Apparently you can't read it, since you said it only went up to the Year 2000. I don't really see how pointing out that the grapg goes beyond 2000 is "putting a slant on it." Seems like a rather simple statement of fact to me.
Canada ranked near last place on emissions
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Apparently you can't read it, since you said it only went up to the Year 2000. I don't really see how pointing out that the grapg goes beyond 2000 is "putting a slant on it." Seems like a rather simple statement of fact to me.
The greenwash refers to the fact that this government prolifically makes announcements about action on AGW, while not really doing much to live up to these commitments. Saying one thing and doing another doesn't seem a very honest way to go about things.
The lithosphere. If GHG theory is correct, the warming should be near the surface with a subsequent cooling in the higher levels (the stratosphere) in order to maintain the energy balance.
Yes that's right, sorry. The troposphere--the part of the atmosphere closest to the surface.
You'd think that would be the case wouldn't you but it's not. Shop around a little and find out how much of the total atmospheric warming is above the mesosphere which is super freakin' cold.
So what I've heard is that the tropospehere warms (CO2 reflecting heat back towards the surface so it has a little more difficulty reaching space) and that the stratosphere cools (in order to balance the energy of increased heat near the surface). I just learned that there is a significant amount of startospheric cooling due to loss of ozone (which, like CO2 is a greenhouse gas).
The numbers go to 2000. Anything beyond that point is called projections. If those were real numbers past 2000 then the last date on the graph would be 2010. Didn't you learn anything in business class?
I know how the theory works in a jar.
Is the +0.5C just the troposphere or the entire atmosphere as a whole?
The +0.5 is supposed to be just the troposphere. It's essetnially a surface / near-surface reaction. Shortwave radiation from the Sun hits the planet's surface where it turns to longwave radaition (given its properties as a partial blackbody). The longwave radiation would then careen off into space, no problem. This is why the moon cools down so much at night. There's no atmosphere and all that longwave radaition goes off immediately into space. However on Earth, it doesn't go down to -200 at night.
The theory is that greenhouse gases, notably water but also CO2, absorbs the longwave radiation that's heading out, and redirects about half of it back to the surface of the earth. Where it is subsequently reradiated. This delays things near the surface which warms up the surface but results in cooling in the upper levels (since you can't just "create" heat from nothing, you have to have cooling elsewhere to balance).
From what I gather we've measured an increase in tropospheric temperatures, and we've measured a cooling in the stratosphere.
The theory is that if you add CO2, you increase the amount of spacebound longwave radiation refelcted back to Earth. About 1 deg C for every doubling of CO2 (since it's a logarithmic relationship).
The theory doesn't work in a jar. That's part of the problem. As soon as you stick it into a jar, you've put the gas in a vessel that is transparent to optical light but more opaque to infrared. Also, a jar doesn't let convection happen.
Supposed to? Why aren't you confident it's just the troposphere?
We don't live in a jar in space. The theory works perfectly in a static situation but not a dynamic situation like earth.
I'm not completely confident about anything. I like to think of myself as an emipirical skeptic. That is, all my beliefs are conditional upon better evidence.
As stated, GHG theory doesn't work in a jar. You can demonstrate it with an infrared thermometer, as discussed by Dr. Roy Spencer (a GHG skeptic, I might add)...Hey, School Teachers: Those Greenhouse Effect Experiments Are Junk « Roy Spencer, PhD
If you are going to dismiss GHG theory, then to my mind, you have explain why the earth doesn't get down to temperatures near absolute zero at night, like evidence indicates happens on the moon and other bodies with not enough mass to accumulate much of an atmosphere.
Secondly, you have to explain where the currently tyheory is wrong. You can used spectroscopy to show the wavelentgths that CO2 absorbs in. Spectroscopy has been demonstrated many milliojns of times. It's what we use to determine the make-up other atmospheres and stars.
The same reason you don't just come out and say what you really mean/feel, you're both terrified of the outcome.
Chief Louie got the boot?
And stop being silly, you know I love pointing out your cowardice and hypocrisy every chance I get. Man, your memory has gotten bad since you caught that train, lolz.
This is the first time that I have heard that 'greenwashing' in reference to a gvt policy (or spin).
More often than not, it was a reference to the initiatives, spin and marketing employed by the various eco-lobbies.