Recent Comments

Prev  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  Next

Comments 11951 to 12000:

11951. AEBanner at 05:42 AM on 6 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       michael sweet @174

       In this post you have completely misrepresented some of my ideas/remarks; in reality, you are not the only one to have done this previously.
       Or perhaps you have simply completely understood my post @172
       Or again, perhaps, you carelessly made a genuine mistake, in which case no apology is expected.

       I quote your first two paragraphs.
       “You contradict yourself. You have claimed that sensible heat emitted by humans accumulates in the atmosphere. Yet you now claim that sensible heat from volcanoes is emitted to space as radient energy. A contradictory argument can automatically be dismissed.
       You cannot have it both ways. If human heat accumulates than volcano heat must also accumulate. If volcano heat is emitted to space than human heat must also be emitted. Since the volcano heat is so much greater it is the dominant effect.
       End Quote.

       Now I shall quote from my own previous post @172 to you, last three paragraphs.

       My Quote
       “Anyway, back to the volcanoes. As far as I know, the output from a volcano consists of hot lava, hot material particles, and much heat energy in the form of sensible heat, that is kinetic energy. And, of course, the adjacent land area will also be raised in temperature.

       The hot materials including lava, particles and the hot adjacent land will radiate energy, in line with black body radiation, which ultimately escapes to space. The sensible heat in the form of kinetic energy of the air molecules mainly enters the oceans, in line with the 97% value you are no doubt referring to from the IPCC AR4 report, and Kevin Trenberth’s 3% into the atmosphere. ( This latter subject to further interaction with the oceans and associated subsequent radiation.)

       But the important thing here is that the oceans, being liquid, will also radiate, eventually to space, and this will proceed to maintain a satisfactory balance. Yes,
       the volcano emissions started billions of years ago, but so did the balancing radiation, so maintaining a satisfactory temperature for the Earth’s surface, and not boiling away the oceans.”

       End my quote

       You will see that I wrote that, in respect of volcanoes, sensible heat in the form of kinetic energy of the air molecules mainly enters the oceans.
       Then see my third paragraph.

       Another quote from your @ 174

       Scientists have shown that waste heat is emitted to space in the year that it was created

       End quote

       This, at least, is interesting. Please grant me the courtesy of a reference to this.

        

11952. AEBanner at 22:42 PM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Eclectic @178

       Thank you for another excellent posr.

       You have a way of making things very clear, in a positive and constructive manner. 

       AEBanner

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] You also need to address the comments and questions pitched to you in comments 174, 179 and 180.

11953. MA Rodger at 20:31 PM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       scaddenp @179.

       The commenter AEBanner seems to have run out of substantive comment. Perhaps we should recap and properly expose the level of nonsense he is spuoting.

       Taking the two periods 1961-2003 and 1993-2003 as these are used within IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4, we have respectively 159 Zj and 89 Zj accumulation within the global system of which 5 Zj and 2 Zj are atmospheric accumulations.

       

       We could also add the energy lost to space because the globe is warming at 1.8ºC/decade, but the commenter AEBanner seems loathed to include such large numbers in his calculations.

       This Our World Data web-page gives easy downloads of annual primary energy use back to 1965 which can be interpolated back to 1961. For the two periods 1961-2003 and 1993-2003 FF+Nuclear primary energy total 11 Zj and 3.4 Zj respectively.

       This would leave anyone scratching their head as to why AEBanner could use this data "to offer an alternative theory to explain global warming" which is what he came to SkS proclaiming and, despite all the massive holes picked in his grand theory since then. he insists his grand theory has not come crashing down.

       Perhaps the full horror of his grand theory should be exposed.

       Visiting the nonsense he sets out elsewhere on the web (there are links up-thread but it requires registration which seems a little haughty for what it is), I see calculations for primary energy 1966-2016 which appear fine (18 Zj) and this is split between NH (164 Zj) & SH (16 Zj) which may or may not be fine. These are then used to calculate surface temperature rises over the period for each hemisphere by calculation how much warming this energy would provide to dry air. The curious method employed (increase in kinetic energy per molecule x no of molecules in troposphere) yields him temperature increases for the period of NH =  0.61ºC, SH = 0.06ºC (or would do if he followed his own method). These are reconciled with surface temperature increases for the period, (which are curiously sourced , one from GISS NH = 0.75ºC & one from HadCRUT SH= 0.55ºC); reconciled for the SH by assuming warming from the oceans, in SH +0.51ºC and because it has less ocean in NH an adjustemnt of +0.38ºC is included to obtain +0.99ºC. Strngely the final step which is traditional within such ridiculous calculations has not been made - subtracting the number you first thought of - so even for a pile of rubbish it is not complete.

       Note the energy calculated for the IPCC to warm the atmosphere (5 Zj & 2 Zj) are far lower than the FF+Nuclear primary energy use for the periods in question (11 Zj & 3.4 Zj) yet commenter AEBanner manages to not find enough energy to warm his atmosphere and has then to employ some magical mermaids to provide the rest.

11954. scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       "But, if additional energy enters the system and cannot be radiated away, then the temperature will increase."

       Let me if I this right. You are claiming that heat from the sun, volcanoes etc can be radiated away but heat from burning FF cannot? The 10²³J from FF stays in atmosphere, but 4x10²⁶J from radiation is irradiated away.

       Furthermore, your calculations on what energy of gases seem to assume a limit based on mean energy per molecule rather than the distribution of energies of molecules in the gas, though I see some this has now been deleted, so that is progress.

       The biggest issue is the idea that energy from FF is special and cant escape to space. So a surface heated by the sun will irradiate to space, but a surface heated same temperature by oil or coal will not? This does not make sense,

       "Initially all the energy enters the atmosphere." Huh?? and subsequent paragraphs mean that assume the energy enters the atmosphere only by increased kinetic energy of gases. Maybe your "initially" is misunderstood. When I am in thermal power station (where I have spent rather a lot of time), a rather useful amount of the energy from FF go into electricity though it will eventually get converted. Some heats the air and goes up the chimney but most is lost to environment via the cooling tower into water. And, boy to some parts of the plant irradiate IR!!!

       I fail to see what is so special about these energy conversions that prevent the loss to space?

11955. Eclectic at 09:07 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner @177 ,

       it would be better to consider the "crunch question" in the context of :-

       Energy is energy ~ so we can say (in a sense) kinetic energy and photonic energy are two sides of the same coin.

       The atmosphere gains photonic and kinetic [what you have called sensible heat] energy from the ocean & land, and also partly from the radiation from the sun (plus a tiny amount of kinetic energy from the impact of solar wind particles).

       The atmosphere loses energy by (A) tranferring kinetic and photonic energy to the ocean & land, and (B) radiating IR photons to outer space.   Of course, kinetic energy cannot be lost to space, since the air molecules are gravitationally bound to Earth.   However, because kinetic & photonic energy forms are continuously & rapidly interchangeable, the result is in effect that all atmospheric energy is available for radiation to outer space.   It's all a matter of time and flow rate [flux].

       Therefore the atmosphere remains in a steady state of thermal equilibrium with its geothermal & human-industrial & solar input, being balanced by atmospheric radiational heat loss (excepting the small - but very important - temperature rise deriving from the newly-added greenhouse gasses in the modern era: in other words, from AGW ).

11956. nigelj at 08:23 AM on 5 March 2019
       Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5
       

       Most of the logical fallacies typically used by science deniers look like sophisticated forms of lying. Strawmen, cherrypicking, out of context statements, fake experts...

       Aspiring politicians should be made to study these logical fallacies before they are allowed to enter politics. 

11957. AEBanner at 07:08 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Eclectic @ 176

       Thank you very much for your very welcome post. It is good to see things their true perspective. In principle, I agree with most of what you say, with possibly a few reservations.

       The whole subject is extremely complicated, and for that reason I have been thinking that a study using statistical mechanics would be really helpful. But I realise that this would be long and tedious, and I cannot realistically hope that anyone might volunteer to take it on.

       So, I shall probably have to learn a lot more about the matter myself. It will not be statistical mechanics, but hopefully I might gain sufficient insight. I should be grateful if you could please point me to some relevant sources, if this is not asking too much.

       I suppose the crunch question is what proportion of an amount of energy entering the atmosphere as kinetic energy remains in the atmosphere, and where does the “lost” energy go to?

       Thanks again
       AEBanner

11958. Philippe Chantreau at 05:59 AM on 5 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Crobbin58, coal is not only well known to be fossilized peat swamps types of layers but, if sliced thin enough, will reveal the cells of algae, fungi and other organisms. Depending on when it formed the coal will contain spores (more ancient) or pollen (after the rise of angiosperms). It is as fossil a carbon containing fuel as it gets, there is no controversy about it.

       As for oil, there has been hypotheses put forth by proponents of abiogenic oil but no significant quantity of oil that could be identified as abiogenic has ever been found. Petroleum geologists know how to find oil, and a major tool is biostratigraphic correlation. The weight of the evidence does not support the idea that any large amount of oil can be created in abiotic fashion.

       The statement "hydrocarbons are now considered to be naturally produced by chemical reactions under high pressures and temperatures inside the earth and not by decay of plants and animals" is false. It is entirely false for coal, and the consensus among petroleum geologist is overwhelmingly in favor of biogenic oil, because of the ways they can find it. The vey fact that we are quite good at finding oil, coal and many other products of geologic activity is proof that we are not "intellectually incompetent" to imagine what has happened.

11959. Eclectic at 05:32 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner ,

       in recent days, this thread has developed the nightmarish sensation where one feels to be . . . frantically running on the spot.

       Unfortunately, this sensation is not a rare occurrence in the comments columns here at SkS.   I am not talking about run-of-the-mill science denial by "skeptics" [pseudo-skeptics].

       The problem usually arises when the Irresistible Argument meets the Idee Fixe.   Sadly, each side feels it possesses the Irresistible logic.   Often the situation is a compound of a severe semantic incompatiblilty (unrecognised by the proponent) . . . and a fundamental misconception of the nature of the physical universe.

       Regarding the latter, would you [AEBanner] agree with the idea that "energy is energy" ~ and that, in our atmosphere, energy in the form of radiation [photons] does readily & rapidly change into sensible heat [molecular kinetic energy] and readily & rapidly also reverse that change? 

       (In fact, this conversion back and forth does happen many times per second.   For example, an Infra-Red photon may travel less than a metre before it is reabsorbed by another H2O (or CO2) molecule.)

       And that the gasseous molecules' translational kinetic energy exists over a broad distributional spectrum ~ at any one instant, a molecule may travel at a sedate 1 m/sec and yet a nanosecond later it has been knocked up to a decent fraction of the speed of light, and might also possess an intra-molecular vibrational energy far exceeding an IR photonic energy quantum equivalent.

11960. One Planet Only Forever at 04:40 AM on 5 March 2019
       A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
       

       nigelj,

       I share your concern about unsustainable and potentially harmful social 'over-corrections'. But I also extend that concern to harmful environmental over-corrections like opposition to any and all GMO.

       The corrections to achieve the identified minimization of harm done to future generations, 2.0C maximum impact, could negatively impact the already less fortunate. Helpful responsible leadership cannot allow that to happen. The problem is the power, popularity and profitability of irresponsible harmful leadership.

       The perceptions of prosperity and reduction of poverty that were developed by the harmful unsustainable burning of fossil fuels are now very likely to be unable to be maintained. More effective action to limit climate impacts starting 30 years ago might have created sustainable perceptions of prosperity today along with less harm done to date. But what is done is done. What will be done is what can be changed - by improving awareness and understanding of what is helpful and what is harmful and that the future of humanity is what really has to matter most (we would be experiencing a better present day if resistance to correction of harmful unsustainable developments had not been as successful as it has been).

       A simple but determined focus on improving awareness and understanding and application of that knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for all of humanity (act locally in ways that help develop sustainable improvements, and act nationally to help the global future of humanity - do no harm to Others), can help avoid being dragged into pointless 'political compromising debate' or 'religious belief conflict' regarding the corrections identified as required by improving awareness and understanding (and not just regarding climate science, though climate science is a very powerful case related to that point).

       I still expect to encounter people who will resist being helpfully corrected. But they will have little ability to provide defensible reasoned arguments against the Helpfulness requirement. I can ask anyone who disagrees to help me improve my understanding of that governing objective of helpfulness to the future of humanity. I have yet to have anyone present any defensible improvement that helps them maintain the preferred beliefs that they resist correcting. What they present usually leads to more opportunity to improve their awareness and understanding, being able to point out that their suggested 'improvement' is actually contradicted by observable evidence. A common point is that the socioeconomic-political systems that humans have developed in the supposedly more advanced nations have not only created many serious harmful problems, they have developed significant resistance to correction of the problems because of a lack of responsible effective helpful governance of the pursuits of status/impressions (popularity and profit).

       The Universal Living Wage is just a different name for Work for Welfare. It that more correctly identifies the potential for work for welfare programs to be harmful to the people they are claimed to be 'helping'. Political leaders who do not like the idea of a Universal Living Wage also dislike the idea of the more fortunate 'having' to help the less fortunate (often claiming that everyone 'having the opportunity to live better' is all that is needed).

       A Universal Living Wage can be understood to be an improved awareness and understanding of what a Social Safety-net should be. The socioeconomic-political system can be free to be set up any way people want it to be. The only catch is that the more fortunate 'have' to act helpfully to ensure that everyone experiences at least a basic decent living (claiming that everyone has 'a chance to live better' does not meet that requirement). Anyone interested in a more rewarding life can compete to be more helpful at developing sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. Almost everyone can understand the importance of being more helpful.

       People who choose to not be helpful (including those among the less fortunate), and especially the ones choosing to be harmful impediments to the improving awareness and understanding of how to be helpful, should not be rewarded. They should be kept from having any significant influence on others until their attitude is corrected.

       That leads to another basic understanding that can lead to a radical awareness:

       • Education is about improving awareness and understanding, and it is open to helpful improvement.
       • Indoctrination develops beliefs that can be understandably incorrect or harmful, and it develops resistance to improved awareness and understanding that would correct it.

       The resistance to improving awareness and understanding of Climate Science and the identified corrections of what has been developed is strong in many supposedly more advanced nations. That resistance could be because of resistance to giving up developed perceptions of status relative to others. But the differences of behaviour among the leadership of the more developed nations could also indicate nations where Harmful Indoctrination has been more dominant than Helpful Education.

       That raises the radical possibility that the USA is a nation that has been more powerfully incorrectly Indoctrinating portions of its population than China has through the past 30 years, if national response to understanding the climate science issue is an indication of Education vs. Indoctrination (note that Chinese society also has a high 'authority' value component).

       There are of course, many cases where current Chinese society lacks advancement towards sustainable development, such as the lack of a welfare program - a big gap from the understanding of the need for every person to be helped to live a basic decent life. Tragically, some in the USA (and almost all of the small government proponents world-wide), think that a good way to compete with nations like China is to regress to their level of social safety-net (or other leadership actions), rather than Be Better (more helpful - less harmful) than they are and push for them, encourage them, to Be Better (more helpful - less harmful).

11961. AEBanner at 04:03 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes global warming
       michael sweet @174

       Thank you for your comments.  It seems that I was unable to help you. 

       Sorry about that.

11962. michael sweet at 03:54 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner,

       You contradict yourself.  You have claimed that sensible heat emitted by humans accumulates in the atmosphere.  Yet you now claim that sensible heat from volcanoes is emitted to space as radient energy.  A contradictory argument can automatically be dismissed.

       You cannot have it both ways.  If human heat accumulates than volcano heat must also accumulate.  If volcano heat is emitted to space than human heat must also be emitted.  Since the volcano heat is so much greater it is the dominant effect.  

       Scientists have shown that waste heat is emitted to space in the year that it was created.  It does not accumulate from year to year as you claim.  It is interesting that the integrated amount of waste heat is the same order of magnitude as thje increased heat in the atmosphere, but we already knew that: it has been previously discussed here at Skeptical Science.

       I taught introductory college chemistry, including black body radiation,  for 10 years.  It is clear from your posts that you have no idea how black body radiation works.  Your calculations up thread demonstrate that to anyone who understands radiation.  

11963. AEBanner at 02:24 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes global warming

       I should be very pleased to hear privately from anyone interested in this topic by e-mail at eddiebanner@outlook.com

       AEBanner

11964. AEBanner at 02:03 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       michael sweet @169

       Thank you for your new post. I’m sorry you believe I have not answered your questions about volcanoes. I thought I did quite well.

       However, if you wish, I shall be happy to try again. But this may incur some repetition in parts, for the sake of clarity and continuity.

       I feel sure you agree with my opening remarks in my initial response to you @167.
       And I do, in fact, know what “black body” radiation is about.
       But in my reply to you @167, I did not bring up the figures of 97% or 3%. So please let me know which of my posts you are concerned about. It would seem to be additional to your initial post. OK, no problem.

       Anyway, back to the volcanoes. As far as I know, the output from a volcano consists of hot lava, hot material particles, and much heat energy in the form of sensible heat, that is kinetic energy. And, of course, the adjacent land area will also be raised in temperature.

       The hot materials including lava, particles and the hot adjacent land will radiate energy, in line with black body radiation, which ultimately escapes to space. The sensible heat in the form of kinetic energy of the air molecules mainly enters the oceans, in line with the 97% value you are no doubt referring to from the IPCC AR4 report, and Kevin Trenberth’s 3% into the atmosphere. ( This latter subject to further interaction with the oceans and associated subsequent radiation.)

       But the important thing here is that the oceans, being liquid, will also radiate, eventually to space, and this will proceed to maintain a satisfactory balance. Yes, the volcano emissions started billions of years ago, but so did the balancing radiation, so maintaining a satisfactory temperature for the Earth’s surface, and not boiling away the oceans.

       Please let me know if I have not covered some matter you are concerned about.

11965. MA Rodger at 01:11 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner @170.

       Why would anybody expect a discussion of something not set out here at SkS that is non-published-&-still-being-amended. If your derivations and results are "excellent" & "intriguing", then bring them here for discussion!!! Of course, you will not be able to amend what you write about them, but that is a good thing, an honest thing.

       So bring it here or be gone yourself. And if you do remain, I will not let off correcting your comments while they continue here.

       As for Statistical Mechanics, the criticism was not in appealing for expertise in such a field, but that beforehand you bizarrely tried to suggest that an average kinetic energy of a gas molecule (a statistical quantity representing a measure of the total kinetic energy of each molecule) was different from the total kinetic energy of a gas molecule (which of course will vary from molecule to molecule).

11966. AEBanner at 00:39 AM on 5 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       MA Rodger @ 166

       Thank you again for a confused post, but I was saddened to find that you do not seem to have read my post on wordpress. I deduce this from your statement
       Quote “[NOTE - you may set this out on your web-page but if it is not set out here I am ignoring it. “ End quote.
       Please tell me that you have indeed read my blog.
       If you have not yet read it, then please grant me the courtesy and agree to read it.
       This is the link to assist you.
       https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50

       You may find the derivation and the excellent results intriguing.

       Another point, your quote 2. What is your problem with asking for help with a truly difficult task, such as the need for assistance with Statistical Mechanics, which is where we got to in our recent posts. Such a study could well resolve any difficulties.
       I really hope this could be achieved, whatever the outcome.

       Anyway, if you cannot bring yourself carefully to read my blog, then I see no further point in debating the issues with you. Please let me know your decision.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [DB]  Inflammatory snipped.

       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 inflammatory or off-topic posts and simply avoid answering questions put to them. 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.

11967. michael sweet at 22:12 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner,

       Your answer does not begin to answer my question.  

       You claim in your answer the "sensible heat" from volcanoes goes into the ocean.  You do not say what fraction of the heat that is.  Obviously the same fraction of volcanic "sensible heat" has to stay in the atmosphere as the fraction of human waste heat.   The ocean has no way to determine what heat is volcanic and what is human waste heat.  

       Let me presume that 97% of the heat goes into the ocean while 3% remains in the atmosphere.  97% of volcanic heat is still much more than the waste heat humans release.  In addition, you do not count the 3% remaining in the atmosphere when you make your calculation of accumulated waste heat.  If you count this heat in your calculation it will make the temperature go up way too much. 

       If 97% of the volcanic heat went into the ocean for 4 billion years (we can neglect that 4 billion years ago the volcanic heat was much higher) and accumulated there as you claim the ocean would have boiled away.  Obviously that has not happened.

       Please explain why all the accumulated heat has not boiled away the ocean.  

       Obviously the "sensible heat" from volcanoes has gone somewhere.  Scientists say that it has radiated out into space from black body radiation with the rest of the energy, including the "sensible heat" that humans have released. I have shown that it cannot accumulate in the ocean as you said.  Where do  you now say it goes????

       A word from an old chemistry teacher: when you do not understand what black body radiation is you cannot discuss the Earth's energy balance intelligently.

11968. AEBanner at 21:30 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       scaddenp @162

       I think the post by MA Rodger @163 and my post @167 answer your points adequately.

       Of course, energy fluxes must balance where possible, as with energy from the Sun.
       But, if additional energy enters the system and cannot be radiated away, then the temperature will increase.

11969. AEBanner at 21:03 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy causes Global Warming

       michael sweet @218 Big Picture

       Volcanoes; yes, very interesting.
       But first I wish to make a distinction between sensible heat and radiant heat. Sure they are both forms of heat energy, but they need to be considered differently in the Earth’s system.

       Sensible heat is the energy of the molecules in a gas due to their motion; that is their kinetic energy.
       Radiant heat is the energy of an emitted electromagnetic photon. In general, this energy is greater than the kinetic energy of a moving molecule.

       Radiant energy is due to the vibrations of the atoms and molecules in a solid and a liquid. The so-called “black body” radiation.
       The nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere do not vibrate, and so they cannot emit radiation. The GHGs, of course, can absorb and thence re-emit photons of infrared energy.

       The energy given out by a volcano consists partly of the sensible heat of the gases, and partly radiant energy from the hot lava and adjacent land surfaces, and the hot material particles also ejected. So, the radiant energy can, indeed, be emitted to space.

       The sensible heat energy goes mainly into the oceans, as we can see from the Figure 5.4 taken from the IPCC AR4 report and conveniently reproduced for us by MA Rodger in his post @215 Big Picture. Once in the oceans, the energy can then be radiated away to space.

       I hope this answers your question satisfactorily.

11970. MA Rodger at 20:16 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       AEBanner @165.

       Running through the difficulties your grand theory has to dodge.

       QUOTE 1

       If we were to divide up the global warming and allocate it to a source (as you do) - 11% to FF/Nuclear, 31% geothermal, 58% "presumably" the Sun - we are left with a highly unsatisfactory outcome. Firstly, this 11% value is a shift from your initial position which (@207 of a different thread) was suggesting that the FF/Nuclear input was "enough to explain the measured warming of the Earth's atmosphere." This is not saying four-times the measured atmospheric warming which is what you set out now. Secondly, where does this 11% value come from? Are you assuming the 159Zj of total global warming 1961-2003 set out in IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 comes to something like 0.27Wm^-2 and the FF/Nuclear flux is calculated as some 0.03Wm^-2?  [NOTE - you may set this out on your web-page but if it is not set out here I am ignoring it. Your web-page is being 'corrected' so is not a 'published' source.] Thirdly, the geothermal energy flux is constant over time. Were this responsible for 31% of AGW which is running at 0.2ºC per decade, we would expect to have seen a 0.6ºC increase in global temperature over the past century and the century before that; indeed a 6ºC rise over the last millenium. Such a rise has not happened. Fourthly, IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 provides values for the period 1993-2003 (0.55WM^-2) which are twice the rate of warming of the earlier period implying the earlier period averaged 0.14Wm^-2, a four-fold difference between the two periods. How can this be if the largest but 'presumed' energy flux in this grand theory was solar energy which has been declining over the period. Fifthly, if these energy fluxes from FF/Nuclear, Geo, Solar arrive within the global system and have no effect on the energy fluxes exiting the global system thus warming the global system, the energy accumulated then lost through the 11-years solar cycles would be an interesting and measureable test of your system as it is rather large. Where is this energy fluctuation?

       QUOTE 2

       You don't seem to realise that the kinetic energy of a molecule within an gas is not fixed. There is a large distribution of velocities (& differing masses) as the whole bishes and bashes iteself within the volume. And there are lots and lots of molecules and lots and lots of collosions, that relative to the number of photons emitted. You do seem to arrive at some of this learning yourself as you begin by misinterpreting the word "average" and end by asking for help in Statistical Mechanics.

       QUOTE 3

       Firstly, you misinterpret the mechanism by which an IR photon escapes the planet, this a matter of "standard physics." You are assuming that a CO2 molecule that captures such an IR photon will then wiggle for a while before shooting the IR photon away in some unspecified direction, this allowing an upward migration of IR photons up and out of the atmosphere. If this were true, the origin of the IR photons should be considered, so see the second point below. While essentially the process results in an outcome not greatly dissimilar to it being true, the "standard physics" says it isn't true. While a CO2 molecule will take on average tenths of a second to emit a photon from its excited state, such a molecule is in collisions in milliseconds. As the excited state is a mechanical wobble, a collision will interfere with the wobble and the energy is almost always (given the large number of collisions) absorbed by the air. The photon is emited by subsequent collision-induced excited states which are many more than photn-induced excited states. Secondly, you misinterpret yourself!! If the 15 micron IR photons do not originate from air but are simply transmitted through the air abet with CO2-redirections: if this were true, where do these photons originate from and where do they end up? If the atmosphere is a neutral transmitter, the origin must be the planet surface. And the destination must either be back to the planet surface or outer space. If the former were to increase, less photons escaping into space, this will of course result in an increase in temperature and thus an increase in photons launched up into the atmosphere. Golly, have we just stumbled upon a wrming planet and way of cooling down the warming? How does that impact your grand theory which has no such mechanism?

11971. crobbins58 at 18:28 PM on 4 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Thermodynamics appears to be the basic truth. The inherent increase in entropy in any closed system (cycle?) predicts the eventual end point of everything,  as well as each step, along the way to the end of everything.

       Let us be content to work together and solve a simple problem as opposed to trying to solve something we cannot solve as evidenced by the many posts herewith. 

11972. AEBanner at 18:14 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       As we have relocated to a new thread, I think it might be helpful for possible new readers if I were to mention again my wordpress post at
       https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50

       MA Rodger @217 Big Picture

       Thank you again for your recent post, but I am afraid I’m rather puzzled about some of your questions.
       Quote 1. “If the 97% of the warming that didn’t end up in the atmosphere didn’t result from the AGW, what was the cause of it?” End quote.
       I cannot quite see what you are getting at here. But my best assessment is that, for the period 1961 to 2003, 31% of the increase in global heat content came from geothermal sources, 11% from anthropogenic energy and the remaining 58% presumably from the Sun. But this is puzzling, because for Earth’s energy balance, the energy received from the Sun is equalled by the energy radiated back to space.
       Quote 2. “And happily your numbers are not inaccurate within your grand theory that CO2 at 288K cannot emit photons at 15 microns because the energy of such a photon is roughly twice the average kinetic energy of a molecule in such a gas. But do remind me - what is the minimum number of gas molecules you require to create a collision? There is further consideration of the statistical profile of molecule velocity and the other means such molecules have of holding energy.” End quote.
       Firstly, I should like to clarify this point about the kinetic energy of a molecule at 288 K. It is not the average kinetic energy, whatever that means here, but the total kinetic energy of the molecule. In other words, even if the colliding molecule could somehow give up all its energy to the GHG, it would still be less than half that required to enable a subsequent photon.
       I think the answer to your question is probably 2, but the probability of an instantaneous collision involving more than 2 is very small, in view of the extremely short times taken. Subsequent collisions would have the same problem.
       However, a proper study with statistical mechanics is really needed on this matter. Please, is there a reader out there who would be prepared to consider doing this?
       Quote 3. “Simply put, to refute the existence of 15 micron IR being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere is to popishly refute a whole pile of very straightforward physics. The IR can be measured.” End quote.
       I’m afraid you have totally misunderstood my position on this. I have never denied the ability of carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, to emit infrared photons. As you say, this is straightforward physics. A more careful reading of my posts should make this very clear.
       What I am questioning is the probability of CO2 to be raised to the required excited state by simple collision with other molecules in the atmosphere. The GHG theory does not require this; it relies on absorption of photons of the matching energy. Yes, standard physics.
       Please do not misrepresent my ideas and statements.

        

11973. crobbins58 at 18:03 PM on 4 March 2019
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Using the abbreviation"FF" is confusing. It could be forest fires or fossil fuel. 

       Fossil fuel is also confusing since hydrocarbons are now considered to be naturally produced by chemical reactions under high pressures and temperatures inside the earth and not by decay of plants and animals. Hydrocarbons would then be renewable.

       Except for transmutation and arrivals from space, we are a closed system. Many processes interact, emerge, and disappear over time. We are intellectually incompetent to imagine what might happen or actually did happen. We would be advised to not do anything lest we make everything worse which is the only history we actually know.

11974. scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       MA Rodgers - fair enough, but main point was the AEBanner seems to be neglecting outflow to space. There is what seems to me a pretty wierd idea that heat from burning FF cannot result in radiation to space.

11975. MA Rodger at 09:25 AM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       scaddenp @162,

       The theory that all things hot radiate is a bit simplistic in this context. Absorbivity and emissivity are strongly connected. A shiny solid does not absorb so well and also does not emit so well. This is because the mechanisms that absorb are the same as those which emit.

       Thus N2 absorbs & emits only at very short wavelengths below 0.2 microns. O2 is a bit more reactive at lower energy radiation with absorption/emitting bands either side of visible light. There are also weak bands in the near IR at about 1 micron.

       But at lower energies deep in the IR, diatomic molecules like O2 & N2 simply do not have the flippy-floopy wobbles that are required to capture/emit longer wavelengths. So they cannot of themselves be warmed by such radiation or cool by emitting such radiation.

11976. nigelj at 06:53 AM on 4 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #9
       

       “Trump is a branding guy,” said David B. Srere.... “He knows his audience and understands how to tell a clear, simple story."

       Trump is more of a manipulator of emotion, but he is mostly just convincing his already convinced hard core supporters, just look at his polling numbers. Middle America clearly respond better to a calm reasoned delivery (as long as it doesn't bore them to death). Political history shows attack campaigns are sometimes risky and you need positive alternatives. 

       Yes there is something to be said for keeping things simple, depending on context and time limits. I find most scientists and climate writers have good delivery but one or two scientists get lost in details.

       It needs to be said there is no magic simple phrase that will convince people of the climate problem. If there was it would have been discovered by now.

       But I feel one thing is missing . I do not hear enough mainstream scientists and climate jounalists in the general media articles pointing out how the denialists are using missleading logical fallacies (this website excepted). I think many in the mainstream are too frightened to criticise denialists too directly (again this website and similar ones excepted).

       “It might be that climate has become so wrapped up in one’s identity and worldview that it’s not the sort of thing that’s susceptible to better messaging,”

       Quite probably, but it appears nobody is certain exactly what is going on in this regard, and so surely we should at least have the facts out there on how the weather is changing and some specific events have been linked to climate change? Just don't exaggerate them.

       "Democrats tend to see it as part of a broader pattern of climate change, Republicans as more of an aberration. "

       That is what Republicans say when questioned. They might think something differently, but not want to admit it to the "tribe". So again keep the facts flowing on extreme weather.

       "With so many voices in the GND debate, one that is conspicuously silent is the voice of the scientific community. We urge scientists to engage in the discussion, both with their scientific expertise and as citizens."

       There are fairly obvious reasons why scientists would be reluctant to enter the world of politics. Their job is to communicate the science and they do pretty well. My one criticism is scientists are not perhaps highlighting the extreme but possible scenarios well enough (J Hansen excepted). The job is being left to people like Wallace Wells and he is a good writer (The Economist has given his book positive feedback) but he is a journalist, so will not have the same credibility as a scientist.

11977. scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 4 March 2019
       It's waste heat
       

       Responding to comment here.

       " it would be correct to state that such an atmosphere does not radiate IR."

       Anything with a temperature above absolute zero must radiate, including gases nitrogen and oxygen. What nitrogen and oxygen do not do is absorb IR (and then reradiate it).

       You seem to missing the fundimental point that exergy fluxes must balance. At any level in the atmosphere, the outgoing energy must balance incoming radiation. (and think about what "heat" is. Why discount ground heated by sun). If radiation reaching the surface (say) increases (as it does because of IR being reradiated when GHG increases), then temperature of surface must increase till outgoing radiation matches the incoming. Grab a physics textbook and revise blackbody radiation and Stefan-Boltzmann law.

       Heat is absolutely radiated to space all the time - and is measured by satellites. The amount of outgoing IR and its spectrum are completely consistent match GHG theory with extraordinary precision.

       If your notions were correct, what would you predict IR sensors on satellites would detect?

11978. scaddenp at 06:15 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       I have responded to AEBanner here on the waste heat thread where I believe this discussion belongs.

       As a moderator here, can I ask that all further discussion on AEBanner's notion be done there. It is offtopic on this thread and thus in violation of comments policy.

11979. michael sweet at 03:52 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner,

       You claim that since waste energy from fossil fuel combustion is heat it cannot be reradiated into space. 

       Leaving aside the fact that all incoming energy is converted into heat before being reconverted into radiation, can you explain why volcanic energy does not accumulate in the atmosphere like human heat energ ydoes.  Since volcanic energy is also all heat, by your claim that heat canot be reradiated it should also accumulate.  Since up thread MARodger showed tht volcanic energy is 3-10 times more energy than human heat the volcanic energy should dominate your effect.

       Since volcanic heat has been emitted for all eternity, the Earth should be as hot as the sun by now, according to your hypothesis.  Obviously the Earth is not as hot as the Sun so the heat energy must also radiate out into space and not accumulate as you claim. 

       You need to learn about black body radiation which would also explain how CO2 emits radiation at a higher energy than the average molecule (hint: if there is an average than some molecules have more than average energy).

11980. MA Rodger at 03:12 AM on 4 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner @216,

       The IPCC AR4 Fig5.4 shown @215 does indeed show the warming of the atmosphere at 3% of the global total. You say of the global total, the 100%, that you "erroneously attributed them to anthropogenic energy." We agree that there is a lot of energy in this 100% of the global warming 1961-2003. So being so great a quantity of energy should make my question on the subject easy to answer. If the 97% of the warming that didn't end up in the atmosphere didn't result from AGW, what was the cause of it?

       And happily your numbers are not inaccurate within your grand theory that CO2 at 288K cannot emit photons at 15 microns because the energy of such a photon is roughly twice the average kinetic energy of a molecule in such a gas. But do remind me - what is the minimum number of gas molecules you require to create a collision? There is further consideration of the statistical profile of molecule velocity and the other means such molecules have of holding energy.

       Simply put, to refute the existence of 15 micron IR being radiated by CO2 in the atmosphere is to popishly refute a whole pile of very straightforward physics. The IR can be measured.

11981. AEBanner at 23:57 PM on 3 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       MA Rodger @215

       Thank you yet again for an interesting post, and particularly for including Fig 5.4 from the IPCC report. Your comments about the values in this diagram are absolutely correct. I erroneously attributed them to anthropogenic energy, and I apologise for this mistake. I have corrected the mistake in my blog.
       However, from this figure it was possible to obtain a value for the proportion of the total energy in the Earth’s system which was in the atmosphere as it was in 2003. This was 3.14%, and this was the value I used subsequently.
       Nevertheless, this mistake does not in any way affect the calculations in my blog, because my data is from the BP dataset.

       Now, about the question of radiation from the atmosphere. You agree that nitrogen and oxygen do not radiate, so for any loss of energy stored in the atmosphere, it would have to come via the greenhouse gases. This could only happen by emission of infrared photons from the excited states of these gases.

       But, the excited states are quantised; they have well-defined energy levels, and so the emission of photons is also quantised, as the molecule decays from one excited state to the lower one. You cannot have emission of only a fraction of a photon.

       The energy of a photon, and therefore of the energy level difference in the excited states in the molecule, is dependent on the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. Consider the 15 micron emission from carbon dioxide. The photon energy is given by the equation Energy = h*f where h is Planck’s Constant = 6.63*10^-34 Joule seconds, and f is the frequency. It follows from the velocity of light that f=2*10^13 Hz. Hence, the energy of a 15 micron photon is 1.326*10^-20 Joules.

       Let us now compare this with the kinetic energy of a molecule in the atmosphere with an Absolute temperature T. By the kinetic theory, the energy of the molecule is given by: Energy = (3/2)* k *T Joules, where k is the Boltzmann Constant 1.38*10^-23 J/K. This gives the equation for the kinetic energy E = 2.07*(10-23)*T Joules. So at atmospheric temperature of 288 K, the energy = 5.96*10-21 Joules.

       This is significantly less than the photon energy given above, and so a collision, even involving all the kinetic energy, cannot excite a carbon dioxide molecule enough to enable subsequent radiation. Similarly for other GHG’s.
       So unless there is some other factor to consider, it would seem that the “Energy” ideas in my blog are still valid.

11982. MA Rodger at 21:18 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       nowherethis @35,

       You may glibly defend your continued requests for an answer to your "initial question." But if folk look back up the threads you have been commenting on, they see you repeatedly evading requests that you set out what it is you are asking.

       Your "initial question" set out thus:-

       "There's a lot of talk about "solutions". Is there any PROVEN solutions? Can anyone point me to the validation? I don't count 'appears-could-can-seems-may-projected-opinion-etc." as validation. I'm looking for something that is absolute and confirmed."

       There is of course a blindingly obvious but trivial answer to this question. If mankind reduces/stops* emitting GHGs into the atmosphere, the damage being caused by AGW will be lessened/restricted-in-level*. [*delete as appropriate] Such a "solution" is called 'mitigation' and is the only sensible route known to prevent mankind's GHGs trashing the global climate, something which threatens to make parts of the globe uninhabitable (outside air conditioning) and to crash the world economy.

       As this is so blindingly obvious and trivial, I have always assumed it is not what you want and have asked you on more than one occasion to set out you enquiry properly.

       So, assuming the above response is not what you seek, will you do that now? What do you mean by "solution"?

11983. Eclectic at 16:03 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Philippe Chantreau @37  [and prior]

       you are of course correct, when you say that our mutual friend (Nowhearthis) cannot be taken seriously.

       He is atypical, in that he combines concern-trolling and the usual extremist venting (that political ideological extreme where callous selfishness views itself as virtuous).   As usual, there is a large dollop of wilful blindness to scientific fact & logic, and a large dollop of smoke-and-mirrors sophistry (or rhetorical posturing . . . call it what you will) which is the product of Motivated Reasoning.

       Probably at a deeper level, there is an intellect silently pleading to be freed from the emotional binds of denialism . . . and hoping that "Prince Philippe" or "Baron Red" (or anyone at SkS) can find the magic phrases which will convince the "other" part of the brain of its wrongheadedness?   Well, that might (or might not) explain the continual repetition of mangled & absurd arguments from our friend.

       There is some amusement value in engaging with the repetitious posts . . . counterbalanced by the tiresomeness of it all.   Yet hope springs eternal....

11984. RedBaron at 14:53 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @35 nowhearthis,

       Several answered the question, you just did not like the answer. But the question is a rhetorical trick, if any reputable scientist answered directly, it would discredit themselves and thus their answer.

       People here on this website are very well aware of these sorts of tricks and the logic fallacies that are used to create them. You won't be capable of tricking any of the regular members here. The only ones you'll be able to trick are denialists.

       Now you wanted originally absolute confirmation. You got an extra two Earth's to experiment with? One as a control and one to test mitigation strategies on? Oops. No you don't.

       But you also made unsupported claims about how horrible and costly the results of new research in mitigation would be to enact. Some may have proposed certain things that could potentially be costly, but you are ignoring the metaphorical "low fruit". That is mitigation strategies 100% benefial to everyone. The so called win/win strategy.

       'In the early 1970s, it dawned on me that no one had ever applied design to agriculture. When I realised it, the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was so strange. We’d had agriculture for 7,000 years, and we’d been losing for 7,000 years — everything was turning into desert. So I wondered, can we build systems that obey ecological principles? We know what they are, we just never apply them. Ecologists never apply good ecology to their gardens. Architects never understand the transmission of heat in buildings. And physicists live in houses with demented energy systems. It’s curious that we never apply what we know to how we actually live.'-Bill Mollison

       That means we do have certain kinds of confirmation. Not the 100% absolute confirmation you requested, as that's just rhetorical nonsense. But there is quite a lot confirmed in trials and in the field already.  For example, I posted to you results from case study trial that shows an average 10 year sequestration rate of soil carbon via the LCP of 5-10 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. I also showed 6 other studies from around the world where there are people confirmed to have reached sequestration rates in that range. (as well as studies showing when why and how other farmers failed to reach that rate)

       So since we have absolute confirmation at least some farmers from around the world can reach this high rate of sequestration, and we have at least some knowledge of when farmers have failed to reach such a high rate of sequestration, we can project what when and how changes in agriculture could be made to significantly mitigate AGW. It's a projection though. You couldn't be absolutely 100% sure until you actually did it.

       “Yes, agriculture done improperly can definitely be a problem, but agriculture done in a proper way is an important solution to environmental issues including climate change, water issues, and biodiversity.”-Rattan Lal

       The advantage with this conservative approach though is there would be minimal risk. There are no known nor projected negative side effects to any of these proposed changes. Quite the contrary, they are universally beneficial to economies (both local and macro), environment, public health, etc... There is no down side. So we should enact this part of the mitigation strategy immediately. (And sure enough we are, but slowly. Maybe too slowly.)

       "If all farmland was a net sink rather than a net source for CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would fall at the same time as farm productivity and watershed function improved. This would solve the vast majority of our food production, environmental and human health ‘problems’." Dr. Christine Jones

       That leaves the other side of the carbon cycle. There are also certain parts of the emissions side with "low hanging fruit" that absolutely is beneficial to everyone. Higher efficiencies and less waste benefit everyone. Passive solar and passive geothermal in designs combined with better insulation and remodels of older buildings all helps significantly with no known down sides at all. These also are being done already and building codes around the world reflect this. Some countries are further behind than others of course, but this is absolutely beneficial to everyone and is already happening now!

       That leaves the problems though, excessive use of fossil fuels for inefficient and wasteful uses. This is what really needs focused on in my opinion. We need to speed up the natural replacement of fossil fuels with renewables right now. There should not ever be a new coal plant being built any more, and they should slowly be weaned out as the old plants get decomissioned. 

       That of course might hurt jobs in the antiquated and obsolete coal business, but in the new and modern solar wind and hydroelectric businesses that replace it can be found far more benefits to offset the losses. So while not absolute in benefits, the total net is a certain benefit.

       It's only when you try to take all fossil fuels to zero and too fast that you run into projected high cost negative side effects, shortages, and economic collapse. So don't do that! There are plenty of these 100% beneficial things we can do as "low fruit" that we know work without any new technologies needed. 

       And even better, most likely if we take on all of the "low fruit" there is a pretty good chance we won't need to make any "draconian" cuts. (to use your weighted term) That's not 100% absolute. WE need to try it and see. But it's pretty likely and MUCH better than the status quo. And since we must try to salvage as much of the environment as we can to avoid it causing our own collapse, this is something we must try, unequivocally.

       "Ecosystem function is vastly more valuable than the production and consumption of goods and services." -John D. Liu

11985. Philippe Chantreau at 13:20 PM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Your "initial question" is nothing but a rethorical trick. It is asking for something both impossible and unnecessary and runs counter to any kind of logical thought process. I'm sure some can be fooled by such courtroom methods. If I have studies showing how smoking damages airways, their lining, the cells' DNA, how it promotes inflammation and platelet activation, how it is associated with a variety of conditions, I do not need a study also showing health outcomes of smokers who quit vs. those who continue in order to know that it will be beneficial to quit, would it be only to stop the ongoing damage. That is basic logic. Such studies will simply quantify exactly how far that benefit extends, how quickly it manifests and other such details, which may be useful but unnecessary to know that quitting will be beneficial. If there were several planets to experiment with, your rethorical question could be answered with great precision, but that's obviously not the situation. As it stands, it is sophistry.

11986. Philippe Chantreau at 11:48 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       The science is in MODTRAN and HITRAN that show with exquisite precision how infrared behaves in the atmosphere. They have been validated ad-nauseam. The science is in the TOA measurements, in the atmospheric energy budgets. The science of what CO2 does to infrared is established beyond the shadow of a doubt. The science is in the isotopic signature of fossil carbon, there is a large litterature showing that the recent and enormous increase is due to FF burning. It takes inferred reasoning to conme to the conclusion that limiting atmospheric CO2 is necessary to prevent the system from going in a territory entirely new for humans. If you're trying to argue that inferred reasoning should not be used when planning for the future you have given up all chance of being taken seriously. The science shows that warming is happening and already taking a considerable toll; it shows that anthropogenic CO2 is a major driver. How much of an effort does it take to reach the conclusion that said CO2 emissions should be reduced? This is nonsense. You are asking for proof that an action will have some effect without offering anything suggesting that it won't.

       Furthermore, I note that you are still not providing the level of proof that you are asking from others about your economic doom and gloom scenario. So you are basing you argument on a premise far more proof deficient than the logical idea that limiting the physical quantity of the cause of a problem will limit the extent of the problem.  I have pointed out that the World economy could absorb a 15 trillion loss from incompetence and greed without such extreme disatrous end as what you alluded. How about we spend half of that in energy transition for starters? That's just about the amount of money thesaurized in hidden accounts and tax heavens at any given time, money that ironically does not do anything, even for those who control it, because it has to be hidden.

11987. nowhearthis at 10:47 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       In defense of "repetition" - two reasons: 1) No one has provided any actual answer to my initial question.  They dance around the issue - but no answer.  This has prompted me to ask again since I feel the point keeps getting lost.  2) Many (most) responses are hostile confrontations (avoiding, or justifying the avoidance of the central question) trying to convince me climate change is real and man made.  I don't need convincing, I'm there and was all along.

       I keep trying to convey that I'm not the only person who will ask this question.  As regulation, taxation and sacrifice is demanded this will become a common topic.  There better be an answer to justify the policy.

       Philippe in the post directly above argues it is unimportant to validate or at least have reasonable testing that indicates effectiveness of a drug, product or method.  He states "there is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever", that may be, however there can be reasonable demonstration of effectiveness that provides a sound basis to proceed - particularly where it is on a massive scale and cost.  Isn't "science" in the title of this website?  What is the 'scientific method'?  Perhaps that is what I'm seeking and I have been phrasing in incorrectly.  Red Barron regurgitates a 'solar electric worker' talking point supposedly to destroy my concern with uneployment.  The problem is, his talking point is laughable in the macro context. 

       The issue is complex and requires a concerted effort.  Just getting everyone globally on the same page may be impossible - a likely prospect no one has countered.  Further, no one ever asked me what I think may make progress to a solution.  You're all too busy being argumentative, self rightous and critical of others who don't fall in line. 

       I posed a simple question and have been drawn into a bunch of pheriperal arguments and demonized.  It's clear no answer exists and that most here believe concensus based on theory is proof and we should proceed on faith.  It's clear no answer is to be found here.  I hoped for better.  I'm done arguing, I can do that with my wife and she's much better looking.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Excessive repetition/sloganeering snipped.

11988. Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 3 March 2019
       2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
       

       I'm writing this request here because it's the latest thread: is it possible to update the escalator so that it shows all the data up to 2018?

11989. nigelj at 06:26 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       OPOF @ 27

       "Linking Climate Action to social corrections may be an effective way to help encourage moderate socially progressive conservatives to do the hard work of taking-over, breaking-apart, or breaking-up with their New United Right Tribe."

       It could work, but The Democrats have to have sound socio-economic ideas inserted into any GND. I would go with things like some form of universal healthcare and a decent social safety net, but also emphasise modern free trade, help for both workers 'and' business, deficits are bad, no walls but regulated immigration... so you are resonating with both liberals and moderate conservatives.

       Sorry if this is a political statement, but the GND has been made political. I don't want to see the environmental goals destroyed by a bad, one sided  list of other goals. Its too important to ignore.

11990. nigelj at 05:45 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       swampfoxh @28, you have an interesting background. And I agree with most of your comments.

       "The deforestation of the Amazon and Indonesia, alone, is enough to raise the worry lines on my forehead, yet many "peer reviewed" studies try to tell us that animal ag is "only 14%-18% of emissions. This area needs a lot more work. "

       You cant really put deforestation under animal contributions because deforestation has a range of causes (grazing land, crops, urban projects).  It needs a separate category.  It does however obscure the contribution of animals, but nothing to be done about that.

       Maybe animlas contribute more than the numbers show, but people are already getting pretty aware of the methane problem and dietary issues with high meat consumption problems of battery cage farming. I think things are going in your favour generally!

11991. Philippe Chantreau at 04:05 AM on 3 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       The main point is not being missed at all. The main point is that you're long on rethoric, short on everything else, and demonstrably arguing in bad faith. Having an experimental vaccine succeed within the framework of a study is not proof that a large scale campaign will eradicate the disease, far from it. We never know what level of protection it is going to grant to a population until the population is vaccinated. You argue beside my point on CFCs by going to the economic aspect, which is ironic, considering that hubristic pundits back then promised economic collapse from phasing out the stuff (Sallie Baliunas said it would cost trillions). You're not showing that there was advance proof that the protocol would work, because there is no such thing. You talk about replacements and costs. The effectiveness of the intervention has no direct relation to its cost but both cost and effectiveness have a role in the cost/benefit analysis. You are saying that the effectiveness has to be known exactly before the cost/benefit analysis can proceed; that is total nonsense because the true effectiveness can never be known in advance, and it wasn't in the case of the Montreal Protocol.

       The reality about any kind of large scale action is that its effectiveness can not be measured until it has been implemented and given time to produce its expected results. There is no such thing as in-advance proof, ever. Because a vaccine works in a study sample, we attempt its large scale implementation but the true effectiveness can not be known in advance. Because the radiative effects of CO2 are well known and the current increase can be attributed to FF burning, we must decrease FF use. It really is that simple.

       As for your representation of the current effects of CC, it is laughable. Houston experienced three 500-years type of rain events, 3 years in a row, with about 125 billions of losses just for Harvey. California is experiencing extreme rain and floods right on the tail of devastating fires brought by drought conditions. Europe has been struggling with chronic droughts interrupted by violent rains and flooding. Last summer, Northern Europe saw extreme temperatures all the way to the Arctic circle and experienced massive forest fires. The heat was experienced all around the Northern hemisphere. Property values on the US coasts have already started to reflect sea level rise. As for hurricanes, any careful examination of the litterature shows that no consistent prediction of frequency in the future conditions exists. What does exist is the expectation that tropical storms and hurricanes will undergo rapid intensification and cause higher rain fall, which was clearly demonstrated on several occasions, the latest just last October. Pretty much all the predicted effects of CC are materializing right before our eyes, with their associated costs. The depth of the denial that it takes to not see it is truly a wonder.

       And what absolute proof do you have that the economic devastation you're predicting will actually occur? One could easily turn the table on you and demand proof that the consumption society model can be extended to 8 billion people without causing catastrophic losses of ecosystem services that are vital to all people. You don't have that proof, therefore, according to your reasoning, the generalization of that model should be stopped.

       I wish you could have asked to all the pretentious clowns in the finance world putting together CDOs in the 2000s if they had absolute proof that their clever schemes were safe for the World financial markets. Their hubris cost about 15 trillions. And yet, the damage was a far cry from what happened post 1929. Incidentally, this proves (you seem to like the word) that we could spend up to 15 trillions on an energy transition over a few years; it wouldn't be entirely painless but nowhere near the complete worldwide disaster you're trying to portray. We know that for sure because this cost was born by the World economy following the 2008 fiasco, no in-advance proof required.

11992. swampfoxh at 03:50 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       TO: nigelj

       Nope, not an animal rights person. I am an organic farmer (plants only and using no animal fertilizer).  I teach a 3 hour course called "Climate Change" Impact of an Outlaw Species" and am always perplexed at how animal agriculture can fly below the radar with respect to its ousized contribution to GGEs.  The deforestation of the Amazon and Indonesia, alone, is enough to raise the worry lines on my forehead, yet many "peer reviewed" studies try to tell us that animal ag is "only 14%-18% of emissions.  This area needs a lot more work.  I suggest we not look at animal ag, the global industry, ...we should proceed from the following:

       "What if there was no animal agriculture (animals owned as property) on planet earth?  What emissions (and other climate problems) would we not have?"  We would not have substantial emissions from deforestation, desertification, eutrophication, acidification of our oceans, outsized fresh water usage along with the environmental costs to move water around, we'd have more suitable and sustainable wild animal and native plant habitat...hugely reduced medical costs from healthier populations, no more raising, feeding, slaughtering, packaging, transporting, refrigerating, waste management (or even kitchen garbage disposers) vastly less pesticides, herbicides, endocrine disruptive artificial homones, antibiotic resistances...and the list of benefits could go on...and on.   

11993. One Planet Only Forever at 02:14 AM on 3 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       An important point should be added to the following well-made point:

       "... rebuilding the home will create investments and jobs, which would dampen a disaster’s impact on the national economy. But as a society, we would consider these traumatizing losses quite harmful and well worth preventing for ethical reasons."

       The rebuilding "Economic Plus" after a disaster is actually an "Economic-Social Negative". An potential exception would be if the original item was unsustainable and harmful and the rebuilding was done in a way that was more sustainable than the original developed item.

       The need to rebuild is most likely a distraction from, impediment to, improvements for the future, a complete negative effect that needs to be recovered from, a step back from improvement. Even a complete rebuilding only partially recovers the loss of improvement that had occurred (exception being sustainable correction).

       Also, the point does not include the environmental damage that negatively affect human improvements into the future.

       And an extension of that understanding is the awareness that no economic math can justify imposing negative consequences on Others. And the future generations of humanity are the largest group of Others. And that understanding points out the added flaw of any economic evaluation that pretends that current day perceptions of wealth based on unsustainable and harmful human activity will have "future value". And it leads to understanding that it is even more flawed to believe that such perceptions of wealth would inevitably increase in value (a related understanding is that it is incorrect to 'discount' the future costs of failure to reduce climate change impacts).

       Stock Market corrections and the 2008 global fiscal correction prove the fallacy of that kind of thinking.

       That understanding can also lead to the understanding that the current directions of development by Unite the Right political groups may be a bigger threat to the future of humanity than Climate Change.

       Rebuilding the USA with sustainable helpful corrections is unlikely to happen through compromises with the current developed United Right collective of sub-tribes that resist sustainable improvements or corrections of what has developed. The recent history of actions by that group indicate a significant amount of correction is required to have it not be harmful, to have it be helpful participants in the development of sustainable improvements/corrections for the future of humanity.

       The recent GOP in control of the House, Senate and Presidency easily reversed climate change improvements and corrective actions made by the Obama Administration. They failed to reverse the Heath Care improvements and corrective actions. And a major part of Trump's winning was successfully unjustifiably appealing to the easily impressed and easily angered less fortunate workers in 'key regions' of America (promising things like coal jobs that will never be delivered, and suggesting that blocking immigration and demonizing immigrants is helpful). Linking Climate Action to social corrections may be an effective way to help encourage moderate socially progressive conservatives to do the hard work of taking-over, breaking-apart, or breaking-up with their New United Right Tribe.

11994. MA Rodger at 23:45 PM on 2 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       AEBanner @214,

       If the atmosphere were solely composed of N2 & O2, it would be correct to state that such an atmosphere does not radiate IR. Note that it would happily radiate at shorter wavelengths.

       And if the atmosphere (complete with H2O, CO2 etc) were heated to contain more energy, the N2 & O2 will be bashing into H2O, CO2 etc more vigorously. That will result in the H2O, CO2 etc radiating more IR and so at the top of the atmosphere that increase in IR will be an increased energy loss to space. So unless you have a mechanism to stop that increased energy loss or an energy flux to keep the atmospheric energy levels topped up, the temperature increase will die away back to a temperature that can be maintained.

       You are, however ignoring that fundamental problem with your grand theory and reference IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4 which shows the increased energy content for different parts of the world system for the periods 1961-2003 (blue) and 1993-2003 (burgundy).

       

       IPCC AR4 Fig 5.4

       To provide the 159Zj total change over the period 1961-2003=42 years, that would require an input of 3.8Zj/year or a global warming of 0.24Wm^-2. (This would be 0.55Wm^-2 to provide the 89Zj over the shorter period 1993-2003.)

       Yet we have established that the energy from anthropogenic FF-use & nuclear power generation in 2017 is only 0.03Wm^-2. It would be significantly less in earlier years.

       So even without the increased energy flux lost to space by the warmed atmosphere, your grand theor cannot account for the accumulated energy within the global system.

       Simply put, it don't add up.

11995. AEBanner at 22:50 PM on 2 March 2019
       The Big Picture (2010 version)
       

       Energy can cause Global Warming

       RedBaron @ 213

       Thank you for your comments.

       You claim that most of the anthropogenic energy is radiated back into space.  

       But how do you think that happens?  The anthropogenic energy is caused by burning fuels, and so liberates sensible heat, that is increased kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere.  This is not radiant energy, and so cannot be radiated away.  In any case, nitrogen and oxygen molecules do not radiate. 

       You also claim that energy cannot be accumulated in the Earth's system.  I refer you back to the IPCC report I gave in my post on wordpress

       https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/154908990/posts/50

       which shows that the total change in Energy Heat Content from 1961 to 2003, from all sources, was 15.9*10^22 Joules.  This is indeed a store of energy.

       I should be grateful if you would please let me know the other fundamental flaws you claim I have made.

11996. MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       nowhearthis @26,

       You reply to my questioning @22 thus:-

       "To answer your question, I wrote: "CO2 is a small part of the atmosphere and most generation is outside human control". The EPA, AMS, NASA and others, all distribute content making that claim. Are they wrong? I made no conclusion or inference on the topic beyond the statement."

       So if the EOA, AMS, NASA and others "all distribute content making that claim," you should have little difficulty providing a link to some of this 'distributed content'. Such a link would be helpful as your meaning remains entirely opaque and frankly nobody knows what you are talking about.

11997. Eclectic at 19:57 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Nowhearthis @30  [and prior] :-

       <" still haven't gotten a response to my original question ">  (unquote)

       Nowhearthis: there is no possible answer to your question because (as you were already aware) the simple truth is that there is no AGW problem.

       You were quite right all along.   I consulted the gurus and pundits at the WattsUpWithThat website [the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change] and I was assured that there is no AGW and thus no AGW problem at all for you to worry about.   The WUWT article authors and the many posters in the comments columns, were almost unanimous that CO2 has no effect on world temperature.

       ~ Because there is no empirical evidence of CO2 greenhouse action : no confirmed reproducible experimental or observational evidence whatsoever.

       ** Some of the pundits proved that there has been absolutely no statistically-significant warming in the past 50 years (suggestion to the contrary by 99.9% of climate scientists, is due to the scientists' corruption incompetence and conspiratorial hoaxing and shameless data adjustment).

       ** Other pundits, less sanguine, proved that the borderline slight warming was nothing more than a cyclical Natural Variation deriving from a 60-year oceanic cycle; or a 1000-year oceanic cycle (separately or combined with sundry other oceanic cycles +/-  a stadium wave).

       ** Still other pundits posited that the very slight warming was occurring primarily because the Earth's disk had become slightly less oblique to the sun's rays (this obliquity following a multi-decadal sine wave variation ~ and very fortunately cyclic, because otherwise at a super-maximum obliquity . . . everything would fall off the lower edge of the disk).

       So . . . no problemo    ;-)

11998. RedBaron at 18:27 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       @30 nowhearthis,

        This is the New Mitigation Research thread, not the GND thread.

       So yet again a logic fallacy. This time it's the false dichotomy. Maybe your critique could potentially be valid in the specific case of the GND. I know already several parts were already retracted as unrealistic. But they do not necessarily apply to new research in mitigation strategies in general. And they certainly do not apply to my conservative strategy I detailed for you above.

       And just because your question shows ignorance of risk analysis, doesn't mean you question wasn't answered.

11999. nigelj at 18:18 PM on 2 March 2019
       What's in the Green New Deal? Four key issues to understand
       

       nowhearthis @25

       "I don't expect a "perfect solution", just proof any of the solutions actually work (to stop or even slow change); others will demand this proof."

       Well ok its reasonable to want that, but you are repeating yourself. For the second time you will not get the sort of proof you want because we cannot do an experiment with the planet in a laboratory. All we have is good evidence that we can fix the problem in the same way we have good evidence penicillin will cure a problem. You are not saying why that is not enough for you. The IPCC has good evidence, and you are clearly not accepting this, but that does not make it untrue. You have failed to counter it with better evidence.

       "You write: "Scientists and the general public know this [the specifics of planetary CO2) from school" "I dispute that. "

       I did not say that. I said school children know CO2 doesn't make up a huge part of the atmosphere, and they know this much. Its common knowledge. Now the more pertinent point I made is science tells us small changes in quantities of CO2 have serious effects on the climate. Where is your counter evidence? You still haven't provided any. I'm sure you would know many examples of how small changes or quantities  can modulate large changes, like transistor amplifiers, low concentrations of certain drugs etc.

       We can play this game all day, but everyone can see you are just repeating yourself.

       "Even the war effort of WW2 didnt require significant curtailment of freedoms and some police state" 75-80 million deaths, concentration camps, POW camps and military occupation of entire countries was not a "significant curtailment of freedoms"?

       Strawman again! :) That was a consequence of prisoners of war. Nothing there is relevant to the climate issue. A more pertinent point is the massive economic transformation during the war time economy did not crash the economy or cause mass unemployment as you claim the GND would do. Now I'm not saying a rapid transformation over 20 years for exampe to renewable energy would be easy, just that you are not providing any real evidence it would be as destabilising as you claim. The war effort suggests it wouldn't be. In fact the standard of living actually improved in America during WW2, probably due to the stimulus effect of the war spending.

       And I'm on your side in several respects, eg I dont like totalitarian  and dictatorial government etc, but we absolutely don't need this to combat climate change. A carbon fee and dividend is a market mechanism and doesn't require these things. Infrastructure programmes don't require curtailing freedoms.

       "Nobody could prove we would be able to get to the moon but we did" "There were several Soviet lunar missions that provided PROOF of the ability to reach the moon beginning in the 1950's. Apollo 8, in a prelude to landing on the moon, provided PROOF we could achieve lunar orbit and return a vehicle containing several astronauts to earth."

       You totally missed the point here. Nobody knew we could even put a spacecraft outside of earths orbit until we did. Theres a first time for anything. In fact we have much better proof that renewable energy reduces CO2 emissions. While the totality of the GND is not 100% proven, we do not need 100% proof, and can have good confidence it is soundly based (in a technology sense, put aside the social ideas for another day), and you are not giving me reasons to doubt that.

       "Nobody is saying stop fossil fuel use by tomorrow" "True, but there are those who want it done ASAP and that's not going to happen. People will demand proof and if unproven "solutions" don't show progress, greater sacrifice will be sought and meet greater resistance."

       I think the time frames of 2050 are attainable, quicker perhaps. Economic reports like the Stern Report put mitigation costs in America at 500 billion a year approx. This is not unaffordable. Its what your opiod crisis is costing you each year. Yes I can sympathise people will demand proof things will work, but public polling by Pew research show the majority want more done to tackle climate change, and more renewable energy, so they appear satisfied solutions do exist. The problem is inertia with elected officials. The rest of your comments are hypothetical.

       "We have good information that mitigation strategies would work, and that should be good enough for any sensible person" There's the meat of the matter: "would" Tell that "sensible person" he cannot heat his home, own an automobile or use airline transportation you will learn "would work" is not "good enough" very quickly. Even the imposition of a simple carbon tax in France, resulted in riots. "

       Nothing about climate mitigation means people can't heat their homes.  The job is for generators to transform the electricty grid and costs are affordable as I suggested. Nobody has to go cold and nobody is expected to make huge cuts to electricity use. Your comments are just endless strawmen, and lifted form denialist blogs as I have seen them before word for word almost. 

       "I'm completely on board with renewables but they are, at present, incapable of replacing existing power generation. "

       Another unproven assertion. Research by Jacobsen has shown renewables and storage can replace fossil fuel generation. Published studies by Lazard, a leading expert, show wind power is now one of the cheapest forms of generation and solar power is close behind.

       "The big problem is: The sun doesn't shine all the time and storage technology (like power wall) are insufficient.

       Have a look at the huge Tesla battery storage system in southern Australia. This is the way of the future along with pumped hydro storage. They are building this and have billions of dollars commited to more. Read the related articles recently on this very website, rather than the material you are copying off outdated denialist blogs.

       "It is my personal opinion that technology will get us out of the delemma we're in and Draconian unproven solutions like the GND are a waste of enerby. "

       The GND is based on technology!

       "Re. IPCC documentation, can you point me to those that provide proof that's not speculative? "

       There is nothing speculative in this. Its based on empirical studies, historical data and studies, mathematics, experiments,  deatilked modelling, and the laws of physics. 

       "NThat which I have read, don't meet that standard. This is my quest."

       Nothing would appear to meet your standard because you have already decided what you want to believe for what I suspect and political, ideological and emotive reasons. I suggest try and put them aside and look at the science in the IPCC reports which is good science. Then we need to consider solutions and the economics. Not saying I dont have political views, but I try to put them aside.

       I think if you just go on repeating yourself and dont provide some hard evidence the moderator is going to get annoyed! But thanks for the civil discussion.

12000. nowhearthis at 17:24 PM on 2 March 2019
       New research, February 4-10, 2019
       

       Red Barron

       O.K. I'll tell you again: Let's examine what you label "faulty premise"  You state "Solar employs more people in the U.S. Electricity Generation than Oil, Coal and Gas combined" to counter my claim GND would cause "massive unemployment".  The flaw is, your "count" only pertains to electricity generation.  When you look at the industries as a whole the Fossil Fuel workforce is around 1.9 million vs 374,000 in the solar field.  Then when you add in the fossil fueled automobile industry add 2 million at car dealers, another 940,000 in manufacturing and another 940,000 in the gas station industry.  What about large industrial plants that produce steel, cement, etc. - the building blocks of our society along with all the jobs involved implementing their materials.  Then move on to all the construction workers who use fossil fueled vehicles to go to work, transport materials, etc. and add in the airline industry, alll the food service, delivery jobs, on and on.  Your use of an "electrical generation" pigeon hole is quite silly.  The ripple effect of significant curbing of fossil fuels will result in an employment cataclism and cratering of our economy.  "wild claims" - really?

       I still haven't gotten a response to my original question.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of excessive repetition which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. You have posed your "original" question multiple times and multiple people have responded do it with objective science-based answers. It's time to move on.

       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.

        

Prev  232  233  234  235  236  237  238  239  240  241  242  243  244  245  246  247  Next