time and comments.

MY RESPONSE:
I'm glad that you agree that climate change is a very real and present issue, but I think the audience needs more evidence for claims about the existence of climate change and our current icehouse phase to make it more effective. If you could expand on some of your claims that are more controversial I think it would strengthen your overall conclusion. The current research I've seen on oceanic warming trends has seen a negative impact on marine species and the extinction of other species in our ecosystems, could you explain what sources have given evidence that there will be expansion among some species? Is it only true for land species? I'd love to hear more about our geological records and the movement of land masses in indicating not only a trend toward the icehouse phase, but also how the greenhouse phase has been more survivable in our past. Which organizations record land mass movements and what methods are climate scientists using? Are they examining fossilization or strata to come to conclusions about past climate changes? I believe that there is a false dilemma in stating that our planet will either cool or warm to such a dramatic degree, necessitating that we must pick whether to encourage the icehouse phase or the greenhouse phase with our practices. Does our planet have any mechanisms to return to equilibrium and how or why are they not effective? I agree that humans have impacted our current climate a great deal, but I'm not sure whether our actions now could prompt any reversal. A policy change to accommodate climate change is unfortunately not a position that everyone holds, so I think one of the main issues is that people can dismiss some of the claims in your argument that support our need for one, and then we won't be able to actually discuss whether greenhouse or icehouse has more positive or negative effects. I'm also curious to know if you've encountered people who have been promoting cooling trends towards the glacial phase over warming, and what claims they've been making. Perhaps they only mean cooling to a degree to combat the effects of global warming, because I would hope both camps of the climate change debate wouldn't want either extremes of planet warming or cooling. Thanks so much for your time!

antialiased wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Why do you believe you speak for "most people"? None of the smart people I know believe that? Is your point that most people are gullible scientific illiterates?

. . .

I'll disregard purposeful misinterpretation as, unless English is not your first language, it means you're either trolling or . . .. Given your apparent command of the English language, I'll have to assume that it is purposeful.

The general debate seems to be whether global warming exists and whether, if it does, it can be attributed to human activity. That ignores the main question of whether global warming is desirable or undesirable. It is sort of like debating whether Barack Obama is a socialist without debating whether socialism is desirable or not.

Therefore, to cut off trolls and those who just want to debate the former, I am taking both global warming and a causal link from human activity as given. Apparently it didn't quite work.

What are you talking about? We are sufficiently advanced to control all the climates we create. It's not like you're talking about trying to control the weather!

Since earth's climate does indeed depend on weather patterns, then, yes, in order to precisely control earth's climate, it would be necessary to control the weather.

That's all the feeding I care to do this morning.