Attempt to look at CO2 in a realistic manner:

#81
#81
BigPapaVol said:
Reflects it 360 degrees? What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Hmm....

I will say that the part that may not have been clear in Gibbs' post is that the CO2 greenhouse effect isn't an inbound problem, its an outbound problem. The CO2 allows the sun's radiation to reach the earth, the earth then releases this radiation back to space (as infrared radiation now). This is when CO2 actually absorbs some of the radiation.

So, the 360 degrees would only make sense if you are talking about the original source (sun). But, if you're talking about the form that is "reflected", then it would seem that 180 would be more appropriate, as you suggest. Unless I am missing something. However, I must admit that I'm not exactly familiar with 360 or 180 degree reflectance with regard to CO2.
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
BigPapaVol said:
Rare like the red ant.
Click to expand...

Hey, BPV, since you have taken a hammering from me for so long, I'm going to give you one.

I was loose with my words. "Reflect" should be changed to "radiates". CO2 is transparent to the shorter wavelengths of sunlight, but absorbs heat radiation from the earth and then radiates that energy in all directions. Actually, 180 degrees is absolutely incorrect - depending how high in the atmosphere the CO2 molecule was, only a portion would be returned to the earth. It would certainly be less than a 180 arc.

But, I'm feeling generous. You out quibbled me. Bask in the glow of victory. Go tell your friends. :hi:
 
#86
#86
utgibbs said:
Hey, BPV, since you have taken a hammering from me for so long, I'm going to give you one.

I was loose with my words. "Reflect" should be changed to "radiates". CO2 is transparent to the shorter wavelengths of sunlight, but absorbs heat radiation from the earth and then radiates that energy in all directions. Actually, 180 degrees is absolutely incorrect - depending how high in the atmosphere the CO2 molecule was, only a portion would be returned to the earth. It would certainly be less than a 180 arc.

But, I'm feeling generous. You out quibbled me. Bask in the glow of victory. Go tell your friends. :hi:
Click to expand...

I wasn't stupid enough to say reflects 180 degrees. You were stupid enough to say reflects 360 degrees and were dead wrong. You then tried to get me to make the same mistake but were outgunned from the word go and it had to end here.

I appreciate the woodshed, as the lessons have been unbelievable.
 
#87
#87
utgibbs said:
Hey, BPV, since you have taken a hammering from me for so long, I'm going to give you one.

I was loose with my words. "Reflect" should be changed to "radiates". CO2 is transparent to the shorter wavelengths of sunlight, but absorbs heat radiation from the earth and then radiates that energy in all directions. Actually, 180 degrees is absolutely incorrect - depending how high in the atmosphere the CO2 molecule was, only a portion would be returned to the earth. It would certainly be less than a 180 arc.

But, I'm feeling generous. You out quibbled me. Bask in the glow of victory. Go tell your friends. :hi:
Click to expand...

Now I understand what you were talking about. No wonder I'm not familiar with the concept of either 360 - or 180 - degree reflectance with regard to CO2. It is because it doesn't exist. Yes, the CO2 radiates the heat in all directions (or 360 degree radiation, I suppose). Now I understand what you were trying to say. I have to admit, I was lost trying to make sense of it in my previous post. I thought the reflection part was what you meant to say, not the 360 - so I was trying to make sense of reflection by the CO2...which I had never heard of....because it doesn't happen, apparently.

With that said...I have a hard time resolving the following statement given what you have said above:

Because, when it would otherwise cruise back out into space, it reflects back to the Earth's surface.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#88
#88
BigPapaVol said:
I wasn't stupid enough to say reflects 180 degrees. You were stupid enough to say reflects 360 degrees and were dead wrong. You then tried to get me to make the same mistake but were outgunned from the word go and it had to end here.

I appreciate the woodshed, as the lessons have been unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Oh, BPV, believe me. I know who is outgunned on VN.

And I know who reverts to vitriol. :hi: I think I hear an 800lbs gorilla about to come into the room.

Savour this victory as much as Les Miles' savoured his victory against our Vols. I was careless and sent too many men on the field. In this battle of quibbling, you have proven your mettle!
 
#89
#89
utgibbs said:
Oh, BPV, believe me. I know who is outgunned on VN.

And I know who reverts to vitriol. :hi: I think I hear an 800lbs gorilla about to come into the room.

Savour this victory as much as Les Miles' savoured his victory against our Vols. I was careless and sent too many men on the field. In this battle of quibbling, you have proven your mettle!
Click to expand...

Of course you know and your vitriol whining says you know. OBTW, I don't have mettle.
 
#90
#90
TennTradition said:
With that said...I have a hard time resolving the following statement given what you have said above:
Click to expand...

If CO2 were as transparent to heat radiation as sunlight, all of the heat radiation from the earth (minus the other greenhouse gases, of course) would simply cruise back into space, and there would be no issue.

No issue except the average temperature of the earth would be -15C or so as per Fourier's calculations.

If this is the nature of the debate on Global Heating on this forum though, no wonder we are lost. I understand the need to be precise, but one can take precision WAY too far.
 
#93
#93
utgibbs said:
If CO2 were as transparent to heat radiation as sunlight, all of the heat radiation from the earth (minus the other greenhouse gases, of course) would simply cruise back into space, and there would be no issue.

No issue except the average temperature of the earth would be -15C or so as per Fourier's calculations.

If this is the nature of the debate on Global Heating on this forum though, no wonder we are lost. I understand the need to be precise, but one can take precision WAY too far.
Click to expand...

To the first point....I think that I am still just having some issues with the reflection back to earth vs. radiating in all directions, some of which reaches the earth. It just seemed inconsistent.

To the second point, we all make mistakes in word choice at times. That is no big deal. But, I don't think that we should exacerbate poor word choice by not clearing it up fairly quickly rather than waiting until someone questions it, then debating it, then finally conceding the point. In my opinion, it is important to be precise in this discussion. If we aren't, then others don't know what comments to believe and which to discard for being imprecise or bombastic. The words we use on this forum is the only avenue we have to convey our thoughts or understanding of an issue. No one is just going to take a general glimpse of what someone is trying to say and then trust them on it. They are going to read the words, form opinions/understanding, and then go from there. While we can be too detailed, we should also try to avoid confusion with flippant use of the language.
 
#94
#94
water vapor, CO2, methane - the greenhouse gasses- set up a radiation pinball machine in the lower atmosphere. There is not precise reflection back to Earth, but the net effect is that some outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth is trapped.

This is a good thing, as otherwise we would all be frozen after sundown each night. The problem is that we are getting slightly more pinball machine action than what we are used to.


It's no coincidence that stratospheric temperatures are lowering over the time we've been measuring them (just prior to WW2), as less outgoing long wave radiation is reaching there.
 
#95
#95
TennTradition said:
To the first point....I think that I am still just having some issues with the reflection back to earth vs. radiating in all directions, some of which reaches the earth. It just seemed inconsistent.

To the second point, we all make mistakes in word choice at times. That is no big deal. But, I don't think that we should exacerbate poor word choice by not clearing it up fairly quickly rather than waiting until someone questions it, then debating it, then finally conceding the point. In my opinion, it is important to be precise in this discussion. If we aren't, then others don't know what comments to believe and which to discard for being imprecise or bombastic. The words we use on this forum is the only avenue we have to convey our thoughts or understanding of an issue. No one is just going to take a general glimpse of what someone is trying to say and then trust them on it. They are going to read the words, form opinions/understanding, and then go from there. While we can be too detailed, we should also try to avoid confusion with flippant use of the language.
Click to expand...

On the first point, I don't understand. Do you still have a point of confusion?

On the second point - fair enough. I have praised you and IP for your principled stance on this gravely important issue, and your discussions on this board.

I thought I cleared the imprecise word choice fairly quickly. But I got drawn into the bombastic (often vitriolic) rhetoric of BPV.
 
#96
#96
IPorange said:
water vapor, CO2, methane - the greenhouse gasses- set up a radiation pinball machine in the lower atmosphere. There is not precise reflection back to Earth, but the net effect is that some outgoing long wave radiation from the Earth is trapped.

This is a good thing, as otherwise we would all be frozen after sundown each night. The problem is that we are getting slightly more pinball machine action than what we are used to.


It's no coincidence that stratospheric temperatures are lowering over the time we've been measuring them (just prior to WW2), as less outgoing long wave radiation is reaching there.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how precise that is, but it is excellent imagery with the pinball. :hi:

I believe you have also now mentioned the reason for the former infamous discrepancy between the surface temperature measurements and the satellite measurements. (Fu et al., Nature 429 pp55-58)
 
#99
#99
utgibbs said:
And I applaud it, warmly and heartily. :clapping:

(PS - I'm writing this with zero sarcasm. I really do approve).
Click to expand...

Your soon to be PhD in Climatology will forever take a backseat to such a strong endorsement, IP.

When you are hooded, just remind your advisor, or whichever professor you choose, that his or her praise will always be second best.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#100
#100
utgibbs said:
On the first point, I don't understand. Do you still have a point of confusion?

On the second point - fair enough. I have praised you and IP for your principled stance on this gravely important issue, and your discussions on this board.

I thought I cleared the imprecise word choice fairly quickly. But I got drawn into the bombastic (often vitriolic) rhetoric of BPV.
Click to expand...

No, I understand. My understanding was accurate to begin with, but I was trying to figure out what you meant by "reflected back to earth" and "360 degrees". While I know now that you really meant radiate, the statement you made later still seemed to suggest that it was all "reflected" back to earth...but I think that it just because of the 360 degrees discussion. In all directions is 360 degrees, but when said in the context of reflection, it takes on a very different meaning (transmission vs reflection).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top