Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 Next
Comments 10501 to 10550:
-
scaddenp at 11:40 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
What RedBaron said, but 2018 picture. Energy transport beats agriculture hands down.
-
nigelj at 06:23 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
Carbon pricing is indeed good news. One thing thats interesting is some of these European countries have cap and trade schemes, so this new scheme seems almost like a tacit admission they haven't worked. I have certainly not been able to find evidence they have achieved much.
The problem is the existing cap and trade schemes have weak settings and are opaque processes between the corporates and governments hidden from public view, and so open to capture by the corporate sector. They are dangerous because the public probably assume they are fixing the climate problem when they are not.
Carbon fee and dividend schemes seem more transparent and in the public mind, and will be more obvious in their impacts. The settings can be ramped up over time.
-
RedBaron at 06:14 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
@3 Swampfox,
Livestock production has about a 5.4% +/- of total carbon emissions footprint.
World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
That paper is a little old, but I like the graph on page two, as it explains the breakdown in easy to understand catagories.
As has been pointed out elsewhere on this sight, the claim that animal agriculture is the biggest Greenhouse Gas Emissions is completely false. It's just a propaganda ploy. Fossil fuels is the biggest issue because that is fossil carbon that wasn't part of the short term carbon cycles before we started using them in the industrial age.
I am sympathetic to your point however. While animal agriculture may be only about 5% of the cause, it could be changed to become at least 50% of the solution. This is because changing agriculture to regenerative carbon farming techniques average 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr.
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
However, it is important to get the facts correct and precise. The issue is too important to state incorrectly.
“The number one public enemy is the cow. But the number one tool that can save mankind is the cow. We need every cow we can get back out on the range. It is almost criminal to have them in feedlots which are inhumane, antisocial, and environmentally and economically unsound.” Allan Savory
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:37 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
The mere fact that this is under discussion is solid progress.
It almost goes without saying that there'll be a lot of waffling, inefficiency, misdirection, groping for blinkers, cowardice and other human behaviors on display. Even more time lost in that process, and of course it's not a perfect solution in any case.
But meanwhile consitutents will gain familiarity with all of the reasoning behind the effort. That's a win, regardless of whether this particular attempt succeeds or fails.
We could wish that we acted better in concert but there are unattactive possibilities there as well, as we've seen. Bumbling and flailing is our modus operandi for worse and better. Let's hope there's time for SOP to work.
-
Nick Palmer at 01:51 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
BTW, the initiative has only got 2512 sigatures on it so far, including mine
-
Nick Palmer at 01:47 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
This is excellent news. Giving the markets, manufacturers and consumers a 'financial signal' is a very powerful thing to achieve change efficiently and quickly. Extending the carbon fee/dividend concept to other areas such as general pollution, habitat degradation, resource exhaustion etc can harness the enormous power of the free market to fix things rather than wreck them! There are fields of economics which address these areas - environmental/ecological/full cost economics which include the 'externalities' mentioned on the financial bottom lines of corporations.
Briefly: dirty, polluting, damaging or resource hungry methods, and the items and services they create, get made more expensive to use than cleaner, greener methods which become cheaper and more affordable.
Strong legislation is not needed - people will always choose the cheaper option...
Economically, because these techniques do not remove money from the economy, they are neutral but as many lower income people and environmentally conscious people use fewer materials and energy than the more profligate, the 'fees' they pay can often be less than the dividends they receive back. They receive an income. The system acts as a form of redistribution of capital from the wasteful to the responsibly frugal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics -
swampfoxh at 01:37 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
Animal agriculture is a bigger contributor to GGEs than fossil fuels, so without significant reductions of GGEs in that sector, we are wasting time
-
wilddouglascounty at 01:15 AM on 24 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
#1 True, Jose; the fee and dividend proposal is primarily a financial signal for manufacturers and consumers to transition from fossil fuel dependent technologies, transportation and housing options to low carbon, using the marketplace for folks to acquire low carbon options. It does not preclude top-down research, innovation, regulations and subsidies to speed up the process; indeed it is quite compatible with those strategies. It's not either-or, rather all-of-the-above is most likely going to be needed. But it seems to me to be a very valuable tool to help move things along.
-
José M. Sousa at 23:19 PM on 23 May 2019Introducing a new citizens initiative for carbon pricing in Europe
I serioulsy doubt that a carbon fee of 120$ /ton CO2 to implement until 2030 (in 10 years) will matter much for the climate emergency we are facing and the consequent energy revolution we need. And it is not true that all scientists agree with it as the best way to go forward.
-
william5331 at 06:30 AM on 23 May 2019Deep sea carbon reservoirs once superheated the Earth – could it happen again?
There is an additional possibility. As mentioned, both Carbon dioxide and Methane form clathrates and their formation depends on both temperature and pressure. For instance, a methane clathrate can form up to about 25 degrees C with sufficient pressure and a liter of fully saturated methane clathrate can hold over 150 liters of methane (measured at STP).
Picture a one to three mile thick contenental ice sheet forming over land that contains deeper deposits of shale, coal and liquid hydrocarbons. The weight of the ice deforms the crust of the earth and probably opens up cracks with the uneven loading as the ice sheet begins to flow into new areas. Even without such loading, many such deposits vent some CH4 and CO2 all the time.
At the bottom of deep ice sheets the temperature is around zero degrees C and there is liquid H2O. As methane and/or CO2 vents into this water at the pressures at the bottom of a one to 3km ice sheet it would form Clathrates. Without an ice sheet, these gasses would be absorbed into the biosphere but now they are stored up until the ice sheet melts and the pressure released at which time they will suddenly come out into the atmosphere, accelerating the warming of the atmosphere and hence melting more ice, releasing more gas.
We need a close look at what is at the bottom of our remaining ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. This could be the sleeping giant.
-
nigelj at 06:17 AM on 23 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
OPOF @33, you are probably taking things a bit the wrong way. Imho "attacking someones world view" in the context of discussing climate science might go along the lines of "and you self centred, scientifically illiterate change opposing conservatives need to wake up". Perhaps thats rather a crude example, but the essence is categorising a person and their group as wrong and bad which will always get a defensive reaction even if its true.
What you are saying is a rather more subtle, respectful and analytical, and I have no problem with it in general terms. And we have to be able to discuss world views providing the context is right. Its difficult territory to navigate, and I would say content is most important but it needs a few PR skills as well.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:16 AM on 23 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
niglej @31,
The future of humanity undeniably has to matter most. I am open to considering arguments explaining why it doesn't. But I have spent enough time considering and debating this point to be fairly confident it is correct (though unpopular), and therefore unlikely to be successfully argued against (though many will try).
A strong supporting point is that "Nobody Has to do something that is harmful to the future of humanity - because if Having to do something harmful was True then the future would Have to be worse." That does not fully end an argument about climate science and the required corrections of developed human activity. But it can establish a Helpful framing for the discussion.
On matters that matter to the future of humanity, such as climate science and the related improved understanding of the required corrections of developed human activity, incorrectly developed worldviews must be 'challenged to be corrected'. The actions of every person Add Up.
In many cases, on many issues, people cannot be allowed to believe whatever they want and do whatever they please (contrary to harmful popular opinions and the harmfully profitable pursuits those opinions can encourage and excuse). And as the BBC item you pointed Ikaika to presents, most people will 'get over being corrected' even though they will initially 'kick up a fuss'.
However, the BBC item “The best way to win an argument” that is referred to in the article you pointed Ikaika to is potentially more important. It is part of the reason many of my posts are so long. I try to more thoroughly explain my thoughts, learning in the process and from feedback.
A fundamental understanding is that to achieve Sustainable Good Results (to achieve and improve on the Sustainable Development Goals - all of them), actions need to be governed by 'The Principle Objective of Being Helpful, Not Harmful' considered in the widest possible sense.
The widest sense is consideration for all life now and into the distant future. It requires Governing to limit harm to Others (which includes Other life and all future humans), with the understood restricting objective being Do No Harm to Others (No excuses allowed for harm done to Others), and the inspirational objective of aspiring to maximize Helping Others (which can be reasonably limited, but not eliminated).
That will require expanding and correcting the worldviews of people for them to be more Helpful to any and all Others (many worldviews, like spiritual ones or desires for personal entertainment, are not necessarily harmful, but may also not be as helpful as they could be). More important, worldviews that are understandably harmful, impede the required helpfulness, will need to be corrected. People holding viewpoints that impede the required Helping need to be challenged to explain how their desires are Helpful. And those who persist in resisting correction rather than changing their mind will need to be limited in their influence until they learn to change their minds.
It is inevitable that some people may perceive those required improvements of worldviews as attacks. However, that potential perception cannot be allowed to compromise the efforts to correct harmful worldviews or limit their influence.
A narrow application of the Help/Harm participle can be undeniable unacceptable. It would be Helping yourself and protecting yourself from Harm without any consideration of how your actions help or harm others. And extreme examples of that uncorrected or unlimited Egoist worldview would be actions like:
- As part of a group that is partying you over-consume and over-react because of self-perceptions that it maximizes your enjoyment and image/status. In addition to leaving none of the consumables to be enjoyed for future parties your actions create a mess including you having 'enjoyed' participating in damaging the party place (and you would not participate in finding replacements for the party consumables or repairing the party place, you would seek a different party to crash).
- As part of a group that is struggling to survive for a day to travel to safety and has sufficient food to do that, you eat all the available food to maximize your chance of getting to safety and refuse to expend any energy to help any others, and if you know a quicker safer way to safety you secretively leave the group and pursue it without telling any of the others (after eating all the food), because travelling with those Others may slow you down (and you will call for, and expect, help if your way turns out to not be quicker or safer).
- To defend against a perceived threat you attack other people.
A slightly wider version that is actually more important to correct would be acting those ways as part of a Tribe or Gang (more important to correct because a larger group can do more harm).
Entertainment performers and fans, especially the passionate sports ones, can generally be left 'unchallenged' and 'unlimited' because entertainment is generally rather irrelevant (as Douglas Adams brilliantly had interstellar travel guide researcher Ford Prefect update the description of entertainment saturated and distracted Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy from “Harmless” to “Mostly Harmless”). But even such potentially benign issues as sports can 'get out of hand, become unacceptably harmful, and require governing to limit the harm done (by fans, players, and particularly by any pursuers of status - image or wealth, popularity and profit).
Therefore, there probably is no limit to the matters that the Help/Harm Principle needs to be Governing. It even needs to govern the making-up of and enforcement of Laws in order for the Rule of Law to be Helpful rather than Harmful.
-
scaddenp at 12:03 PM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Just to put some numbers around it. If you could imagine at situation (eg a katabatic wind?) where you could get a temp diff of say 10C between surface and say a few meters above in atmosphere, then you could get maybe 2-3W/m2 of conductive heatflow. (Fourier law). In practise conductive heat loss is much lower.
By comparison, radiative heat flow from the surface at desert night time temps would be 300-400W/m2 (Stephan-Boltzmann equation). That is what is measured too at sites like Desert Rock so easily verified.
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Ikaika
You are right many people have become very fixed minded over the climate issue. Basically some people are excessively worried the science could lead to so called big government and taxes, so they attack the science. It's also become politically tribal to take certain positions.
However like OPOF there is a more open minded group in the middle, and as you say there are young people.
And people are not quite so rigid as you might think. Facts on climate change can change at least some peoples minds, as long as we dont attack their world view in the process. Read the followingarticle.
-
Jim Eager at 06:26 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT misses the obvious because he has convinced himself that he has caught out the climate scientists.
While he is correct about sand being such a very effective radiator*, and he is also correct that conduction and convection transport heat up into the atmosphere, he misses the fact that conduction and convection can not transport heat to space. Only radiation can do that, be it directly by the hot sand or by the air that has been heated by the sand. (*The word “radiator” is a rather obvious clue here.)
What he misses is that conduction and convection also dry out the sand and the air above the desert, and since water vapour accounts for around 85% of the natural greenhouse effect, much of the sand’s heat is radiated directly to space instead of being absorbed by H2O on the way out. Same for the heat carried aloft by convection since the natural greenhouse effect is so greatly reduced above a sand desert.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:34 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Ikaika @26,
Agreed that any presentation is meaningless to a fundamentally made-up mind. And the already well informed are already well informed.
The issue, as Climate Adam mentions, is how to get the attention of people who are not in either of those categories.
My suggestion related to this clip is to point out that what people are seeing is likely taken out of context. Hopefully that will get them to watch the entire John Oliver segment which could improve their understanding.
And regarding the Planck quote: Adults are not 'lost causes'. They just have more incorrectly developed preferences to over-come.
-
michael sweet at 04:24 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Rbfollett:
I am not a geologist.
Scaddenp asked several simple questions in post 9. You have not answered them. I have vised many deserts that were rock or gravel with little sand. Your speculation does not describe the effects there.
It appears to me that you are just an old crank who likes trying to Poe us. If you are serious you must answer Scaddenp's questions. I suggest Rbfollett's posts be blocked until he answers the questions that test his wild suggestions. His claim that he alone knows the correct answer does not ring true.
-
Ikaika at 04:11 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
I think when it comes to AGW, it is best to try a educate the young and realize just as Max Planck understood:
”A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
-
Ikaika at 04:07 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
One Planet Only Forever @23
You missed my point. These videos or comedy/news segments are meaningless to those already dug into their position. I found you can provide all the research data and evidence necessary for your argument. Those in denial will simply revert to their talking points and dig in deeper to in their corner. BTW, I watched the entire segment. Th
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
cpske @20,
My understanding from the entire John Oliver segment is that in the final clip Bill Nye is putting on an act of frustration with 'adults' who want to be 'entertained' rather than pay attention and actually become better educated.
Everyone becoming frustrated by adults 'wanting to be entertained rather than educated' could be helpful, but may not be what your comment intended to hope people would become.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:28 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
cpske @20,
Watch the entire 20 minute John Oliver segment, then share your perception. BTW, in that segment you will see how desperately in despair those opposing the improving understanding of 'climate science and the required corrections of what humans do' are.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:25 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Ikaika @21,
Have you watched the entire 20 minute John Oliver segment? Like other John Oliver presentations it is a very well researched and detailed presentation of the actual facts of the matter, with some comedy scattered in to try to lighten the mood.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:51 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Regarding the side-show discussion about 'Desert things':
An additional point is that water vapour is a powerful GHG. And as has been noted, deserts have less moisture (less water vapour GHG) in the atmospheric blanket above them. That lower amount of GHG above deserts may be a more significant factor influencing how quickly a desert cools at night than air circulation among the grains of sand.
But the consideration of GHGs has already been 'robustly dismissed and discredited' by RBFOLLETT as narrow-minded thinking - So I must be mistaken.
-
Ikaika at 01:49 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
I think it makes little difference whether Bill Nye had tried a reasonable tactic, one with less colorful language and less angry or the one he used on this program. I think most people have pretty much gone to their corners on this issue. Those of use who already understand and trust the scientific method will find it amusing and those that deny the science will simply dig in deeper and use echo chamber terms to ridicule Bill Nye and John Oliver. The issue of AGW is a slow enough moving train wreck that little can be done to convince anyone either on the fence or dug in on their denial. So, this is simply comedy and that is how I see it. Unfortunately the issue at hand is far less comedic and cannot be resolved at the 11th hour as so many things in our society seemed to be pushed to that extent.
-
cpske at 01:41 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Kubler-Ross‘s model of grief has as its first two steps denial then anger. Bill is obviously past denial and is now in at least anger. We should be so lucky that the rest of the sleepless public gets to where Bill is.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:23 AM on 22 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
nigelj @14,
The F language actually is 'fitting' in the context it is presented in.
If you watch the entire 20 minute:
- near the beginning John Oliver asks Bill Nye to explain the complexity of a Carbon Tax. The brief video starts with Bill Nye donning his safety glasses then turning to a flip chart that essentially says: Making something ore expensive - discourages people from buying it. Done.
- John is dissappointed and asks if Bill Nye could present something more detailed that includes one of Bill Nye's showy-entertaining science in action bits.
- Bill returns with a longer segment discussing the harm being done and the benefits of correcting human activity...followed by popping Mentos into a big bottle of Cola to get the gushing gyser.
- John is childishly delighted then carries on with the rest of the 20 minute well investigated and presented segment concluding with a final request that is oblidged by Bill Nye's frustated over-the-top 'F laced' final clip.
Taking the final clip out of context is the problem. And that should be the response to anyone questioing the video clip - Did you watch the entire John Oliver segment? Or did you just see what you wanted in the criticism of this video clip and not bother to understand that the bit was taken out of context?
The same argument applies to any presentation of understanding. It is possible to take any part of any presentation out of its context and turn it into an effective criticism that will appeal to easily impressed people. That is the power of the science of misleading marketing.
What is interesting is that many points made in the 20 minute John Oliver segment are about the way that the people resisting the improvement and correction of understanding of what is going on abuse 'Bits' out of context.
So a presentation about the abuse of 'bits' out of context is being criticized by abusing a 'bit' out of context.
-
ubrew12 at 16:13 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
I'm an engineer. But before I got my masters in ME, I was accepted into a PhD program in Atmospheric Science. Eventually, I asked to study climatology. This was around 1981. My professor was studying the 'heat island effect'. I told him I wanted to study the 'desertification effect': the effect you asked about, which is why I answered you. I was pretty sure this was the cause of desert behaviors, but I actually left Atmospheric Science after a few months and went back into Engineering, so never completed that course of study.
I find it very strange, all these years later, to hear people like you claim that climate science is the study of global warming and nothing else. In 1981, my professor was not studying global warming. He asked me what I wanted to study, and I told him the desertification effect, and not global warming either. There was a simple reason neither of us mentioned global warming as a course of study: in 1981, it wasn't going to happen. Right? Fresh from solving acid rain, and just then taking on the ozone hole, neither of us saw any future in which a democracy wedded to science would ignore global warming. And therefore, it wasn't going to happen. And therefore, why would anyone study it?
-
ubrew12 at 16:04 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
"Why are sand deserts so hot during the day and so cold at night?"
Just as a rain forest creates a local 'low pressure' above its abundant moisture, a sand desert creates a local 'high pressure' above its abundant lack of moisture. This local high drives moisture away, no clouds: the air above the sand desert is transparent to both visible and infrared radiation, so it both heats up faster under sunlight, and cools down faster under starlight.
I understand this is what you said, but it is fascinating. Not sure its relevance to this article, however.
-
Forrest at 15:01 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT,
l'm not a climate scientist or a geologist, but I do have a pretty good understanding of heat transfer. I'd say the reason deserts are hot in the daytime and cold at night is primarily because of the low moisture in the sand and the air, and the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with it. Low moisture means the specific heat is low, so a given amount of energy causes a relatively higher temperature change. There's also no evaporation, which would otherwise absorb a lot of energy with no temperature change. At night, the lack of moisture in the air means that heat is radiated into the upper atmosphere where it's much cooler - thus higher heat transfer rates and lower surface temperatures.
I don't think there's any significant movement of air through the sand except when the wind is blowing sand around.
-
scaddenp at 13:31 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Nope, radiative heat loss from earth surface is much larger conductive or convective heat loss. This is simple measurement. I gave you a couple of examples where you could test your theory versus mainline physics.
If you want to test a theory against data, then can I suggest the Desert Rock archive? Not only does it have basic met dat like humidity, temp, wind speed etc, but it has also got instruments measuring incoming and outgoing radiation in various parts of the spectra.
"Climatologists believe that ALL past climate change events were caused by greenhouse gases scares the hell out of me. "
That is a ridiculous claim with no basis at all. A simple read of just the Paleoclimate chapter of any the IPCC WG1 reports would contradict that. You could summarise climate change theory as being that climate (30 year meteorological averages) changes in response to NET forcings. The principal source of forcings are change in solar input (or distribution); change in albedo; or change atmospheric composition. These are not independent variables. I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the science by at least looking at an IPCC WG1 report.
PS, also a geologist/geophysicist. I look after a model for thermal evolution of sedimatary basins and the consequent oil/gas generation. Actually mostly past tense - my country has more or less ended petroleum exploration and as from June I am reassigned.
-
nigelj at 13:24 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Getting back to the subject of the article. Humour is known to release tension and help unite people. I think it would therefore have a positive effect in climate terms, although the F word might annoy some people.
-
nigelj at 13:23 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT @11 and 12
Yes I can accept sand is like a radiator so will cool more than solid rock, but the air percolation is probably not going to go down very far. You would really have to calculate it.
By climate change I was referring to the current situation. Should have been clearer. However sand absorbs heat energy and releases the same heat energy. I'm not seeing a link to past climate change unless vast areas of the world were changed to deserts.
Climatologists don't believe all past climate change is caused by greenhouse gases. Some is caused by solar changes, but these tend to also cause a CO2 feedback. I mean it "is what it is" unless you can prove the science wrong. Why the resistance to thinking CO2 is such a big factor?
-
RBFOLLETT at 12:41 PM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
nigelj
As a sedimentary geologist, our entire field of study is centred around past climate change and changing depositional environments. The changes are recorded by varying sedimentary rock types both transitionally and abruptly. I don’t think there is a geologist on the planet that believes all these past changes were caused by changing greenhouse gas levels but that is our privilege. The fact that some Climatologists believe that ALL past climate change events were caused by greenhouse gases scares the hell out of me. My original question that came with a simple logical basic explanation that excluded greenhouse effects just confirmed to me just how narrow a focus your industry is taking, there are NO valid explanations that don’t include greenhouse gases.
-
RBFOLLETT at 11:44 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Scaddenp
When I am talking about a radiator, I am talking about a conductive heat transfer device that uses an increased surface area to transfer heat to the air like a common house heater or furnace Or even a car radiator. In the case of a desert, the sand is the solid medium with the increased surface area that goes below the surface because of the porosity of the sand. The sun heats the sand grains and because of the huge surface area of the grains of sand, the transfer of heat to the air within the sand is significantly higher than a solid surface with no porosity. That’s how a radiator works, the air within the sand is super heated as convection pulls the air out of the sand. At night, when all heating of the sand stops with the setting of the sun the movement of the air through the sand cools it very very quickly, and very little residual heat is left into the night. In the case of a solid surface, the cooling is much slower and heat is radiated out over a longer period into the night. A large rock outcrop In the middle of a desert would absorb a lot more heat than the surrounding sand and give off some of that heat into the night. The sand cannot retain the same amount of heat because of the rapid cooling by the air within the sand.
-
nigelj at 09:41 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT
What Scaddenp says. I would say the main reasons deserts are cold at night is the greenhouse effect from all I have read and it makes sense, and I would accept sand is going to amplify the cooling a bit, but given the extent of the sand is not changing much over time, I'm mystified what implications do you think it has for climate change?
This is not to diminish the value of geology to the climate issue. I came close to doing a degree in geology.
-
scaddenp at 09:24 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Also, what would be your expectation for day/night variation of temperature on a solid rock outcrop compared to neighbouring dune? What is your expectation for nighttime temperature over a desert when cloud cover moves over it compared to clear sky?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT,
What part of the Climate Adam video prompted you to ask the question?
More generally: What does the question have to do with improving the understanding of the potential harmful effects on the future of humanity produced by unsustainable activity like the rapid burning of buried ancient hydrocarbons (which also produces many other harmful consequences)?
-
scaddenp at 08:39 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
This sounds somewhat handwavy without doing the maths. The ability of any surface to radiate is highly dependent on the radiative properties of the atmoshere above it. ie, no matter what the porosity, the thickness of the thermal blanket on top governs rate of temperature loss.
What would be your intuition on how deep into the sand that a diurnal temperature change would persist? A quick look seems to suggest that it is quite shallow compared to a moist temperate soil - air being a poor conductor of heat compared to water
-
RBFOLLETT at 08:01 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Moderator
Sorry, no peer-reviewed literature, just an old retired Geologist with an understanding of sand porosity and permeability and the basics of heat conduction from increased surface areas (radiators) and convection. Want to cool a desert, seal the surface and prevent circulation.
-
RBFOLLETT at 07:44 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
nigelj
The general consensus of most Climate Scientists seems to be just that, everyone in the business is so focussed on the theoretical science of global warming that they have ignored the basics of actual physical science. The greatest desert on earth, the Sahara, is also the greatest natural “RADIATOR “ on earth. Sand has over 30% porosity and almost limitless permeability as well as a massive grain surface area thousands of times more than just the area of the desert. The conductive transfer of heat from the sun by the sand to the air is huge and convection provides the circulation. The reverse happens at night, with convection stealing the heat from the sand very quicklY because of the sand’s surface area and conduction.
The implications of desert radiators on global climates is undoubtedly significant yet I have not found a single climate scientist that truly understands the basic properties of sand and it’s effect on global temperatures. Anyway, food for thought.
-
RedBaron at 07:27 AM on 21 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
@nigelij,
You could be right. All I was saying is that once we lose advanced civilization, we become at the mercy of nature in ways we haven't been for many thousands of years. This could reasonbly cause the remaining human population to start an ecosystem cascade that we would be unable to reverse, nor able to be immune from it's effects.
Thus we could potentially be susceptible to the same extinction level events as any other species at that point. It may not be likely, but it is certainly a risk that needs included in any worst case scenario. We would not be virtually immune from this as we are now.
And it wouldn't be a direct result of AGW but rather a more traditional sort of world war mathusian collapse scenario.....but happening in a planet's biosphere already weakened by AGW and our impacts on biomes covering the entire surface. There could potentially be no "safe haven" to retreat to and recover if the entire biosphere collapses.
-
nigelj at 06:57 AM on 21 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
Red Baron @7, I think you are looking at it the right way. Wars over declining resources is another thing that will make it worse.
Extinction has a precise definition: every human dead. The term should not be thrown about lightly. I still think some people would survive, but serious population decine looks plausible. This is all more in the category of the collapse of civilisation I mentioned.
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
RBFOLLETT
"And NO, it has nothing to do with lack of moisture or any greenhouse effect."
Why not?
-
bjchip at 06:37 AM on 21 May 2019Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Could this post be updated, particularly the prediction gif, to 2018? 2012 isn't as impressive as that would be.
Thanks
-
RBFOLLETT at 06:27 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
Simple Question: Why are sand deserts so hot during the day and so cold at night? Again, simple question, but I have yet to find a Climate Scientist who correctly knows the answer. And NO, it has nothing to do with lack of moisture or any greenhouse effect. Can anyone help me out?
Moderator Response:[PS] And hopefully you are citing peer-reviewed literature in support of your answer.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
BTW, I think the 20 minute John Oliver presentation on the Green New Deal and Carbon Pricing, including the other two Bill Nye video clips that set up this Grande Finale video clip that spectacularly wrapped up the entire segment, was and is brilliantly effective at presenting a proper understanding of the issue, including an understanding of how absurd the people resisting correction are.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:43 AM on 21 May 2019Climate Adam reacts to Bill Nye: "The planet's on f@*&ing fire!"
The Bill Nye video clip is being taken out of context. Its context is the John Oliver segment that it was 'a Part of'.
The question should be if the full context, the complete John Oliver segment including the Bill Nye bit, is helpful when viewed from start to finish.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:04 AM on 21 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
nigelj,
It is probably better to state that:
Failure to rapidly correct the harmful unsustainable developed popular and profitable activities that are producing increased climate change impacts is a significant contribution to the future failure of Humanity to thrive, with homo sapiens carnage (including the people-on-people carnage RedBaron mentions), growing instead of improving Humanity. And many other harmful unsustainable developed popular and profitable activities also contribute to the future failure of Humanity to thrive, and the potential Extinction of Humanity.
Humanity is a term that correlates with Beneficence. It a name for the pro-Altruistic ways of homo sapiens.
And the lack of action to limit and reverse the climate changing impacts of developed activity of homo sapiens and powerfully resists correction is Anti-Humanity and, like all the other contributing impacts, is causing that future increased threat of failure of Humanity to thrive and survive.
People who fail to improve their awareness and understanding and fail to help correct climate change impacting, over-consumptive, wasteful ways of living are as guilty of impeding the improvement of Humanity (and its potential extermination), as people who act in ways that impede the achievement and improvement of any of the other Sustainable Development Goals.
And those ways of impeding improvement include attempting to mislead others about what is really going on and the required corrections. They also include defending harmful actions with the excuse that, although people have developed a liking for what undeniably is unacceptable and needs to be corrected, it is supposedly rude or inconsiderate to tell people they are wrong because everyone has the right to the freedom of their own opinion and choice of actions don't they? - Undeniably, No They Don't. Undeniably, very harmful results develop if people are not Governed by the Help/Harm principle objective.
-
MA Rodger at 18:45 PM on 20 May 2019CO2 is just a trace gas
Rovinpiper @29,
The percentages are of the the 341Wm^-2 total solar input, so includes that 30% reflected sunlight.
The 110% isn't because the radiation takes many steps to negotiate a path from the surface & out to space. It is because many such journeys don't make it to space but end up back on the surface. A gas emitting radiation does so in any direction, up, down or sideways. For a solid there is more directionality as it always has to be out and away from the solid surface.
To add a couple of points (or to sharpen them) from #30&31, the radiation induces a waggle in GHG molecules and such induced-waggles can result in radiation being re-emitted but that is very unlikely. It is almost certain that a waggling GHG molecule will collide with another air molecule in which the waggle is converted into thermal gas energy.[ I'm not sure the 10^-6s & 10^-9s @30 is entirely correct. The values are usually very well buried within the literature but values I've seen are more 10^02s & 10^-6s, that's hundreths of seconds & milliseconds.]
But importantly, such collisions between air mollecules can also induce those same waggles in GHG molecules. This is a far more common form of waggle-inducement and so it is the speed of the gas molecules, gas temperature, that determines how frequent such waggles are induced. These waggles too can emit radiation and being far more common are the mechanism which causes in the vast majority of GHG radiation. As it is temperature-dependent and atmospheric temperature drops up to the tropopause (12km up), the amount of such emitted radiation shooting round the atmosphere will reduce with altitude.
Adding 50% to the CO2 in the atmosphere means a photon has a shorter length to go before it hits a GHG but this does not of itself affect temperature. What is of paramount importance is the extra 50% increases the altitude at which this radiation has a clear shot at space. As this is almost always an altitude below the tropopause, the exra GHG results in a the GHGs shooting out into space being at a lower temperature than previous and thus reduces the amount of radiation lost to space. And this loss of coolling warms the planet.
-
RedBaron at 18:36 PM on 20 May 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #20
The issue it seems to me is that while climate change itself is very unlikely to cause human extinction, it is just the symptom of a much bigger problem.
Ecosystem collapse caused by humans reacting to climate change could indeed cause humans to force human extinction. That's the one thing we humans do very very well. Better than any species. We can kill like none other. And while almost nothing short of a comet or similar can cause us to go extinct. We humans can do that in a number of ways, including the path we are on now that causes AGW.
That's because all our efforts to make national parks and wilderness areas goes out the window when the hot areas of the planet no longer are capable of producing food. Starving humans struggling to survive will absolutely cut down the last tree or plow up the last prairie to feed themselves. The great untouched forests and permafrost areas of the north become warm enough for agriculture and sure enough we will be plowing and spraying biocides shortly after..... then the last few remaining biomes on the planet collapse and we humans are screwed when the whole biosphere collapses. Maybe a remnant few might survive on some well watered island somewhere. But certainly civilization as we know it would be impossible under those circumstances.
That could happen. Some people believe that it is even the most likely result of a business as usual scenario.
Prev 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 Next
