Where's the warming? Some thoughts on atmospheric thermodynamics.

[Dionysus]

The atmosphere is not heating up. That's established from the historical temp data since around 1960. In that same period, CO2 "greenhouse" gas has increased due to the burning of carbon based fuels. So where's the warming?

Either the CO2 is not causing a greenhouse effect, or it is, and the effect is offset by some cooling mechanism.

The possible cooling mechanisms are:
1) radiation into space (duh, happens every night), the extra heat could just go away every night
2) evaporation of rain falling through dry air
3) contact with cold surfaces
4) reduced solar activity (not technically a cooling mechanism in a direct thermodynamic sense)
5) geothermal or magnetic field cyclical influences (just throwing out everything)

Or, the CO2 is not behaving as a greenhouse gas. Why might that be?
1) plants sucking up the excess, probably most significant in surface bound ocean plants, which could increase quite substantially.
2) CO2 not trapping more solar energy?? A parcel of air cools by 10 degress C for every km it rises due to reduced pressure in the upper atmosphere.

Do the global warming mafia address these things? Or do they just punch you in the face if you ask for the data?

[dannno]

Do the global warming mafia address these things? Or do they just punch you in the face if you ask for the data?


The science is already done, no further research needed. It's time for action jackson.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

It was so cold here in Minnesota this summer that I fear without global warming we may have frozen to death.

:rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere, vastly dominated by water vapor, for example, which is also a greenhouse gas, and of which there is 20 times more. In addition, solar variations and other effects are likely much more powerful than greenhouse gas concentrations in the first place, in terms of affecting global temperature.

Basically, it's dwarfed by other factors.

[Reason]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=220858

mmkay

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_sd4aOA0Ur-I/SxR9UFvs25I/AAAAAAAAIv0/hwQg_ikvibg/PaperClipMan_thumb%5B3%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

[BenIsForRon]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

it's merging with the collective consciousness, so that we can enter the 4th dimension

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.

Well, right now it is cooling in the northern hemisphere. It will begin warming again in a couple of months.

[dannno]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.

Well I was being sarcastic if that helps.

[Reason]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2432614&postcount=5

[tremendoustie]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.

Short term: Cooling. Long term: Warming. Longer long term: Cooling.

The climate is changing, like it always has, and always will. But, I'm sure these politicians would love to make the weather yet another reason for them to control our lives. Eventually, we can regress to total animism, or greek/roman theology, and make sacrifices to the politician gods of good weather so our crops will be bountiful, and we will not be beset by storms -- just as we already make sacrifices to the all seeing politician gods of safety, who will watch over us, and to the brilliant politician gods of wealth and interest rates, who will protect us from hardship.

Just as with the gods of old, if things go well, it's because of the gods. If things go badly, it's because you didn't sacrifice enough to the gods.

Terrorist attack? Clearly we need stronger homeland security and a more aggressive military. No terrorist attack? Thank homeland security and the aggressive military.

Depression? Not enough intervention by the Fed. No depression? Thank the intervention of the Fed.

And now, we have: Hurricanes? We need more environmental legislation. No hurricanes? Thank the environmental legislation.

[newbitech]

the earth (along with its atmosphere) reached thermal equilibrium with the heliosphere a long (llooonngg) time ago. Likewise, the heliosphere also reached thermal equilibrium with the interstellar medium a long (llooooongg) time ago. And in the other direction, the earth's core reached thermal equilibrium with the earth's atmosphere (including the surface where we live) a long (lloooongg) time ago.

All that being said, the energy gradient between all of these thermodynamic is in constant flux. In other words, the balancing act between thermal equilibrium and the energy gradient is always exchanging heat in one direction or the other (entropy). The function of temperature change over time divided by temperature at thermal equilibrium is corollary to the mass of the system multiplied by thermal equilibrium divided by the energy gradient between the two objects.

THAT being said, in any given system, two objects in thermal contact are said to be in thermal equilibrium when the energy gradient between the two is a ratio of 1/1 or just 1. In other words, no heat exchange.

So the evidence of global warming or cooling must be taken into context of the closed system as a whole in terms of thermal dynamics. If we are to say that the atmosphere is heating up, we must also say that "something" is cooling down. This is the law of entropy in thermal dynamics. The energy gradient therefor is the function of the heat gain or heat loss between those two objects.

Now again, which system are we looking at? For global warming to occur as observed in atmospheric (including surface) temperatures, we have to look at what the atmosphere comes into thermal contact with. There are two known possibilities in the physical world. Either the core of the earth, or the heliosphere.

Of these two possibilities, it is pretty easy to see which is more massive. Clearly, the mass of the earth's atmosphere is infinitesimal in relation to the mass of either of these two thermal conductors. From this, we can determine that ANY energy gradient within either thermal dynamic system (atmosphere and heliosphere) or (atmosphere and earths core) would also be infinitesimal . Restated, if the atmosphere is heating up because it is seeking thermal equilibrium with the heliosphere, then then level of heat loss to balance the energy gradient is itself infinitesimal. The same is true of the earth's core.

So, what is the corollary in either case? We would need to know the ratio of mass, or measure how massive the earth is and measure how massive the heliosphere it. Why is this important? Because if the earth's atmosphere is heating up (or cooling) then this means that either the heliosphere is heating up or the earth's core is heating up, or in reality, all of it is heating up at the same time. The mass is important, because even a slight gradient between the super-massive heliosphere OR massive earth core and the infinitesimal mass of the atmosphere would indicate a super-heating of the heliosphere or a heating of the earth's core (likely both).

What we know. We know that the earth's core is not heating to any large measurable degree at this point. We also know that it is not cooling. In other words the energy gradient between the atmosphere and the core is infinitesimally small if it exists at all. The fluctuations we see in temperature we see at local levels is not a consequence of the core heating, but rather uneven heating and cooling of the surface as the earth rotates on its axis. Even these surface gradients are very small and quickly reach equilibrium. For humans, these seem dramatic when in the morning the temperature is cold at 30 degrees F but a few hours later, thaw to 60 degrees F. Only to repeat the next day. This is direct evidence of the minuscule gradients we are talking about between the core and the atmosphere.

So the question, is the atmosphere heating or cooling really is the wrong question, because the thermodynamic system we are concerned has an infinitesimal energy gradient even in terms of just the core of the earth as part of that closed system.

What we really need to be concerned with besides if say, is the earth's core heating or cooling, is the more unknown question of, is the heliosphere heating or cooling?

Because of this, we have no way to observe the energy gradient between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, unless and until technology advances to the point where we can travel to the heliosheath (heliopasue) and report back in a scientifically timely manner. Voyager 1 launched in 1977 passed through the termination shock in 2004 and is currently traversing the heliosheath. Before we can even begin to study the energy gradient between the heliosphere and the interstellar medium, the probe needs to penetrate the heliopause and then traverse the bow shock and finally enter the interstellar medium and send back temperature readings.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Voyager_1_entering_heliosheath_region.jpg/300px-Voyager_1_entering_heliosheath_region.jpg

By the way, the energy gradient between the atmosphere and heliosphere, the energy exchange occurs between and around the magnetic poles. Path of least resistance. Any additional heat that we put off here on the surface is easily sucked up and dissipated by the heliosphere and the energy gradient conduit is through the north and south poles. Think back to ozone layer depletion. Why does the CO2 concentrations seem to move to the poles? No wonder the hockey stick is in the ice. =D

[paulitics]

Ok guys, I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of you: What is happening... is the earth cooling, or is it warming?

This is why I've never taken any of you deniers seriously, you have a different story every time you bring up the topic.

And anyone who uses the term denier should not be taken seriously in a debate. You aren't looking for a straight answer, or doing any independent research as suggested by the maturity of your posts, so why are you wasting people's time if you don't care to learn?

[BenIsForRon]

Skeptic, whatever, doesn't matter. My point is that I've seen the story changes from cooling... to warming by volcanoes... to cooling... to warming from sunspots. You guys need to get your story straight.

[MN Patriot]

Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but it is a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere, vastly dominated by water vapor, for example, which is also a greenhouse gas, and of which there is 20 times more. In addition, solar variations and other effects are likely much more powerful than greenhouse gas concentrations in the first place, in terms of affecting global temperature.

Basically, it's dwarfed by other factors.

Here is something that nobody has mentioned: increased water vapor from irrigation. Fly across country and look at all the green circles on the ground in parts of the country where everything else is brown. Most of the water that is pumped up from the aquifers evaporates. Then it probably contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect.

So I propose that humanity outlaw irrigation. The sooner the better, we can't wait any longer. Polar bears are dying as we dilly dally.

[tremendoustie]

Skeptic, whatever, doesn't matter. My point is that I've seen the story changes from cooling... to warming by volcanoes... to cooling... to warming from sunspots. You guys need to get your story straight.

The reason the cooling-warming point has changed is that the average surface temperature has been decreasing since 1998, and of course it take a couple years to recognize it as a trend.

All the other effects you describe are more significant than Co2, so all those points are valid.

As someone said, you need to do your own research, you can't just listen to people from both sides, much less make a decision based on whose message is most consistent. Indeed, a stubborn lie is often more simple and unchanging than the truth.