Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
David-acct at 12:32 PM on 24 December 2024Uruguay, pioneer in renewable energy: a model for the world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
fwiw - Uruguay per capita electric consumption is approx 35-40% of the US per capita electric consumption. Per capita electric generation in Uruguay from Wind & hydro is actually reasonably close to the per capita electric generation from wind and hydro in the US.
Along those lines, One thing worth noting in Jacobson's 100% renewable studies is the projected increase in electric usage in many of underdeveloped countries is reasonably close to projected population increases with little increase in per capita electric usage as those countries experience industrial and modern world development. See Jacobson's supplemental schedules.
-
scaddenp at 06:05 AM on 23 December 2024Fact brief - Are we heading into an 'ice age'?
For an "Historian", Adrian seems strangely challenged in checking the validity of his sources.
-
nigelj at 05:04 AM on 23 December 2024Fact brief - Are we heading into an 'ice age'?
The Time magazine cover from 1977 featuring a photo of a penguin with the headline, “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age” was a fake:
apnews.com/article/fact-check-time-magazine-global-climate-fabricated-cover-944714514495
In the 1970s a small number of scientists thought there might be a flat or cooling trend in coming decades but the majority of published research around the 1940s - 1970s predicted there would be a global warming trend in coming decades (which there was)
skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
I actually did a couple of papers in physical geography at university back in the early 1980s. One of the textbooks was Atmosphere ,Weather and Climate by Barry and Chorley, a 1971 edition, and the chapter on climate change did not say the scientific community was predicting a coming cooling trend or ice age. It said global temperatures had been flat from the 1940s to 1970, and it was uncertain what would happen in the coming decades. I still have this textbook.
Moderator Response:[BL] You are responding to a comment from AdriantheHistorian that has had its contents deleted. Although all you may have seen was "text", his last two comments consisted of links to images that were the result of web searches. Rather than actually bothering to type the contents, or get a direct link to an image, he has simply put the web search into his comment.
For other readers, AdriantheHIstorian has been repeating myths about the 1970s cooling trends.
-
AdriantheHistorian at 02:01 AM on 23 December 2024Fact brief - Are we heading into an 'ice age'?
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
[snip]
The New Ice Age was Promoted and a 'Fact' back in the 1970's to get President Nixion to Create the EPA. Enviromental Protection Agency.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a708972a8ba8ce15990b406eec8dd8eeef261a471c38752311e038ee709c5666JmltdHM9MTczNDgyNTYwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=1c8ee8b9-4b23-6ade-3488-fbd14a996bb8&u=a1L2ltYWdlcy9zZWFyY2g_cT1waWN0dXJlcytzaG93aW5nK3RpbWUrbWFnYXppbmUrY292ZXJzK3dpdGgrdGhlK25ldytpY2UrYWdlJnFwdnQ9cGljdHVyZXMrc2hvd2luZyt0aW1lK21hZ2F6aW5lK2NvdmVycyt3aXRoK3RoZStuZXcraWNlK2FnZSZGT1JNPUlHUkU&ntb=1
Moderator Response:[BL] Also material previously posted and deleted by a moderator.
Your unsupported assertions are a violation of the Comments Policy. As is posting links without an explanation of what they contain. And a link that is a search will change contents over time (and likely change depending on who does it) and is particularly useless as supporting evidence of your claim.
No link or picture only. Any link or picture should be accompanied by text summarizing both the content of the link or picture, and showing how it is relevant to the topic of discussion. Failure to do both of these things will result in the comment being considered off topic.
-
AdriantheHistorian at 01:49 AM on 23 December 2024Fact brief - Are we heading into an 'ice age'?
[snip]
Moderator Response:[BL] Empty, incorrect claims without supporting evidence.
The deleted contents represented a link to a web search of images, and is unacceptable content.
-
AdriantheHistorian at 01:32 AM on 23 December 2024Fact brief - Are we heading into an 'ice age'?
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
[snip]
TODAY!......... Climate Shift. ..??.. DID the “NEW ICE AGE”, Climate Fanatics of the 1970’s CAUSE the so-called, “Climate Shift” Crises of Today?
(Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion)
Story by Sascha Pare 12-19-2024Sprinkling diamond dust into the atmosphere could offset almost all the warming caused by humans since the industrial revolution and "buy us some time" with climate change, scientists say.
[This is Funny as the ''Climate Craze'' back in the 1970's was the New Ice Age..... Yes ''they'' said that Pollution (partials) were being thrown up into the upper atmosphere and causing the suns light to be reflected back into space., This was causing a New Ice Age to destroy the Earth.
Note; To STOP this New Ice Age, the USA went 'seriously' into protecting the 'Environment' way back in the 1970's with President Nixon signing the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) into law.
Today the USA only produces as much steel as it did in 1950, this is as an example of those EPA efforts.
High Gas Prices?.. EPA will Not allow a New Oil refinery to be built in America.
Etc. Etc.
And this is also a major reason for the loss of Millions of very good paying jobs, I might add. 'clean', comes with a very steep 'price'.]Continued.
New research indicates that shooting 5.5 million tons (5 million metric tons) of diamond dust into the stratosphere every year could cool the planet by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) thanks to the gems' reflective properties. This extent of cooling would go a long way to limiting global warming that began in the second half of the 19th century and now amounts to about 2.45 F (1.36 C), according to NASA.
The research contributes to a field of geoengineering that's looking for ways to fight climate change by reducing the amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun.https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/scientists-say-sprinkling-diamond-dust-into-the-sky-could-offset-almost-all-of-climate-change-so-far-but-it-ll-cost-175-trillion/ar-AA1w6MuP?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=2dfb5c2f1669448799854ec819ce98bf&ei=43
Moderator Response:[BL] Reposting stuff that has already been cut out by moderators is a violation of the comments policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
prove we are smart at 10:55 AM on 20 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
Since my opinion is in agreement with Evan, I too hope we are both wrong.
"When humans stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the climate will stop warming." Not just keep co2 emissions from increasing but stop any GHG pollution entering our air.
Here is part of why I think "committed warming" is the real world norm.
Take for example the USA,www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters while its per capita co2 emissions has peaked, historically this one country has put 25% of the co2 in our atmosphere! It is number 2 in the current yearly co2 emitters and to get some perspective-this is the equivalent to the mass of 6,300+ small cars x a million in this year alone!
The worst top three add 46% of climate change pollutants with the worst 10 making this amount to over 66%.
I'm tired of the hopium of scaled co2 "scrubbers", of a wake-up of humanity and forcing our leaders to think decades ahead and to get the transition moving more quickly.
The map for 2017 ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2 shows the large inequalities of contribution across the world that the first treemap visualization has shown. The USA has emitted the most to date: more than a quarter of all historical CO2 — twice that of China, which is the second largest contributor.
In contrast, most countries across Africa have been responsible for less than 0.01% of all emissions over the last 266 years.
What becomes clear when we look at emissions across the world today is that the countries with the highest emissions over history are not always the biggest emitters today. The UK, for example, was responsible for only 1% of global emissions in 2017. Reductions here will have a relatively small impact on emissions at the global level – or at least fall far short of the scale of change we need. This creates tension with the argument that the largest contributors in the past should be those doing the most to reduce emissions today. This is because a large fraction of CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years once emitted.3
This inequality is one of the main reasons why it’s so challenging to find international agreement on who should take action.
I think future warming is inevitable because of our flawed human nature..
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:01 AM on 20 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
AdriantheHistorian @4,
In addition to reviewing the comments policy, the SkS home page helpfully offers 3 big boxes near the top for people who are relatively unaware or lack a reasonable understanding of the issue:
- Newcomers, start here
- History of Climate Science
- The Big Picture
A very helpful part of the Newcomers, start here page (linked here) is the section: Good starting points for newbies.
After becoming more familiar with the issue you should understand and appreciate the lack of legitimacy, lack of merit, lack of value, of the beliefs you shared in your comment @4.
Obvious questions about constantly pumping massive amounts of diamond dust, or other materials, into the atmosphere are:
- How sustainable is the activity? (how long could it be done?)
- Who will pay for the action? (the people who are the richest today because of the past pumping of ghgs into the atmosphere should)
- What potential harm could be caused? (any potential for harm to be caused by an attempt to counteract another harmful action points back to the need to stop the original harmful action - not add harm by claiming it is the way to deal with harm done)
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 20 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
AdriantheHistorian said: "Today the USA only produces as much steel as it did in 1950, this is as an example of those EPA efforts."
Not necessarilly. This is from "History of the iron and steel industry in the United States" on Wikipedia: "US production of iron and steel peaked in 1973, when the US industry produced a combined total of 229 million metric tons of iron and steel. But US iron and steel production dropped drastically during the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s. From a combined iron and steel production of 203 million tons in 1979, US output fell almost in half, to 107 million tons in 1982. Some steel companies declared bankruptcy, and many permanently closed steelmaking plants. By 1989, US combined iron and steel production recovered to 142 million tons, a much lower level than in the 1960s and 1970s. The causes of the sudden decline are disputed. Among the many causes alleged have been: dumping of foreign imports below cost, high labor costs, poor management, unfavorable tax policies, and costs of environmental controls."
It seems most likely that the EPA contributed to a relatively small part of the stagnation in steel production if anything. I think is a price worth paying to look after the environment and have clean air and water and so forth. It's a values issue.
-
AdriantheHistorian at 01:36 AM on 20 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
Skeptical Science asks that you review the comments policy. Thank you.
[snip]
TODAY!......... Climate Shift. ..??.. DID the Climate Fanatics of the 1970’s CAUSE the Climate Crises of Today?
Funny as the ''Climate Craze'' back in the 1970's was the New Ice Age..... Yes ''they'' said that Pollution (partials) were being thrown up into the upper atmosphere and causing the suns light to be reflected back into space., This was causing a New Ice Age to destroy the earth.(Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion)
Story by Sascha Pare 12-19-2024Today those same people (Rainmakers) are selling yet another climate ''Crises''.
Note; To STOP this New Ice Age, the USA went 'seriously' into protecting the 'Environment' way back in the 1970's with President Nixon signing the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) into law.
Today the USA only produces as much steel as it did in 1950, this is as an example of those EPA efforts.
High Gas Prices?.. EPA will Not allow a New Oil refinery to be built in America.
And this is also a major reason for the loss of Millions of very good paying jobs, I might add. 'clean', comes with a very steep 'price'.
Even IF the ‘Clean’ is ONLY here and all that pollution was just Moved to China, along with all the Jobs.
Good thing we don’t use the same Air as the Chinese. Otherwise it would ALL have been a waste of time and Money.TODAY!......... Climate Shift. ..??.. DID the Climate Fanatics of the 1070 CAUSE the Climate Crises of Today?
(Scientists say sprinkling diamond dust into the sky could offset almost all of climate change so far — but it'll cost $175 trillion)
Story by Sascha Pare 12-19-2024Sprinkling diamond dust into the atmosphere could offset almost all the warming caused by humans since the industrial revolution and "buy us some time" with climate change, scientists say.
New research indicates that shooting 5.5 million tons (5 million metric tons) of diamond dust into the stratosphere every year could cool the planet by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) thanks to the gems' reflective properties. This extent of cooling would go a long way to limiting global warming that began in the second half of the 19th century and now amounts to about 2.45 F (1.36 C), according to NASA.
The research contributes to a field of geoengineering that's looking for ways to fight climate change by reducing the amount of energy reaching Earth from the sun.https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/scientists-say-sprinkling-diamond-dust-into-the-sky-could-offset-almost-all-of-climate-change-so-far-but-it-ll-cost-175-trillion/ar-AA1w6MuP?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=2dfb5c2f1669448799854ec819ce98bf&ei=43
Moderator Response:[BL] Apart from getting facts wrong, this is essentially yet another uninformed political rant.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nigelj at 07:14 AM on 19 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
My understanding is that the committed / equilibrium warming is apparently zero, provided emissions drop abruptly to zero in some given year, as opposed to trailing off slowly (?). But it very unlikely that emissions will abruptly drop to zero, so for all practical purposes we have some committed warming!
However assuming purely for the sake of argument that the committed warming is Hansens 10 degrees, that will take many thousands of years to evolve and so won't affect humanity significantly for a very long time, so its not a reason for us to give up on reducing emissions.
I hear what Evan is saying. There is perhaps also a tendency for people to assume things like emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes are fixing the problem when they are not doing this adequately. However counter balancing this people must also be aware progess reducing emissions is going too slowly, given its been in the media often enough. So I'm not sure that too many people would assume the problem is being adequately solved.
Evan says "The message is also that any level of emissions is bad, and that we need to do all that we can to reduce GHG emissions."
Exactly.
-
Evan at 22:29 PM on 18 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
The message that I prefer to give people is this.
"The current CO2 concentration is 420 ppm. That concentration is sufficient to warm the planet to 1.7C if we don't bring it down. Every time we emit CO2 we are actively destroying Earth's life-support systems. We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible and to support local, national, and global initiatives that do that."
This is a message that is consistent with climate science and refers people back to the Keeling Curve to monitor how we're doing. If 420 ppm is enough to take us to 1.7C, then anything higher will take us to a higher temperature. The message is also that any level of emissions is bad, and that we need to do all that we can to reduce GHG emissions.
-
Evan at 22:05 PM on 18 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
Although I agree with the theoretical aspects of no warming after reaching net-0 emissions, the danger I see with the underlying message in this paper is that we are broadcasting the concept that the future is in our hands. This is not only an arrogant position, but may backfire. The average person is not reading SkS and is not grounded in legitimate climate science, but may be getting a fuzzy, positive feeling when they see the number of solar panels, wind turbines, and EVs on the road increasing. They see what looks like great progress deploying renewable energy and EVs, and therefore conclude wrongly that we're decreasing CO2 emissions, and so now can relax and rest assured that the future will be fine. As long as they continue to see the deployment of renewable energy projects and EVs, they are satisfied that we are doing what is needed. Now that we've got the climate back on track, let's go elect leaders to get the economy back on track.
This at a time when CO2 concentrations are increasing at a rate of 2.5 ppm/year and fossil-fuel use continues to increase year after year.
In my opinion it will never work to broadcast that the future is in our hands and that we just need to get to Net-0 emissions to stabilize the climate. The message is arrogant and really just a concept that we cannot possibly hope to effectively quantify. In my opinion, achieving it will require more than we've ever demonstrated we're capable of.
I hope my opinion is wrong!
Having said this, I'm still not sure what the best messaging is. I think what SkS is doing is critically important because it is helping people understand what is happening and why. So I offer my comments in an effort to put the message of this paper into context and to temper what I see as an overly optimistic message.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:46 AM on 18 December 2024How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?
Bob Loblaw,
I like the point about 2 + 2 = 5 potentially being valid depending on the details.
However, that 'unusual scientifically accurate point' does not mean that '2 + 2 = Whatever you wish' in spite of some people's belief that everything is just matters of Opinion and every Opinion is equally valid. Independently verifiable evidence reduce the range of valid Opinions.
My pet peeve is that, in spite of all serious scientists abandoning the use of archaic units of measurement decades ago, some archaic units continue to be popular enough in the general population of some regions of the planet that many reporters feel obliged to include conversions to the archaic units.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:58 PM on 17 December 2024How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?
...and "around 3C" could be anywhere from 2.5C (4.5F) to 3.5C (6.5F), so "around 5F" is a reasonable approximation to "around 3C", provided we're not on the high end of "around 3C".
It's like the old saying: 2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2. (Try 2.4 + 2.4.) Uncertainty ranges are important.
...but my pet peeve - a battle lost decades ago - is for the use of "5 degrees Celsius" as a descriptor for a temperature change. A temperature difference is "5 Celsius degrees". "5 degrees Celsius" is a single point on the scale. 5 degrees Celsius is 5 Celsius degrees colder than 10 degrees Celsius.
-
BaerbelW at 15:58 PM on 17 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
dorfline @1
Thanks for your feedback! The categorization simply happens via a drop down in the Google form used to collect articles for sharing, so is down to whatever the person submitting the form selects from the options given in the form. This can obviously be manually corrected later. In earlier editions of this roundup, we mention that we employed ChatGPT and/or Gemini to generate categorized listings, so some of them are based on those exercises. Some others were suggested in comments to the postings.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:25 PM on 17 December 2024How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?
My mental math late at night is not too sharp.
3 C x 1.8 = 5.4 F (still rounds to 5 F)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:23 PM on 17 December 2024How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?
hig314 @1,
The stated temperatures are correct (correct enough).
A 1 degree celsius 'change of temperature' is exactly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So a change of 15 C x 1.8 = 27 F (exactly) and 3 C x 1.8 = 4.8 F (rounds to 5 F).
You are probably thinking of the 'equivalent temperature' values which are based on 0 C = 32 F (exactly) and 100 C = 212 F (exactly).
-
hig314 at 13:54 PM on 17 December 2024How much should you worry about a collapse of the Atlantic conveyor belt?
Some celcius - fareignheit conversions need correcting (feel free to delete this comment, I just wanted to let you know.) "The average February temperature plummeted by a bone-chilling 15 degrees Celsius (27 degrees Fahrenheit) in London and by around 3°C (5°F) across the mid-Mississippi Valley of the United States."
-
dorfline at 07:57 AM on 17 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50
I prefer the news organized by category. Do you have any material explaining how the categories were decided upon? Is this a categorization that is "accepted" as appropriate by other groups? Thanks
-
Eclectic at 08:08 AM on 16 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
My apologies, Moderator, for my clumsy communication. The aim was to point out the colossal temporal difference in orders of magnitude between the molecular/photonic interplays versus the meteorological layers of the atmosphere . . . was a difference so vast that it left no room for prevarications by poster CallItAsItIs about "equilibrium" being present or not present.
Far more delightful was Philippe's [@865] metaphor about the "stationary" wheel rolling down the road. ( Just so long as Philippe avoids mentioning that smoky second of impact when the landing wheels touch down on the runway! )
Moderator Response:No problem. The moderator comment was intended to put some additional numbers on the picture.
The 10us for relaxation time can be used to estimate the total temperature change that occurs in the time scale of reference. For example, at a rate of 0.2C/decade for global warming, we would expect that to contribute 0.02C/year, or 0.000055C/day, or 6.3x10-10C per second, or 6.3x10-13C/millisecond, or 6.3x10-15C in 10 us.
But apparently there are people in this world that think that a changing climate with a temperature change of 6.3x10-15C is not close enough to zero.
It is not pragmatic to be measuring with a micrometer, marking with chalk, and cutting with an axe.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:00 AM on 16 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
This is getting really goofy. Radiative transfer has been worked out by very qualified people and has produced very precise models that have been extensively validated by measurements. These results allow for IR weapon guidance from sea level through 60,000 ft and even higher, have countless other scientific and engineering applications. That ship has sailed and is navigating commercially. I see someone arguing that a wheel can't work because there is no relative motion between the wheel and the ground where they contact, then trying to reinvent the wheel, and having no success whatsoever. It has become tedious and painful to watch.
-
MA Rodger at 00:16 AM on 16 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @862,
May I "call it as it is"?
This becomes farcical.
Whatever the derivation of Schwarzschild's equation, we expect you to use it to demonstrate your proposed IR extinction phenomenon mathematically. I do not see where Kirchoff's Law would be required for such a mathematiacl exercise.
Schwarzschild's equation is expressed thus
dIλ/ds = nσλ[Bλ(t)-Iλ]
where
Bλ(t) = [(2h.c^2)/λ^5] x 1/[e^(hc/kBt -1)]
and we can assume a constant lapse rate thus a linear relationship between t = Ls. And as all of these other factors are constants, the solution is hardily difficult!!Moderator Response:Alas, what we "expect" is for CallItAsItIs to continue to dodge and weave and make excuses to not demonstrate his proposed IR extinction phenomenon mathematically, So his time here at SkS is over.
Addendum: there have been many references to the Wikipedia page on Schwarzschild's equation. One of the references it uses is a very good post over at Science of Doom. That post has lots of graphics and explanations of what "climate science" actually does (which is quite different from CallItAsItIs's fictional parallel universe version). It also provides comparisons between theoretical calculations and measurements. At one point, that post states:
Now it’s not a calculation you can do in your head, or on a pocket calculator. Which is why the many people writing poetry on this subject are usually wrong. If someone reaches a conclusion and it isn’t based on solving the equations shown above in the RM Goody section then it’s not reliable. And, therefore, poetry.
When CallItAsItIs gets his poetry published in a respected scientific journal, it might be worth taking another look.
Further addendum: From the Conclusion of the Science of Doom page:
Calculations of radiation through the atmosphere do require consideration of absorption AND emission. The formal radiative transfer equations for the atmosphere are not innovative or in question – they are in all the textbooks and well-known to scientists in the field.
Experimental results closely match theory – both in total flux values and in spectral analysis. This demonstrates that radiative transfer is correctly explained by the standard theory.
-
Eclectic at 23:13 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs :-
Allow me to add a naive summation of thermal equilibrium and the many thousands of meter-deep (or centimeter-deep, if your calculation prefers) layers of air that compose the troposphere.
During each 24 hours, in all parts of the planetary troposphere, there are local temperature variations of many degrees Celsius (owing to convectional, advectional, and diurnal changes ).
And yet (A) the vertical transmissions of IR radiation between top & bottom of each tropospheric column are effectuated over the order of 1 second . . . and yet (B) the climatic warming rate for the past half-century is approximately 0.5 degreesC per 30 years.
It follows therefore, that your IR radiation calculations are ~ in practical terms ~ dealing with a thermal equilibrium situation, owing to the brevity of the time window involved (i.e. of 1 second) for neighbouring layers of air.
Your calculation is therefore simple ~ and without the need to get confused or agonize over the presence or absence of "equilibrium".
And yet, over 30 years [ 10 to the 9th power of seconds ] climatic changes are produced by alterations in levels of GreenHouse gasses ~ exactly as has been observed by the scientific studies.
Moderator Response:CalItAsItIs has been pointed to Eli Rabett's post on IR absorption and thermal relation several times. If you scroll down in that source, you will find the answer to the time scale at which the energy absorbed from an IR photon is lost via collision to other molecules:
The lifetime will be the reciprocal of this, 10-5 s or 10 us.
CallItAsItIs had absolutely no understanding of rates of change and how they are related to the various physical processes at play.
-
CallItAsItIs at 21:08 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown @825
Perhaps I should have made this clearer on my last posting, but your comment
CO2 molecules at a specified temperature absorb and emit photons equally ...
describes a very long-term steady state condition that the atmosphere tends toward on a time-scale of centuries, not years, and certainly not real time. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all the ups and downs that have occurred ever since temperatures were first recorded, and there certainly wouldn't be any worries over AGW.
Note to Moderator:
In view of this, could we please move on from holding me to the climate science version of "Kirchhoff's Law" which we know won't happen for a long, long time if ever
Moderator Response:Once again, your ignorance betrays you.
-
CallItAsItIs at 19:30 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Charlie_Brown @825
CO2 molecules at a specified temperature absorb and emit photons equally, else internal energy would be accumulating and temperature would be changing.
That's just it! Temperature is changing. That's what everyone here is so worried about.
Moderator Response:Your eternally-present lack of awareness of context serves to mislead you. In Schwartzschild's equation, for a given rate of absorption, there is one specific temperature (and only one) at which emission and absorption are equal. At any other temperature, they are not. This has been explained to you many times, and you have persisted in misinterpreting and misunderstanding those sources to create a fictional world of "Climate Science as seen by CallItAsItIs".
-
Tom Dayton at 18:49 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @ 859: The Moderator @ 855 explained the importance of local versus global. You did not understand. So I gave you an example of local versus global in a different domain, hoping that the different domain would break you out of your narrow perspective so you could understand local versus global more generally. I hoped you would then apply your new understanding of local versus global back to the thermal domain. Apparently I was mistaken.
Moderator Response:I'm afraid that the level of compartmentalization in CallItAsItIs's thinking is too strong.
-
CallItAsItIs at 18:29 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Tom Dayton @858
I believe you may have gotten confused as to which "Kirchhoff's Law" we are addressing on this page. What we are talking about is Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Radiation and not Kirchhoff's circuit laws where your link leads. But thanks for the effort.
-
Tom Dayton at 15:29 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs @857: Local versus global
-
CallItAsItIs at 14:29 PM on 15 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Response @856
All right, I'll take that "One last chance", but first I want to be sure we have things straight concerning Kirchhoff's Law. In comment 851 you stated
Given that Kirchoff's Law is an essential assumption behind the Schwartzschild equation (as has been explained to you previously), let it be known that any comment that claims to use the Schwartzschild equation without the use of Kirchoff's Law will be considered to be in error.
Now, as I have already explained (but you deleted), there are two versions of Kirchhoff's Law out there. One violates energy conservation and the other one doesn't, and I will be using the latter of the two. And if that's unacceptable to you, please speak up now! I will not be in a very good mood if I go to all the trouble of pulling this together only to be called a crackpot or accused of "reinventing science".
Moderator Response:Alas, you have chosen the path that will not allow you to continue in this forum.
To answer your question: the "second version of Kirchhoff's Law" that you refer to is a figment of your imagination. The fact that you believe in this figment of your imagination (among many) is the reason that you repeatedly fail to present any coherent, self-consistent explanation of atmospheric radiation transfer through a layer.
The fact that you see this figment, in spite of being pointed to many, many sources that explain the proper science to you, is a clear indicator that you way beyond your depth on this subject.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:18 AM on 15 December 2024Interview with John Cook about misinformation and artificial intelligence
Fairly sure that the same standards required by people dubious of masks would find no proof of benefit by supplying IC engines with air filters, as a formal matter.
In practice this is foolish formality.
-
CallItAsItIs at 22:18 PM on 14 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
- Response @855
CallitAsItIs seems quite happy to reject Kirchhoff's Law "because thermal equilibrium", but he does not reject Schwarzschild's equation for the same reason. Even though both of them require an assumption of "local thermodynamic equilibrium".
No! What I am rejecting is the climate science version of Kirchhoff's Law which says that for every photon absorbed, an identical one is emitted and vice versa, which is blatantly false! Also, a (false) implication of this "law" is absolutely rigid thermal equilibrium. Therefore, in using the climate science version of Kirchhoff's Law, we are assuming total equilibrium and not just local equilibrium. Additionally, it seems that this "law" is applied regardless of whether or not we have such equilibrium.
So, why is it that climate scientists are using this false version of Kirchhoff's Law? Well, you will have to ask them of course, but here is what I sense is happening. They need the extra photons predicted by this "law" in their model in order to predict CO2 greenhouse warming above what would otherwise be the extinction altitude. Also, it is the basis upon which they make arguments that it is energy exchanges in the higher altitudes rather than near the suface that are important for explaining climate change.
Now, I have explained these things already in previous posts, but you removed them! And it's not fair to delete my explanations and then accuse me of misunderstandings and inconsistencies when in fact I had already addressed them. So please — let's use some discretion about what's deleted so that I don't have to waste time re-posting stuff to answer peoples questions.
Response @855
So, if CallItAsItIs wants to convince anyone, he needs to put all his thoughts on this into one full, coherent, consistent explanation. Once he has written that to his own satisfaction, I hope he will re-read this entire comment thread and reflect on how each criticism he has already received applies to his explanation.
Actually, I've done this already. At this point, I have my arguments and equations pulled together but not yet quite ready for presentation. Over the last few days, I have searched for ways on how I might present this material, but haven't had any luck. BTW, what did you mean in 845 when you stated
Until such time as CallItAsItIS provides a numerical calculation of the purported effects he claims exist, and shows that it agrees with measurements, expect any and all comments from CallItAsItIs or reacting to him to be deleted.
Exactly how am I supposed to provide the material you requested? It would be impossible to post it directly onto this familiar Post-a-Comment page since my equations would have to be handled as images, and I would need at least 1200 pixels of resolution for my equations to render legibly. Post-a-Comment, however, only allows up to 450 pixels. Perhaps it would possible to submit a .pdf file to some hosting company from which SkS could access it, but I simply don't want the hassle of opening and maintaining such an account for a document that probably would not be up for long anyway. What I am willing to do, however, is to write up my results as a .pdf document and email or ftp this .pdf file to an address you provide. You can use the email address associated with my SkS account if you would like to contact me regarding this possibility.
Finally, I should add that I doubt that you or anyone else at SkS will like my results. Basically, I show rigorously from the Schwarzschild equation that I have been correct all along in my claims about CO2 absorption band saturation. Also, I resolved comments made by MA Rodger @849 about some "extra source of excited CO2". So, if you believe I am a crackpot, please send me the appropriate contact info and I will send you a .pdf file of my work so that your "scientific" staff can take some more "pot shots" at it. If, however, you don't want to risk the possibility of bad news about me being right, then don't send the contact info.
[snip]
Moderator Response:One last chance. The only post you will be allowed to make is one that explains your "model" in detail. The next non-response to this request will result in your account being blocked. Your tireless, empty assertions of having an alternate explanation for radiative transfer equations will only be believed if you actually present such an explanation, in full.
The only conclusion that we can draw at this point is that you actually cannot provide such an explanation.
-
Riduna at 11:16 AM on 14 December 2024As renewables rise, the world may be nearing a climate turning point
Nice Analysis which points to three things:
1. The need for China to more rapidly curb its emissions.
2. The need to transfer the latest renewable technology to developing economies so as to reverse their growing greenhouse ermissions.
3. The need for the efficency of that technology to be improved, particuarly in the all important area of battery storage.
-
michael sweet at 23:11 PM on 13 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Callitasit is:
YOur comment at 800 does not mention Kirchhoff's law so you have not "showed in comment 800 that it does not apply in the case of greenhouse warming." You need to show that now if you want to claim it is the case.
Think about it. You say that you did not understand that Kirchhoffs law did not apply to the atmosphere until you engaged in this discusssion. Since this is an important law to consider (even if it did not apply) in the transission of IR energy it is clear that you do not understand a lot about how energy is transmitted through the atmosphere. Do you really think you can show that thousands of atmospheric scientists are wrong when you do not undersatnd the basics of atmospheric energy?
Moderator Response:Please do not encourage CallItAsItIs to engage in further side discussions of small parts of his viewpoint. Our requirement for his continued engagement here is for him to provide a full description of his equations for radiative flux through a layer. (Ideally, he'd provide a full description of all energy fluxes through a layer, but let's try to get radiative flux first.)
The hope is that by "putting it all together", he will realize the many inconsistencies he demonstrates when treating small parts of the issue in isolation.
As a prime example of his inconsistency, consider his statement in comment 851 (emphasis added):
My solution uses Schwartzschild's equation along with the solution from the Wikipedia article previously mentioned. Also, I do not use Kirchhoff's Law since I showed in comment 800 that it does not apply in the case of greenhouse warming.
He has repeatedly said that Kirchhof's Law does not apply when we do not have "thermal equilibrium". This is not what any legitimate source says - they repeatedly use the term "local thermodynamic equilibrium" as a requirement. Wikipedia has a page on thermodynamic equilibrium. That page specifically discusses "local and global equilibrium". In the opening paragraph, we see:
...Global thermodynamic equilibrium (GTE) means that those intensive parameters are homogeneous throughout the whole system, while local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) means that those intensive parameters are varying in space and time, but are varying so slowly that, for any point, one can assume thermodynamic equilibrium in some neighborhood about that point.
CallitAsItIs has completely failed to explain why this concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium is not a reasonable assumption.
But let's consider what it would mean if this assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium is not valid, so Kirchhof's Law could not be applied. Let's look at what is said about the Schwarzschild equation (also on Wikipedia). The very first sentence (emphasis added):
In the study of heat transfer, Schwarzschild's equationis used to calculate radiative transfer (energy transfer via electromagnetic radiation) through a medium in local thermodynamic equilibrium that both absorbs and emits radiation.
Later in the Wikipedia document, it states (emphasis added):
LTE exists when collisional excitation and collisional relaxation of any excited state occur much faster than absorption and emission.(LTE does not require the rates of absorption and emission to be equal.) The vibrational and rotational excited states of greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation are in LTE up to about 60 km.
In other words, as long as molecules are gaining and losing energy by collision faster than by absorbing and emitting radiation, local thermodynamic equilibrium is a safe assumption. CallitAsItIs has been previously pointed to this post by Eli Rabett, explain this in detail. He has either not read it, not understood it, or rejected it because he does not recognize why it is important.
...but here is the catch: CallitAsItIs seems quite happy to reject Kirchhoff's Law "because thermal equilibrium", but he does not reject Schwarzschild's equation for the same reason. Even though both of them require an assumption of "local thermodynamic equilibrium".
It's one thing to not understand "local thermodynamic equilibrium", but it is far, far worse to use that misunderstanding selectively. If the argument is valid (it isn't), then it is always valid. It's not "only valid when I want to use it, safe to ignore when inconvenient".
This comes to the meat of CallItAsItIs's misunderstandings. There is no consistency in his arguments and positions. Each inconsistency is a red flag to his misunderstandings.
So, if CallItAsItIs wants to convince anyone, he needs to put all his thoughts on this into one full, coherent, consistent explanation. Once he has written that to his own satisfaction, I hope he will re-read this entire comment thread and reflect on how each criticism he has already received applies to his explanation.
-
Jim Hunt at 21:20 PM on 12 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
"Does it work?"
Yes! -
MA Rodger at 22:31 PM on 11 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
I'm not entirely sure why a mathematical equation requires an image to be displayed. It can be clearer when not set out as a linear string of characters and some exotic characters may not be available in extended font sets, but such restrictions are hardily show-stoppers.
But if that is the way to go and an on-line image is felt necessaary, I uploaded the thumbnail below at https://postimages.org/ which required just an indication of size and longevity (which can be "No expiration") to be up-loaded, the thunbnail below having a 31-day on-line life. So, does it work?
-
CallItAsItIs at 12:50 PM on 11 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Just to let you all know that I have some equations and results on scratch paper that you may be interested in seeing. And they show exactly what MA Rodger requests in the last paragraph of comment 849. It will probably take a few days, however, for me the get it pulled together in a presentable fashion.
At this point, the only way I know to typeset equations is with LaTex. So, I could write a .tex file for the solution document, print it to a .pdf file, and e-mail or ftp the file to where you want it. Or, I could send you the .tex file itself. It would definitely take more time and coaching for me to submit it directly from the Post-a-Comment form.
So let me know how you want to proceed with this. You can use the email address I used for subscribing if you want to contact me without cluttering this webpage. I hope to hear from you soon.
Moderator Response:[PS] You can only create a link to the PDF somewhere (eg via onedrive or googledrive), or insert an image of the equations. See the comment policy link for hints on posting images.
-
CallItAsItIs at 05:56 AM on 11 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
Just to let you all know that I now have some equations on scratch paper. My solution uses Schwartzschild's equation along with the solution from the Wikipedia article previously mentioned. Also, I do not use Kirchhoff's Law since I showed in comment 800 that it does not apply in the case of greenhouse warming.
Now, at this point, the only way I can typeset equations is with LaTex, and after writing the .tex files, I can print them to .pdf files. What would be easiest for me is to simply submit the .pdf file in a manner you specify, and let you decide how to handle it.
Finally, please realize that this is not a trivial effort on my part. Therefore, please speakup now if you object to any aspect of the model I am setting up. Understand that it is one thing to review my work and find errors. Claiming that I am "re-inventing physics", however, is quite another matter and I will be in no mood for hearing it.
Moderator Response:The only option you have for including graphics is to place a jpeg on a public host of some sort, and then include the link when inserting an image as you compose your comment. That image file can be from a scan or screen grab or exported from whatever software you want. The essential characteristic is that you place it in a publicly-visible web server.
In the past, some people have used https://tinypic.host. I have no idea if it still works. It is up to you to find a suitable host. The use of graphics is explained in the Comments Policy.
Given that Kirchoff's Law is an essential assumption behind the Schwartzschild equation (as has been explained to you previously), let it be known that any comment that claims to use the Schwartzschild equation without the use of Kirchoff's Law will be considered to be in error.
We are in no mood for hearing more of your egregious misunderstandings of conventional physics. You may not get more than one shot at this.
-
Frans at 22:42 PM on 10 December 2024As renewables rise, the world may be nearing a climate turning point
Excellent overview. Continued innovation with private funding and hopefully sensible government support in viable energy options is the key to dealing with increased energy demand in the US. We see this with renewed anfd now hopefully sustained development of nuclear energy and hopefully more streamlined permitting processes.
-
BaerbelW at 15:51 PM on 10 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Thanks for your feedback thus far!
OPOF @1:
Thanks for spotting the wrong month which is now corrected in both listings. Typos like this happen every once in a while when submitting the articles via the Google form mentioned in the blue box at the end of each news roundup.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:23 PM on 10 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I got distracted and forgot to copy and paste the pair of articles in my comment @2:
It was meant to be:
An example of the benefit (of the Category format) is that a pair of closely related articles this week, "Climate change and insurance: a growing fustercluck" and "How climate risks are driving up insurance premiums around the US - visualized", could have been far apart in the Date format.
-
nigelj at 12:43 PM on 10 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I prefer the category format. You can glance through it in seconds and see what's going on and also choose the categories you are interested in. I find the date based format harder to speed read and just frustrating. Collections of non fiction books are organised by category not date of publication. Easier to find stuff.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:12 AM on 10 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
- Format I prefer: I prefer the Category format. An example of the benefit is that a pair of closely related articles this week, " " and " ", could have been far apart in the Date format.
- Do the manually assigned categories actually fit the articles: I think they do.
- Do additional categories make sense?: Not this week
Very minor note: The date stated for "Protection deal for Amazon rainforest in peril as big business turns up heat" in the 'International Climate Conferences and Agreements' Category was incorrectly given as Nov 3 rather than Dec 3.
-
CallItAsItIs at 08:37 AM on 10 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
MA Rodger @849
I re-examined the arguments behind Kirchhoff's Law, and determined that it is not applicable to my study of greenhouse warming for the simple reason (which I have stated before but no one seems to take seriously) that a warming system is not in thermal equilibrium. In the case of greenhouse warming, each atmospheric slice contains GHG molecules which absorb IR energy originating from outside the slice, and therefore they are not isolated. Hence, Kirchhoff's Law does not apply in my study, neither the correct version nor what I have called the "climate science" version, and therefore claims of my "ignoring Kirchhoff's Law" are invalid.
Also, in regard to me being or not being a "numbers sort-of-guy", I certainly was at one time, but have not kept up very well with new developments and software tools since my career fizzled. I believe I still have excellent mathematical and analytical skills, but I do tend to "cut corners" or look to others when it comes to actual number crunching.
Note to moderator:
Please do not remove this comment at least until MA Rodger has had a chance to review it.
Moderator Response:[PS] MA Rogers comment was left so you could respond.
Now give us the equations that relate to what can be meaured. MA Rodgers. same stuff. Nothing more please till we something testable.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:32 AM on 10 December 2024Interview with John Cook about misinformation and artificial intelligence
I'll add my bit of anecdotal evidence to Michael's. The ICU where I work was relatively spared during the initial wave of Covid, as was the neighboring state. We had plenty of time to prepare and it went OK (this is before the vaccine became available). A significant proportion of patients were not exactly fitting the high risk profile, especially regarding age. The sickest we saw in the early wave were below 65, obesity and diabetes seemed to be very strong risk factors.
Then the state had a massive vaccination campaign, high risk people and above 65 could be vaccinated for free (if I recall right) and the vaccine was available to everyone. We were considered high risk because of exposure. Case numbers decreased a little, things appeared under control.
Then the Delta wave hit and stuff got real. One day, the ICU was full of nothing but Covid patients, prone and on ventilators, except for 1, on BiPAP. Non-covid critical patients had to be bedded in a neighboring unit. Criteria for transfer to a higher level of care inside the hospital were raised everywhere. Extreme levels of respiratory failure were tolerated without invasive intervention, as intubated patients did not tend to fare well. However, the ones who declined to be intubated died even quicker. We exploited non-invasive ventilation means to the maximum extent possible but once the p/F ratio drops below 100, there are few options left. I personally recall only one of these very sick patients who was vaccinated, a transplant recipient (immunosuppressed) who had received only one dose. Incredibly, he survived. I was not there 7 days a week, so it is possible that some vaccinated people came through that I did not know about. If so, they were exceedingly rare exceptions. I heard some people talking about people getting very sick from the vaccine. I work throughout the hospital and in the ED as well, but I do not recall seeing any such case.
Some were so steeped in propaganda generated denial, they refused to acknowledge that it was a real disease, even as they were literally dying of it. Non vaccinated status was the single most reliable predictor of bad outcome. Obesity still seemed in my opinion (a non scientific assessment) to be the 2nd major risk factor for severe disease. I never caught it at work through the entire pandemic. It was only later that I was contaminated sitting next to a sick person in an airplane, after the Omicron strain hit.
Moderator Response:[BL] Note to all. The OP is about misinformation - research into how to identify it, strategies to counteract it, etc.
Covid stories are only on-topic to the extent that they illustrate aspects of misinformation. Please make sure that you tie any such stories back to the themes of the OP.
-
MA Rodger at 21:57 PM on 9 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
CallItAsItIs,
I note your comment @844 replying to my comment @841, crossed with my own @845, so the ball is perhaps in my court.
And perhaps I should be sure to give you the chance of providing a numerical answer in this to-&-fro.As you do not appear to be a numbers sort-of-guy (which is strange for a physics PhD), I would be surprised if you could put some sort of value on the proportion of υ2-excited CO2 molecules in air that would emit a photon in the 15 micron band as the "numerical calculation" to demonstrate such a proportion is majorly complex & difficult. I've seen a proportion of 1-in-50,000 simplistically calculated. But the take-away is that it is massively small as, simplistically, the average relaxation time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit a 15-micron photon is measured in tenths of a seconds while such a CO2 molecule will be on average impacted by other air molecules in a matter of microseconds. Thus this transmission of excitation via photon→CO2→photon cannot by itself satisfy Kirchoff's law αλ = ελ.
And it also does not explain the measure 15-micron IR flying round the atmosphere.But let us not get hung-up on the applicability or otherwise of Kirchoff's law.
You seem entirely positive about the applicability of Schwartzschild's equation, telling us @823 "the Schwartzschild equation is the correct equation to solve in order to determine the spectral intensity Iλ." Schwartzschild's equation (dIλ/ds = nσλ[Bλ(t)-Iλ]) tells us Iλ will not be effectively snuffed out when the path-length of the IR from the ground is reached. Rather, with constant temperature Iλ is also constant (Iλ = Bλ(t) = Planck's Constant) and in the atmosphere Iλ will slowly drop with the lapse rate (we can calculate it as just a 0.13% drop in 10m which is longer than the path length of 15-micron radiation at sea level, and a 50% drop by about 5,000m), and on until CO2 thins allowing the path-length to reach infinity with IR being shot out into space. (Note that Kirchoff's law differs from this situation solely because it applies to a constant temperature.) So to satisfy both the Schwartzschild equation (and Kirchoff's law), we need a new source of excited CO2 molecules to prevent the IR flux being snuffed out so quickly.
So, to set you a question CallItAsItIs with a numerical answer.
Given both Schwartzschild's equation and measurements show there is no extinction of 15-micron IR in the atmosphere, there must be some extra source of υ2-excited CO2 molecules. Therefore, how big is that extra source of excited CO2 relative to the IR as a source? Roughly?
(As a PhD-wielding engineer, this extra source ???→CO2→photon comes as no surprise to me.) -
2097 at 20:26 PM on 9 December 20242024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I prefer the date-based format!
-
CallItAsItIs at 19:11 PM on 9 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
[snip]
Response @826
Kirchoff's Law does not say what you imply here.
The climate science version of Kirchhoff's Law says exactly what I imply here. It turns out that there are two versions of this law out there, the one written by Kirchhoff and the one used by climate scientists, and it is the latter version that is needed to "debunk" the CO2 band saturation effect. This was already explained in a previous posting of mine, but you removed it!
Moderator Response:Still not providing the requested equations and numerical results.
-
CallItAsItIs at 18:26 PM on 9 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
[snip]
Response @835
Evaporation occurs from the water surfaces which are not part of the atmosphere and therefore contributes zero energy. What does happen in the atmosphere is the release of 80 W/m3 of latent heat at precipitation, and this heat energy is EMR which is then absorbed by the air molecules, thereby raising temperature. In my model, the effect of this heat would be taken into account by adjusting the temperature profile accordingly.
Also, I am glad you were only tempted to ask, because if you had, then I would be asking for an apology for your next comment.
Moderator Response:Still not providing the requested equations and numerical results.
-
CallItAsItIs at 10:48 AM on 9 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
[snip]
Well, I believe I have found the source of much of our contention lately. It turns out that there are two versions of Kirchhoff's Law out there — the one Kirchhoff actually wrote and the that's in general use by climate scientists. We will call that one the KirchhoffCS Law. I won't get into details on the actual Kirchhoff Law, but it basically states that for an emissive blackbody (or "graybody") emissivity = absorptivity (ie. how well the body emits is also how well it absorbs). There is a well-written article on it in the WikiPedia. The KirchhoffCS Law states that for such a graybody, there must be a photon emitted for each one that is absorbed and vice-versa. This "law" however, has a special property which I've shown earlier — It violates energy conservation! So is it valid or invalid? You tell me!
Now this is where it starts to get interesting. From comment 729 onward, Charlie_Brown and Bob Loblaw claim that I failed to apply "Kirchhoff's Law" and therefore my results are incorrect. Kirchhoff's Law, however, is not used in the calculation of the absorbed IR radiation, so I don't know what they mean by "apply". My particular model consists simply of the Schwartzschild equation with given values of the solution at the surface along with given temperature and absorption profiles from the surface to the TOA. This turns out to be a fully defined and well-posed problem that is consistent with Kirchhoff's Law (ie. the real Kirchhoff's Law) without having to somehow "apply" it. It's analogous to solving a classical mechanics problem with Newton's Laws. In this case, it is only Newton's Laws that are used in the actual calculations. Assuming they are done correctly, the results would be consistent with energy conservation (except possibly for losses due to friction) without any additional steps to enforce energy conservation.
Anyway, I got my wake-up call about this Kirchhoff's Law duality from Bob Loblaw @830 when he states that
Kirchoff's Law does not say that absorption = emission. It just says that the efficiency of absorption is equal to the efficiency of emission.
which is an obvious denial of the KirchhoffCS Law even though he and Charlie_Brown had already used it a bunch of times (@729, @735, @737, @756, @786, @799) and continue to do so in their claims that my results showing saturation of 15 micron absorption band were erroneous. So the question now is
Why is it that this "law" has been shoved in my face since comment 729 knowing full-well it is false!?
Unfortunately, I think I know the answer to this question. The extra photons claimed by KirchhoffCS are essential for continuing the upward-bound 15 micron radiation above what would otherwise be the extinction altitude. Then, since we are not yet at the TOA, there is still plenty of CO2 for more absorption and warming. This is the basis for the claim made in the SkS Basic Rebuttal that
... there is always IR radiation being emitted upwards by CO2 at all levels in the atmosphere.
Now, between this and the repeated personal attacks and stonewalling of my arguments with irrelevant issues, I no longer view this AGW song-and-dance as simply bad science. It's intentional deception! And I will regard it as such in any lectures I may give and in communications with my Congressmen.
Moderator Response:Still waiting for your equations and numerical results.
[PS] I will settle for your versions of the Ramanthan and Coakley equations for radiative flux through a layer. Should be too hard for a PhD in physics -remove the bits you dont like. Bet they dont predict measurements. Till you match your fantasies to real world observation, noone is interested in your problems with comprehension.
