Remember me
▼ Content

Early 20th Century Arctic Warming


Early 20th Century Arctic Warming22-05-2017 20:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
The 1st link is to an article on early 20th century warming in the Arctic caused by soot. The 2nd link is to an image which is mostly in black. On a smartphone if the phone is tilted away from you it is clear (the light is emitted at about a 45° angle), look straight at it and you don't see the image (black light is not emitted directly away from it's source) and have the top pointing away from you and the image is fuzzy (weak phase). This is one way to see how light is refracted.
While it is being emitted from a black body and then shows itself in your touchscreen when our planet refracts solar radiation it is a similar process of absorb and emit. And with black light this will help to show why it stays in our atmosphere longer helping to warm it.
And by looking at different images/colors on your smartphone you can see if light is emitted directly towards which white light does or if it shows itself better when the smartphone is tilted at an angle away from you. Some of this has to do with your smartphone being polarized.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm

https://goo.gl/photos/jPSqdgF4q8WDZ44FA
22-05-2017 21:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
The 1st link is to an article on early 20th century warming in the Arctic caused by soot. The 2nd link is to an image which is mostly in black. On a smartphone if the phone is tilted away from you it is clear (the light is emitted at about a 45° angle), look straight at it and you don't see the image (black light is not emitted directly away from it's source) and have the top pointing away from you and the image is fuzzy (weak phase). This is one way to see how light is refracted.
While it is being emitted from a black body and then shows itself in your touchscreen when our planet refracts solar radiation it is a similar process of absorb and emit. And with black light this will help to show why it stays in our atmosphere longer helping to warm it.
And by looking at different images/colors on your smartphone you can see if light is emitted directly towards which white light does or if it shows itself better when the smartphone is tilted at an angle away from you. Some of this has to do with your smartphone being polarized.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070809172126.htm

https://goo.gl/photos/jPSqdgF4q8WDZ44FA


You're likely to get some arguments about soot causing warming since initially the soot is in the atmosphere and tends to block sun. So many people argue that soot cools the atmosphere and doesn't warm it. This has been shown to occur in large volcanic explosions. Your article was about something altogether different so it isn't particularly important what volcanic explosions do for the first several years after they occur.

But if you look at https://www.windfinder.com/weather-maps/forecast/greenland#3/76.02/-42.18 (this is difficult to interpret but it is the wind patterns around greenland)

you can see that the typical wind patterns don't appear to blow industrial waste soot over the glacier areas. And the amount of industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th century wasn't very large. And soot tends to settle out pretty rapidly because of it's weigh as nearly pure carbon particles.

Your second reference doesn't show up on my desktop so I don't know what you are referring to.

You are sort of hit and miss with your postings. I think that you should be a little more systematic and have a point to them. With this posting you seem to be trying to answer what appears to be warming circa 1900.

That's fine but how does it relate to the problem at hand? AGW is the question and perhaps you're trying to relate a lot of small causes to the long term problem. That could be the problem.

Though most "authorities" are trying to relate it to one large overall cause.
Edited on 22-05-2017 21:33
22-05-2017 21:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Please do not feed the animal or even take time to read what it posts. Keep posting as usual.
22-05-2017 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Please do not feed the animal or even take time to read what it posts. Keep posting as usual.


Why, are your fleas bothering you?
23-05-2017 03:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
You keep showing that you're an idiot. It seems to me that the only reason you are here is to disrupt the forum. You don't have a life, right ?

I checked the link and it worked for me. I think you don't get it is why you changed the subject. Didn't you accuse "DaMann" of cowardice because you said he changed the subject ?
Edited on 23-05-2017 03:34
23-05-2017 04:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
You might find the experiment interesting. It's in the 1st post.
23-05-2017 06:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@All,
You might find the experiment interesting. It's in the 1st post.


So someone else has the answers and not you. Why am I not surprised.
23-05-2017 13:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
James_ wrote: The 1st link is to an article on early 20th century warming in the Arctic caused by soot.

James, are you even capable of expressing in your own words how you believe soot can increase temperature?

No links. No graphs. Just a sanity check. How does soot increase temperature?

James_ wrote: it is a similar process of absorb and emit. And with black light this will help to show why it stays in our atmosphere longer helping to warm it.

Physics, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, explains how this is not possible.

Do you have any science to support your beliefs?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-05-2017 16:30
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The 1st link is to an article on early 20th century warming in the Arctic caused by soot.

James, are you even capable of expressing in your own words how you believe soot can increase temperature?

No links. No graphs. Just a sanity check. How does soot increase temperature?

James_ wrote: it is a similar process of absorb and emit. And with black light this will help to show why it stays in our atmosphere longer helping to warm it.

Physics, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, explains how this is not possible.

Do you have any science to support your beliefs?


.




Wow, now you're supporting wade. The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science. If they and by they "Duh_Mann" I don't mean you and wade in shallow water then if they read the 1st link I posted then they'll understand how soot and ash help to warm the Arctic.
BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ? If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the same temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change. THAT is the heat the Earth is radiating according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Our atmosphere has high and low pressure systems and it's composition varies so the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation would change. An example of this is that increased levels of CO2 might decrease the amount of electromagnetic radiation that our atmosphere emits, right "Duh-Mann" ?

@All, as I have mentioned Stefan-Boltzmann applies to surface radiation. With our atmosphere there are 2 layers that are warmer than the layer below it. I am not sure why a person would quote Stefan-Boltzmann when it's obvious that something else is at play.

@"Duh_Mann, you use the "Duh_Mann" to show how you always quoting Stefan-Boltzmann makes you smarter than everyone else. Quote; James, are you even capable of expressing in your own words how you believe...

and yet you "Duh_Mann" keep repeating ad nauseum Stefan-Boltzmann. Then you support wade in shallow waters who can only change the subject. After all can he show when the last time a volcano erupted or influenced the weather in the Arctic ? No links, etc. ? And is that a consideration with research about Industrialization's effect on Arctic warming ? It isn't. Black light emitted from a smartphone shows how black light is refracted. That's an experiment anyone can try so they will understand why researchers consider that when discussing "trapped" heat in our atmosphere.
And yet you said "Physics, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, explains how this is not possible. " It doesn't. As for your own words, there were none just once again you saying Stefan-Boltzmann.
Edited on 23-05-2017 16:41
23-05-2017 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
James_ wrote: The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science.

Ergo, it SHOULD be a simple matter for you to just express, in your own words, how you believe soot increases temperature.

Why is it proving to be an impossible task?

James_ wrote: BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ?

Can't you avoid violating it? How is it my fault that you are a science denier?

So while we're on the topic, here's Stefan-Boltzmann for you:

Radiance (Temp) = Emissivity * Stef_Bolt * Temp^4

What about it specifically do you deny? I know you HATE it because it clearly shows that Radiance follows Temp, i.e. Radiance can never decrease while Temp increases, yet your WACKY religious dogma proclaims just that, i.e. that earth's Radiance decreases while earth's Temp increases.

Your religion is based on science denial and requires you to HATE those who offer science for consideration.

Enjoy the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It's on the house.


.
23-05-2017 17:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: The 1st link is to an article on early 20th century warming in the Arctic caused by soot.

James, are you even capable of expressing in your own words how you believe soot can increase temperature?

No links. No graphs. Just a sanity check. How does soot increase temperature?

James_ wrote: it is a similar process of absorb and emit. And with black light this will help to show why it stays in our atmosphere longer helping to warm it.

Physics, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, explains how this is not possible.

Do you have any science to support your beliefs?


.




Wow, now you're supporting wade. The experiment is a demonstration of the physics behind the science. If they and by they "Duh_Mann" I don't mean you and wade in shallow water then if they read the 1st link I posted then they'll understand how soot and ash help to warm the Arctic.
BTW "Duh_Mann" can't you say something besides Stefan-Boltzmann ? If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the same temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change. THAT is the heat the Earth is radiating according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Our atmosphere has high and low pressure systems and it's composition varies so the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation would change. An example of this is that increased levels of CO2 might decrease the amount of electromagnetic radiation that our atmosphere emits, right "Duh-Mann" ?

@All, as I have mentioned Stefan-Boltzmann applies to surface radiation. With our atmosphere there are 2 layers that are warmer than the layer below it. I am not sure why a person would quote Stefan-Boltzmann when it's obvious that something else is at play.

@"Duh_Mann, you use the "Duh_Mann" to show how you always quoting Stefan-Boltzmann makes you smarter than everyone else. Quote; James, are you even capable of expressing in your own words how you believe...

and yet you "Duh_Mann" keep repeating ad nauseum Stefan-Boltzmann. Then you support wade in shallow waters who can only change the subject. After all can he show when the last time a volcano erupted or influenced the weather in the Arctic ? No links, etc. ? And is that a consideration with research about Industrialization's effect on Arctic warming ? It isn't. Black light emitted from a smartphone shows how black light is refracted. That's an experiment anyone can try so they will understand why researchers consider that when discussing "trapped" heat in our atmosphere.
And yet you said "Physics, specifically Stefan-Boltzmann, explains how this is not possible. " It doesn't. As for your own words, there were none just once again you saying Stefan-Boltzmann.


The same temperature in the ground? For crying out loud, why can't you be bothered to learn anything before saying something?

http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Cooling/EarthTemperatures.htm
23-05-2017 18:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Duh_Mann,
You're about 15, right ?
23-05-2017 18:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
James_ wrote:Duh_Mann, You're about 15, right ?

Yep, I'm just a middle-schooler. Why don't YOU know all this easy stuff? Have you not gotten this far?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-05-2017 18:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Duh_Mann, You're about 15, right ?

Yep, I'm just a middle-schooler. Why don't YOU know all this easy stuff? Have you not gotten this far?


.


All you post is Stefan-Boltzmann and LoT. You don't seem capable of discussing anything.
23-05-2017 19:08
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1729)
James_ wrote:
If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the same temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change.


I've enjoyed the back and forth, and I certainly hope this is a typo.

Here in Iowa, our FROST line is around 30 inches winter average. Code for setting deck posts is 42" to get BELOW the frost.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
23-05-2017 19:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Duh_Mann, You're about 15, right ?

Yep, I'm just a middle-schooler. Why don't YOU know all this easy stuff? Have you not gotten this far?


.


All you post is Stefan-Boltzmann and LoT. You don't seem capable of discussing anything.


James, although you're ready to take offense at any criticism, what I'm trying to do is to get you to think.

You believe that the atmosphere would somehow lose heat in the stratosphere by expansion. In fact the atmosphere does not expand due to atmospheric pressure.

The pressure at the tropopause is 0.70 psi or so. This means that the reason that the gas appears to be thinning with an increase in altitude is due to gravity and not pressure between the molecules. At the top of the stratosphere the atmosphere is relatively non-existent.

The reasons for the heating in the stratosphere is because there is almost direct emissions from the Sun showing on individual molecules so of course the thinner the atmosphere gets the less filtering from other molecules and the higher the temperature of individual molecules.

And because the gases are so thin the atmosphere itself is far below freezing.

So be careful not to connect increased heat of a molecule to the idea that the atmosphere is warmer. It isn't.
23-05-2017 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7300)
James_ wrote: All you post is Stefan-Boltzmann and LoT. You don't seem capable of discussing anything.

You are the one that cannot discuss anything that adheres to science. All of what you discuss is unfalsifiable religious crap that violates physics. The moment science is raised for consideration, your religious bubble is burst and you become unable to discuss the topic further. At that point you are only able to hurl petty insults.

Ergo, the problem is on your end.

Try ditching your WACKY religion and embracing science. Then you'll be able to actually discuss something.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-05-2017 20:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
You're just creating problems because you're too lazy to do the work.
24-05-2017 01:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13005)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Duh_Mann, You're about 15, right ?

Yep, I'm just a middle-schooler. Why don't YOU know all this easy stuff? Have you not gotten this far?


.


All you post is Stefan-Boltzmann and LoT. You don't seem capable of discussing anything.


James, although you're ready to take offense at any criticism, what I'm trying to do is to get you to think.

You believe that the atmosphere would somehow lose heat in the stratosphere by expansion. In fact the atmosphere does not expand due to atmospheric pressure.

The pressure at the tropopause is 0.70 psi or so. This means that the reason that the gas appears to be thinning with an increase in altitude is due to gravity and not pressure between the molecules. At the top of the stratosphere the atmosphere is relatively non-existent.

The reasons for the heating in the stratosphere is because there is almost direct emissions from the Sun showing on individual molecules so of course the thinner the atmosphere gets the less filtering from other molecules and the higher the temperature of individual molecules.

And because the gases are so thin the atmosphere itself is far below freezing.

So be careful not to connect increased heat of a molecule to the idea that the atmosphere is warmer. It isn't.

Actually, the pressure in the tropopause is about 2.97psi, absolute
The pressure in the stratopause is about 0.0147psi, absolute.

Aircraft altimeters are calibrated to these values.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-05-2017 16:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the same temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change.


I've enjoyed the back and forth, and I certainly hope this is a typo.

Here in Iowa, our FROST line is around 30 inches winter average. Code for setting deck posts is 42" to get BELOW the frost.


GasGuzzler,
The type of soil can change emissivity. One reason Iowa might be different is because it sits on top of bedrock. That also stores a lot of water which is a better conductor of heat in the ground. If you were to cross the Mississippi River then you might see where things are a lot different. This is because the Ogallala Aquifer is being depleted and I think it's Kansas where it has it's greatest depth.
Ground water depletion might be a bigger threat to our atmosphere than CO2. Who knows, maybe in the next few years Oklahoma and Wyoming might start talking about pumping water from Iowa.
24-05-2017 21:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
If anyone plants a sensor about 2 or 3 feet deep in the ground they will notice year round that it will be the same temperature. This means when it's snowing or if they're sun bathing the temperature in the ground won't change.


I've enjoyed the back and forth, and I certainly hope this is a typo.

Here in Iowa, our FROST line is around 30 inches winter average. Code for setting deck posts is 42" to get BELOW the frost.


GasGuzzler,
The type of soil can change emissivity. One reason Iowa might be different is because it sits on top of bedrock. That also stores a lot of water which is a better conductor of heat in the ground. If you were to cross the Mississippi River then you might see where things are a lot different. This is because the Ogallala Aquifer is being depleted and I think it's Kansas where it has it's greatest depth.
Ground water depletion might be a bigger threat to our atmosphere than CO2. Who knows, maybe in the next few years Oklahoma and Wyoming might start talking about pumping water from Iowa.


Again and again you demonstrate that you have not even the thinnest grasp of science.

You have some article speaking about soot in the ice but not the density or the possible change in the absorption index.

Since a snow storm would clear the air and a second snowfall would cover any soot there may have been no changes whatsoever to the relative absorption index.

Moreover the late 19th century and early 20th century was when the effects of the Little Ice Age were going away. These SAME temperature changes were occurring all over the northern hemisphere.




Join the debate Early 20th Century Arctic Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is Western Arctic Warming related to Magnetic Pole Movement?817-03-2020 03:59
Arctic waters not freezing76404-02-2020 11:58
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact