Arguments
Recent Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Comments 1 to 50:
-
michael sweet at 08:31 AM on 28 December 2024Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?
David-acct,
The op cites publications by acknowledged authorities that support the claim that renewables end up with many more jobs at the same time they have lower energy costs. Your unsupported response "I doubt it" is out of order. If you want to claim the op is incorrect you must provide references that support your claim.
I note that many peer reviewed papers like Jacobson et al 2022 make the same claim. I have never seen an analysis that finds less jobs from renewables. Fossil supporters simply say they disagree without any analysis or data Opinions without supporting data are worthless on a scientific site like Skeptical Science. The fact that there are already more renewable jobs than coal when we must dramatically enlarge renewables tells the whole story!
-
MA Rodger at 04:19 AM on 27 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkrolph @8,
The quote you provide comes from a 900 word essay entitled 'Progressive myths harm the honest discourse' by Michael Huemer, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The essay is really no more than an advert for his book 'Progressive Myths' (Amazon preview here).In both book and essay he rails against "political activists" saying that "Nearly every piece of information they disseminate is a distortion or outright lie," and also that their influence is pervasive. In the essay he cites three exemplar "lies" promulgated by such "political activists." The three exemplars given are:-
(1) Women earn just 82 cents for every dollar that men earn for the same work;
(2) Police shootings show a marked racial bias against Black Americans;
(3) Global warming is an existential threat to America and the world.These are, of course 'progressive' lies as are the nine "myths" featured in his book (according to this book review) and with Huemer apparently a 'libertarian' (according to the reviewer of the book who does say but not convincingly Huemer "also addresses falsehoods from the far right"). With the subject of the book being titled "Progressive Myths", some significant bias should bring no surprises. The Amazon book review linked above shows the book's Part VI containts three chapters:-
19 The Global Warming Consensus.
20 Existential Climate Risk.
21 Mask Science, which presumably is about spread of the recent pandemic.(I should point out that, as I am a more-progressive less-libertarian Brit sat on the other side of the pond, I would consider the egregious lies and denials spread by 'libertarians' in the US should be far more of an issue and a concern. Thus I see the book as the lesson of Matthew 7:3-to-5 at play here.)
With that preamble from me, is there any merit to the notion of "global warming is an existential threat to America and the world" being nothing but a "progressive myth," as Huemer says? Is it indeed a lie? And do "Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat"?
The first thing required to be clear is what is meant by "existential threat."
There are some lunatics who talk of an "existential threat" to humanity, apparently suggesting that the Homo Sapiens species could become extinct. But such a notion is not being considered by Huemer.
The future exisitence of "America (USA) and the world" is the issue at hand. In the Amazon book review linked above which was lilely written by Huemer, the question is put "Is global warming really going to destroy human civilization?" Put another way, could we be** stoking a collapse of the USA and/or enough of the sovereign states of the world to collapse the world economic order. Note that more will be in play that AGW itself. Without collapsing the entire world order, the remaining sovereign states will almost certainly be arguing over resources, with the environmental impacts of AGW thus precipitating political conflict and thus further chaos.(** There is considerable uncertainty with the climate effects of AGW, even when a global level of warming is a given. There is thus a lot of uncertainty even before the level of AGW is converted into a measure of economic impacts.) The evident uncertainties within any assessment of the economic damage from AGW means assessment has to account for a less-than precise answer. The average of the potential results does not really provide a worthy assessment. It would be properly some assessment of the worst likely outcome.
And that leads to the work apparently setting-out what will be the financial impacts of AGW. In the most recent IPCC AR6 the conclusion is that no identifiable range of economic impacts globally is apparent due to the varying methodologies producing such a wide range of results. This range has increased since the limited analyses reviewed in AR5. Further complications include there being non-linear impacts with increasing AGW and there will be significant regional variation.
But to at least put some numbers to it, the range shown in AR6 for +4ºC of AGW is +3% to +33% with the CI ranging from negative to +66%. (Note the authors of these lower evaluations do come under fire and the likes of Richard Tol are well known for presenting a denialist stance.) This range compares to the "2.5% of GDP by 2100" stated by Huemer without any mention of the level of AGW assumed. It also compares with the range given in AR5 Box 3.1 "These incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for temperature increases of ~2.5°C above pre-industrial levels are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (medium evidence, medium agreement)."
There are many difficulties facing these researchers trying to set some sort of economic cost to AGW, mitigated or unmitigated, some examples being:-
☻ The 2100 time-frame usually chosen ignores some very serious issues, not least Sea Level Rise over multi-century timescales. Greenland melt down will become inevitable at some point below 2ºC AGW if it continues at that level. Thus it becomes a certainty for continuing AGW of +2ºC to resultant +7m SLR over a millennium or so. At +4ºC, there would be an additional +8m SLR from other land ice loss.
☻ There are many saying the undeveloped nations will see negative economic growth under unmitigated AGW. This may well not have such a big simplistic impact on global economic growth as the deveolped world accounts for the vast majority of the global economy. So if say Madagascar were to melt into the Indian Ocean and disappear, the global economy shrinks by just 0.1%. But also the 30 million inhabitants would thus be looking for some sort of future beyond their lost homeland. Some may see such migrations boosting economies elsewhere while others may see it as a more significant annual cost than the $500/head/y lost from their present day autochthonic productivity.
☻ The potential size of unmitigated AGW has been reduced in the minds of some researchers because the world has turned against using coal. This is argued because there are insufficient non-coal FFs to create much more than +3ºC AGW. Yet such an assumption remains to be fully argued out.And do "Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat"? There is another philosopher who talks as though no scientist could seriously say it is not an exisitential threat. "In the worst-case scenarios in scientists’ climate models, human-caused climate change is a threat to the continued existence of many species and to human society as we know it."
To conclude, Huemer presents a predictably denialist (and he insists he is not an AGW denialist) with his outlandish pronouncements entirely out-of-kilter with him being a growed-up philosopher and all.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:47 AM on 27 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkrolph @ 8:
The devil is in the details on the quote you provided. What exactly do they mean by "existential threat"? That is the sort of subjective, emotive phrase that is very hard to pin down (and therefore hard to argue against or even have any sort of reasonable discussion about). Until such terms are clearly, unambiguously defined, trying to debate the statement is a fool's errand.
As for the "other world problems" part of that statement, it sound like they are channelling Bjorn Lomborg, who uses that shtick all the time. The shtick is so common that there is even an XKCD comic about it:
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:32 AM on 27 December 2024Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?
David-acct:
"Generally" is not an easily-supported position. A lot more than employment numbers goes into an economic efficiency determination. Any production operation has to balance staffing, capital costs, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, non-labour input costs, etc. I would have thought that a good accountant would realize this.
"Efficiency" where large capital costs spent elsewhere replaces local jobs, leaving severe local unemployment, may be profitable for an individual company, but may not be a good thing for the local community. How many problems exist in the US because jobs have been exported to China?
I agree that temporary construction jobs may not be a suitable long-term indicator, but in an industry that is continually expanding in small increments, construction jobs would continue to exist as long as expansion continues. You would have to make sure that the job counting does not count the same employees several times as they move from project to project, though. This illustrates the difference between looking at an industry as a whole rather than extrapolating from a single project's accounting as if it represented the entire industry.
-
MA Rodger at 22:53 PM on 26 December 2024CO2 effect is saturated
I should perhaps correct the typo @864.
Schwarzschild's equation is expressed correctly thus:-
dIλ/ds = nσλ[Bλ(t)-Iλ]
where
Bλ(t) = [(2h.c^2)/λ^5] x 1/[e^(hc/kBt )-1]This looks eminently solvable (said boldly he) as it does appear to convert into a simple series for a linear-changing temperature. But there really is no reason to do this solving as through a cooling temperature gradient the equasion shows the flux will be dropping and ever approaching Iλ = Bλ(t). And this will be the case up through the troposphere until either the process continues up past the tropopause or the process ends with emissions from within the tropopause out into space.
And perhaps I should also explain the "???" @549 where I claim "As a PhD-wielding engineer, this extra source ???→CO2→photon comes as no surprise to me."
Actually an undergraduate engineer should be able to provide such an explanation if they had been paying attention during the lectures on Specific Heat Content. These show a lot more going on with poly-atomic gases than be explained by Ideal Gas theory and that activity is the spinning and vibrating of the molecules. And it is, of course, vibrating molecules that emit IR in the atmosphere. -
David-acct at 06:40 AM on 26 December 2024Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?
TWFA -
I wouldnt go as far as you did, though in general higher rates of employment per units of production is an indication of less efficiency, not greater efficiency. In this case, a large percentage of jobs would be temporary associated with construction, so the better measure would be compare the jobs per units of prodction associated with operations.
-
TWFA at 04:59 AM on 26 December 2024Sabin 33 #8 - Will solar development destroy jobs?
So, two to five times as many jobs required to deliver the same amount of energy is... good? Would the same be true of farming, or just about any other industry of production?
Moderator Response:[BL] You have previously been warned about posting drive-by comments on threads without engaging in honest discussion To repeat the warning given before on this comment:
It appears that you have unfinished business on a thread where you commented two weeks ago.
Participation in the comments threads at SkS requires that you engage in legitimate, constructive dialog with other participants. You are violating the sloganeering section of the Comments Policy, which states:
No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted.
On the previous thread, you made unsupported assertions that have been refuted by other comments. You have provided no response to any of that material. You will not be allowed to start a new thread of unsupported assertions until you go back to that thread and respond to your critics. Suitable responses could include:
- Admitting your errors and agreeing to the corrections.
- Providing additional information and links to scientific evidence that your assertions are supportable.
- Providing more detailed explanations of your positions, and explaining how your original comment was misunderstood.
- etc.
Until you return to that thread and engage in honest discussion, any further comments you post on any other thread will be deleted.
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.
This is a final warning. Unless you return to the previous thread and give an appropriate response, the next post you make will result in your posting privileges being rescinded.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:30 AM on 25 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkrolph @8,
In addition to the helpful comments by Evan @9 and nigelj @10, as a Professional Engineer with an MBA I would add that a proper evaluation of GDP has to exclude any economic activity that is a 'repair of or recovery from damage done by climate change'. Not excluding those activities that are required to address the harm done is like saying that the clean up of environmental damage done by an economic activity counts as a 'boost to the economy'.
Also, the likes of Nordhaus usually exclude any 'external negatives' like the displacement of, or harm done to, people who are not significant parts of the economic activity they are evaluating.
But the most misleading thing that the likes of Nordhaus do is 'heavily discount' future negatives. They apply high discount rates to create misunderstanding that make it appear that future negative impacts are 'justifiably significantly less meaningful to people today'.
-
nigelj at 05:54 AM on 25 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkrolph @ 8, sorry I didn't mean to say "you said" those quotes, they were by Michael Heumer.
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 25 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkolph@8
You said: "Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat. "
Some well qualified scientists do think climate change is an existential threat to humanity:
phys.org/news/2023-10-life-earth-existential-threat-climate.html
You said "Mainstream researchers anticipate global warming contributing perhaps a quarter percent to the excess death rate by mid-century and costing us 2.5% of GDP by 2100, making global warming less serious than many other world problems that have received far less attention."
Note that no researchers are named. You invariably find its the economist William Nordhaus. Just look up his wikipedia entry and read the expert criticisms of his DICE eoconomic model of climate change, near the end of the article. His assumptions are often unrealistic and he leaves out entire aspects of climate change like sea level rise.
One thing. He assumes quite high levels of economic growth in the future will offset climate problems. However economic growth has slowed relentlessly in developed countries since the 1970s until presently, with every sign developing countries will follow that trend later this century, and we live in a world of finite resources, with many fast being depleted and we have many countries with aging demographics and market saturation. This suggests future global economic growth will be low.
And thats before you consider the negative impacts of climate change on economic growth. Some experts calculate it will be considerably more than Nordhaus assumes:
"The largest impact of climate change is that it could wipe off up to 18% of GDP off the worldwide economy by 2050 if global temperatures rise by 3.2°C, the Swiss Re Institute warns."
www.weforum.org/stories/2021/06/impact-climate-change-global-gdp/
18% is huge and would severely impact the world. And this is still based on middle range warming estimates, and assumes critical tipping points won't be crossed.
-
Evan at 22:34 PM on 24 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
rkolph@8
I repeatedly hear from top climate scientists that the scope and severity of climate change is proceeding faster than climate scientists thought it would X years ago. One of the top climate researchers, Prof. Richard Alley of Penn State, is on record saying that sea level rise could be 15 ft of more by 2100. That statement alone is sufficient to counter the positive outlook presented in the Daily Breeze.
If you watch videos of Prof. Alley's talks, you will quickly learn that he is a very measured and disciplined scientist who carefully chooses his words. He is not an alarmist. For him to say that you can not rule out sea level rise of 15 to 20 ft is alarming.
Prof. Alley has also researched past climatic changes and notes that if we push the system hard enough it can switch states in a matter of years through Abrupt Climate Change. The previous link is to a paper that is behind a paywall, but if just read the abstract visible on the website, you get the idea. Abrupt climate changes are hard to predict, but have happened before, and could likely happen again, given just how hard we're pushing the system.
How hard are we pushing the system?
Typical ice-age cycles see the predominant greenhouse gas, CO2, change by about 100 ppm over 100,000 years, causing a fluctuation of sea level by 400 ft! We are currently increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2.5 ppm/yr, year after year after year. In just 40 years, we increase CO2 by the same amount that natural processes require 1000's of year to do.
The idea that the human effect on the climate will be mild and managable are wishful thinking. We are actively damaging our life-support systems, but making precise predictions about how this will play out is difficult.
My recommendation is that you google "Richard Alley Climate Change" and start watching vidoes of his talks. You will learn a lot with which to counter the myth that the effects of climate change will be mild and managable.
-
rkrolph at 17:11 PM on 24 December 2024Stop emissions, stop warming: A climate reality check
I read in my local newspaper, The Daily Breeze, serving South Bay Cities of Los Angeles County, the following quote, and was wondering if anyone has a response to it. It was titled "Progressive myths harm the honest discourse." Author was Michael Huemer.
"Virtually no serious scientists think that global warming is an existential threat. Mainstream researchers anticipate global warming contributing perhaps a quarter percent to the excess death rate by mid-century and costing us 2.5% of GDP by 2100, making global warming less serious than many other world problems that have received far less attention."
-
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.
