My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius.

I doubt you’ll ever get an exact answer to this question, because the conditions it describes are so unlikely to ever occur that it’s of little importance.

However, it’s not hard to arrive at a reasonable approximation. Rephrasing the question from speaking of average temperature, which is problematic to define and measure, to the temperature of a tropical island such as one of the Hawaiian islands, we can take the daytime high (about 30 C) and drop in temperature that normally occurs when the sun “turns off” there over roughly a 12 hour period each night (5 to 10 C) to reach an estimate of 72 to 36 hours (30•12÷5 to 30•12÷10). Noting that nearly all (99.978%) of the Earth’s power comes from the Sun (ie: Earth’s power budget), that there’s not much difference between 273 and 303 K, and that atmospheric heat travels much more slowly than the Earth rotates, we can reasonably ignore other sources of power, non-linear temperature effects, and day/night heat transfer for an approximation of this order. Because 30 to 0 C is within the normal range of temperatures on Earth, we can ignore the possibility of significant phase transition effects.

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

The question is not a climate question, because the sun being turned off or disappearing is not within the realm of reasonably likely climate-effecting occurrences. Though interesting and easy, it requires no knowledge of climate beyond the data above and assumptions above. In short, it can be answered by a simple and reasonable extension of empirical data.

[Flying Binghi]

That's because it's irrelevant to this thread, they already DID respond to this silliness pages and pages ago, you're sidetracking from the fact that you don't want to answer questions about the basic physics and Radiative Forcing Equation above, and are basically an internet troll diverting us into la la land while not engaging the actual material being presented here.

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW

They know what Co2 does by measuring the way it refracts various spectra of energy in a lab, and this is repeatable, demonstrable, testable, falsifiable science — and it is confirmed all the time

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW




Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

I have attempted to answer this already, the question come very close to being nonsensical. if the sun were to disappear or the Earth was magically transported to interstellar space which would be the same thing, the planets temp would drop immediately 0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most depending on how far from the ocean you were. Inland the temps would continue to drop and with a few weeks be way below zero like the dry valleys of Antarctica in the winter. areas near the ocean or over the ocean would drop much slower due to the energy content of the ocean but once the oceans were frozen over the temps would fall fast. with a year or two at the most after the ocean froze over O2 and N2 would rain or snow out of the atmosphere. with a few years the earth would have a thin tenuous atmosphere of helium and hydrogen.

[Moontanman]

here is my original answer to your question.

Earth's temp without the sun would be about 33K The Earth generates enough energy from the nuclear reactor at it's core to main tian this over millions of years. How fast it would get there is difficult to figure. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4C would take several weeks at least then the oceans would slowly drop as the ocean radiated it's stored heat. it might take a few years for the entire surface of the planet to drop to 0C but then the temps would start to drop faster due to no more water vapor and the reflective nature of all the ice. When all the CO2 froze out the temps would start to drop even faster. N2 would rain out then O2 would go from vapor to ice like CO2. 33K might take a few years to some decades but it would happen. Venus would loose it's atmosphere somewhat slower at first but once the CO2 began to rain out the temps would drop as fast as the earths.

You have to understand these would be averages, extremes would exist immediately if the sun vanished, some places would be 100 below in a few days other places would drop much slower due to local conditions.

[Eclipse Now]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW

Yeah, exactly, the thread is about AGW not the sun going out!

It's been answered time and again, and again, and AGAIN above.

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

Blaaaragh! Do some reading for crying out loud, and actually ENGAGE the real world of facts and data.

Also FB you need to deal with spectroscopy and the Radiative Forcing Equation, and I'd also like a reply on the other reasons we need to wean off ff's.

1. Economic security as fossil fuels peak and then start to decline in production
2. We are changing the climate
3. National security
4. Health concerns

(Sorry to other forum members for losing my temper in this original post. However, I really would love it if FB were forced to answer some of our questions and acknowledge that his thing about the sun going out has been answered repeatedly.)

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would.

The 'hockey stick' does not claim anything about the future, it is a measurement of the past.
We may be able to extrapolate the it will continue unless something changes. However, even in that, it is not a smooth graph. There are ups and downs throughout the past, as there is likely to be in the future.
The overall trend though is going in a concerning direction.
You are acting as if someone told you CO2 was the only thing that affects temperature. If someone did, you shouldn't believe them. Fortunately very few people (other than perhaps Rush Limbaugh) are under that impression.
Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:
A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)
B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.
C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

[Eclipse Now]

A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)
B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.
C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it?

Nice summary, but don't count on any answers. I've been putting a similar question to FB for months. Let me anticipate the response.

FB: "But I wanted to talk about what happens when the sun goes out! You see, I want to maintain some false indignity that no one has answered my questions about the SUN GOING OUT!"

We then answer and remind FB of the 3 Co2 basics above, and FB replies:

"Look, big shiny thing over there to distract you!" or "Some patronising nasty thing about Al Gore" or "Look at my patronising annoying signature some more".

[Essay]

I'm a couple of pages behind....

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

This is a worring article.
From my reading of it seems we have bugger-all idea about CO2, how much there is , wher it goes, how it is stored etc.
Maybe I need to read it again
What do you get from a reading of it?

Scholars and Rogues The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

It's a pretty neat news article, ...if you already know what they are talking about; but if you're trying to learn something new, or when it comes to their conclusions, you need to double check with real science.

The thing that gets me about denialists is that whenever they learn about some new refinement in the science, or discover one themselves, it gets touted as some sort of evidence that the whole of climate science is somehow tainted, conspiratorial, or otherwise invalidated.

That "Scholars and Rogues" news article is a good example.

This "half-life" thing with CO2 may be partly the fault of the IPCC's media abilities, but it's not as if the scientist don't understand that CO2's "half-life" in the atmosphere isn't some intrinsic property of the molecule. They know CO2's half-life is a function of the planet's metabolic (and geologic) activity.

Tasked with determining the current value, they came up with a number that was published.
The media, and people, love to latch onto numbers.

That number keeps changing as we keep plowing more earth up ...and a zillion other factors; but that doesn't mean they were wrong the first time, or that the scientists don't know what is going on at all.

...and then after discussing the complexities of measuring the "half life," this article concludes:
"The first thing is that a short-term removal of CO2 from the air by plants and the ocean on very short time scales (5-50 years) is not the dominant factor in what controls how fast CO2 is returned to the earth from whence it came - chemical processes that operate on geologic time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years are the dominant factor." -S&R

Their conclusion is based on taking this snapshot of a description for CO2's current "half life," and assuming that is the whole story, with no past history or evolution.
Does anybody else see the logic in their conclusion?
I don't. I see a different conclusion.
"Short-term removal of CO2 ...is not the dominant factor" ANYMORE, THESE DAYS (due to human influences),
BUT it easily could be shifted to again become a dominant factor in returning CO2 "to the earth from whence it came."
===

Some other comments on that Scholars & Rogues article:

"Vegetation absorbs CO2 the fastest, but it’s also one of the least well understood." -S&R
Huh? Compared to what?

"...a certain percentage of the emitted CO2 will persist effectively forever." -S&R
Yes, and so... what's the point here? That's part of the definition of "half life."
Again, it's made to sound as if the scientists were wrong, or didn't know what was going on.

"The third thing to realize is that it may not be possible to return to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations without developing cost-effective absorption technology or radically altering land use to absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible." -S&R
This was a great sentence, and I couldn't agree more!!!
But why does this sound like the final blow in some argument that CO2 is an unfathomable, unmanageable problem?

Maybe the article is not as negative as it seems to sound:
It does end with the sentence,
"This conclusion reinforces the importance of CO2, and of CO2 emission reduction, with respect to climate disruption." -S&R

~

p.s. ...but I'll try to catch up.

[Flying Binghi]

I have attempted to answer this already, the question come very close to being nonsensical. if the sun were to disappear or the Earth was magically transported to interstellar space which would be the same thing, the planets temp would drop immediately 0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most depending on how far from the ocean you were. Inland the temps would continue to drop and with a few weeks be way below zero like the dry valleys of Antarctica in the winter

You have to understand these would be averages, extremes would exist immediately if the sun vanished, some places would be 100 below in a few days other places would drop much slower due to local conditions.

Moontanman, "0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most " is a little vague...... .......winds ?

The 'hockey stick' does not claim anything about the future, it is a measurement of the past.
We may be able to extrapolate the it will continue unless something changes. However, even in that, it is not a smooth graph. There are ups and downs throughout the past, as there is likely to be in the future.
The overall trend though is going in a concerning direction.

Zythryn, in the land of Oz, we are about to shoot ourselves in the foot re CO2 - thats my interest.

[Eclipse Now]

I'll just point out that I you replied pretty much exactly as I predicted in post 1017. However, you still haven't done your homework FB.

Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:
A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)
B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.
C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

I'm personally looking forward to our fine land leaving fossil fuels, especially oil, for clean, green electrons. Then we'll finally be free of our cancer causing, climate changing, economically vulnerable oil dependency and moving into the "electron transport economy" so that we'll never be impacted by oil shocks or have to "bring democracy" to another oil exporting nation ever again.