Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 Next
Comments 12851 to 12900:
-
Evan at 00:42 AM on 15 December 2018Is Methane Worse than CO2?? | Climate Chemistry
EsaJii@13. By definition, if a molecule gains an amount of energy that is higher than the average energy of surrounding molecules, it will transfer some of its energy to its neighbors so that on average, its energy returns to the average energy of its neighbors. Molecules are very generous. In fact, there is a constant redistribution of energy among molecules. There is no sense that a single molecule gains energy and keeps it for itself for a period of time exceeding something like 0.0000000000001 seconds.
-
scaddenp at 11:26 AM on 14 December 2018Positive feedback means runaway warming
Hardly "mysteriously" stops. In a simply analogy water (and other climate) feedback has gain factor of less than one, so asymtophically reaches it limit.
See comment 107 above.
-
nigelj at 10:04 AM on 14 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
EsaJii @8, good comment. I thought you were a denialist yourself, just the way you worded a couple of things, but you are not.
The interesting thing is temperatures have increased more in winter in some places, and also at nights, as a general rule. This doesn't lessen the problem, but might make it less easy to perceive given we sleep through the night. However very hot nights are really bad for your health because the body doesn't shut down properly.
I understand the reality in America that Republicans are determined to undo democrats policies. From what I have read they now appear to want to undo all the reforms going right back to the new deal. Seems absolutely crazy to me, and I'm not hard leftist, but thats just my opinion. Whats undeniable is it is not what the American people want according to numerous polls and its just not right to ignore the majority like that especially when theres no hard evidence to dismiss public opinion.
Like you say things are more in the hands of the States. This might even be appropriate for some things, but it doesn't make so much sense for the environment, because environmental issues don't respect borders and having 50 different sets of standards is inefficient. In my country we are going in the opposite direction to one central government set of environmental standards, although it was a battle getting there, as the conservative leaning party preferred to leave it local.
-
Menschmaschine at 09:27 AM on 14 December 2018Positive feedback means runaway warming
How exactly is this article "debunking" anything? Of course no one wants to indicate with "runaway feedback" that the warming/cooling will go on forever; Venus also stabilized at about 450°C. Remember, the claim by anthropogenic climate change enthusiasts is that the water vapor feedback only amplifies an initial temperature change by a specific factor of 1 or 2 and then mysteriously stops instead of going all the way to the maximum/minimum. I honestly fail to see how playing around with solar irradiance levels is going to show us how this feat is achieved.
Moderator Response:[DB] "no one wants to indicate with "runaway feedback" that the warming/cooling will go on forever"
No scientist says that it will. Even Hansen has walked back from that:
"With the more realistic physics in the Russell model the runaway water vapor feedback that exists with idealized concepts does not occur. However, the high climate sensitivity has implications for the habitability of the planet, should all fossil fuels actually be burned.
Furthermore, we show that the calculated climate sensitivity is consistent with global temperature and CO2 amounts that are estimated to have existed at earlier times in Earth's history when the planet was ice-free.
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C.
At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.
Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.
The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" — an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants"
Beyond that, it is quite well-established that water vapor is a feedback to temperature changes, and not a driver of them.
-
EsaJii at 08:30 AM on 14 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
"Well raise income tax or perhaps have an infrastructure levy so it actually funds basic infrastructure. Do you expect new infrastructure to appear out of nothing?"
That sort of thinking seems to have fallen back into the last century. It now seems that 4 years is all Americans are willing to plan. The polticis here is sort of a pendulum of about 8 years. Whatever Democrats achieve is erased by the next Republican congress. On top of that, I live in a Red state and it took a state wide referendum to add for instance Medicaid expansion. The governor is still dragging his heels. As I mentioned the only progress we have on the environment is county or city level.
The statements I made about cars and the 2 degree guy are the denialists', and their level on understanding. "It does not feel warm" is what they are capable of. Bever mind that the winter has warmed more than summer in Finland. Every cold week in summer is followed by screams of "there is no warming." Most of them are found at this address, though I knew two from before that. https://ilmastofoorumi.fi/foorumi/
-
Doug_C at 07:45 AM on 14 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
EsaJii @4
"The problem seems to be that they cannot "feel it in their bones." My denialist "fiend" in Finland said exactly that. I asked him if he would be able to tell if it is -22C or -20C outside, just by standing outside. He had no answer. Right wingers have usually some small government preferece so studies paid for by any government as suspect."
That's a misrepresentation of what global warming forced climate change will do. It's not a slight warming everywhere that has little discernible impact, it is an increase of the global average temperature that has catastrophic impacts at the local level.
Like 86 people being killed by the Camp Fire and almost 20,000 buildings destroyed. It's killer heat waves that are ten times more common now and that can kill thousands. Or years long droughts that can help trigger wars that kill hundreds of thousands and send millions fleeing for their lives.
As for your denier "friend" in Finland, it's not a slight warming he should be concerned about now. Due to the large amount of melting fresh water off the Greenland ice sheet, global warming is already desreceasing the ocean currents that warm much of northern Europe. While the rest of the world warms, places like Finland could experience a drop in temperature.
What climate change means is chaotic weather conditions for decades or possible centuries that are already deadly.
Pretty sure the humans who were vapourized by the intense heat of the Camp and other other fires felt it in their bones. And when half the North American continent is covered in smoke from fires tied directly to climate change and we're getting smoke here from wildfires in Siberia due to the same then how out of touch with reality itself do people have to be to not get the link and the risk.
-
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 14 December 2018The Security & Sustainability Guide
Article says: "A transition to “sustainability” is underway, but still at an early stage of development. The progress that has been made (e.g. wind and solar energy installations) is being offset or outmatched by ....( long list of daunting problems) . "
This is a good paragraph. There is some evidence the younger generation are more environmentally aware than the older generation. Millennials are prioritizing 'experiences' over owning stuff. Family sizes are falling quite significantly, so population growth might decline faster than the quoted estimates. But obviously none of this will be fast enough to solve the climate problem so we need support for renewable energy, a carbon tax and dividend and related policies.
The older generation are set in their ways, and get conservative and have memories of the cold war and communism , and associate environmentalism with creeping communism. The single greatest challenge might be to convince them that they are wrong, and that environmentalism is really just commonsense, and can be part of a free market private ownership economy.
-
nigelj at 05:41 AM on 14 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
EsaJii @4
"I mean there is enough detail for most voters to have made up their minds, so they no longer read techical articles."
I do understand your point and its tempting to think that people do have enough detail, but it's not really the case surprisingly. Media coverage of climate change in America has been superficial and of variable quality, full of denialist propaganda.
Climate change is badly taught in schools in America according to research.
The level of igorance about climate science is huge as in this research.
And what are you doing reading a technical article? And how would you know how many articles people read?
"Even my Democrat friends (about 90% of the people I realte to) have put all of the Trump items as the top ones to "change back."
Remember the electorate has expressed huge concern over his environmental policies as in my comment above so these might be at the top of the list to change back.
"I asked him if he would be able to tell if it is -22C or -20C outside, just by standing outside. He had no answer. "
Obviously nobody can reliably tell the difference between a couple of degress without a thermometer, but that won't stop ice sheets melting.
" Right wingers have usually some small government preferece so studies paid for by any government as suspect."
This is just a crazy attitude with all due respect. So what are they going to do, completely ignore science despite the fact it essentially powers their lives? ! Obviously studies by oil companies are virtually worthless because of massive conflict of interest.
"They show how much CO2 is spent making one. I have no idea where these numbers come from as they do not show the calculations."
Ever thought why they are reluctant to release calculations? It's possibly becuase the denialists attack them, make false allegations about them, cherrpick material out of context, nit pick, exaggerate problems, and cast yet more doubt. The denialist community are mostly not after the facts and are not interested in proper process or fair minded debate.
"Taxes on carbon is an issue that seems to be postponed to the after Trump era"
Why? The democrats control congress so it could be back on the agenda. Its going to depend on sentiment in the senate, and it could possibly go with a carbon tax. They don't know until they try.
"Republicans that tax cuts for alternative energy are a good idea, especially for a business in their own state"
This is a bad idea economically. Because of Trump's ill advised tax cuts that were never needed, America now has a balloning deficit and growing federal debt so more tax cuts are no longer feasible.
"State income tax is so low that building power plants is a major drain on state funds. "
Well raise income tax or perhaps have an infrastructure levy so it actually funds basic infrastructure. Do you expect new infrastructure to appear out of nothing? You need new roads and 21st century sustainable electricity generation as well as buying cars and expresso machines etcetera. Sigh.
-
william5331 at 05:06 AM on 14 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
I can't think of another country that has greater renewable energy resources than Australia combined with a widely spread population that makes distributed energy sourcing a particularly attractive solution to their energy gerneration. However they will be fighting an uphill battle unless they first sort out the one ring that controls them all. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2018/01/wasted-effort.html
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:18 AM on 14 December 2018Climate's changed before
Ed says earlier in the thread "changes in solar behavior, volcanism, impacting comets and meteors, seismic activity, and who knows what else would be tough to rule out."
Certainly not for recent times. None of these is a factor in the changes we are currently experiencing. Solar activity is actually lower now than it was in the late 20th century (see related threads where PMOD data can be found). Comets and asteroid strikes have a way of getting noticed. Even tiny nuclear weapon tests in North Korea can be detected by our seismological equipment. "Who knows what else" seems to be falling in the category of cosmic rays and Leprechauns (see applicable thread, except for Leprechauns), rather surprising from one who claims an extensive scientific background.
Perhaps, like a lot of other people, Ed has difficulty accepting that we humans are responsible for a truly geological scale event. Going up in total atmospheric CO2 content by a 100 ppm within the 2ish decades since I started teaching weather for pilots is simply astounding, and a lightining fast geological freak event. Anyone who doesn't see that has a problem with quantitative thinking. Human activity releases about 100 times more CO2 per year than all volcanoes together (see applicable thread). If all of a suddent we started witnessing that kind of volcanic activity, year after year, there would be absolutely no doubt about its scope, consequences, and the urgency of the situation.
-
Eclectic at 23:08 PM on 13 December 2018Climate's changed before
Ed the Skeptic @616 : you say you are not uninformed ~ yet you seem unaware of the absurdity of suggesting that the modern-day rapid global warming could be caused by "multiple cyclic peaks" of warming. (e.g. Dr Curry's frequent "hints" that oceanic cycles are the majority cause of recent rapid warming, are similarly absurd.)
The "multiple peaks" hypothesis is unphysical [=absurd] because:
A. Oceanic currents merely redistribute heat energy, giving negligible overall change through a full cycle. (Unusual events, such as the Younger Dryas, produce a forcing feedback via albedo change ~ but that is not-at-all the case in the present circumstances.)
B. There is no evidence of significant positive [=planetary heating] effect from other cycles or Natural Variations that you mentioned, during the recent 50 years of rapid surface temperature rise. And the real temperature rise is still going up steeply.
C. If the oceans were producing the observed surface heating, then there would be some consequent cooling of the upper ocean. But actually the opposite is occurring ~ the oceanic water is warming [Oceanic Heat Content is increasing over many decades].
D. Even assuming that a "perfect storm" is presently existing ~ leads to the necessity of having a simultaneous Unknown Mysterious Cooling Factor which counteracts the known planetary warming effect of our recent atmospheric CO2 rise (and other GHG's). Some Mysterious Cooling Factor that nicely follows/matches the rising arc of CO2. Clearly absurd !
Ed, our past climate change tells us global warming occurs when there is a reason causing the change. The evidence is strong enough to indicate that we should abate the present [Greenhouse] cause.
-
EsaJii at 22:55 PM on 13 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
I named my denialist "friend" above as "fiend", it was a typo. Not entirely wrond.
-
EsaJii at 22:53 PM on 13 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
Climate change seems to have saturated the news for quite a while, I mean there is enough detail for most voters to have made up their minds, so they no longer read techical articles. It interests voters as much as disco music by now. Sure, they will vote for the candidate that has the same opinion as they. But it is low down on the list. Even my Democrat friends (about 90% of the people I realte to) have put all of the Trump items as the top ones to "change back."
The problem seems to be that they cannot "feel it in their bones." My denialist "fiend" in Finland said exactly that. I asked him if he would be able to tell if it is -22C or -20C outside, just by standing outside. He had no answer. Right wingers have usually some small government preferece so studies paid for by any government as suspect.
The other thing these people want to debate is electric cars. They show how much CO2 is spent making one. I have no idea where these numbers come from as they do not show the calculations.
Taxes on carbon is an issue that seems to be postponed to the after Trump era. More likely we are going to get incentives passed in the mean time. You can persuade Republicans that tax cuts for alternative energy are a good idea, especially for a business in their own state. My state has public utilities, and they might convert old coal plants, but will not tear them down. State income tax is so low that building power plants is a major drain on state funds. On the city and county level we have managed some solar and wind power units. This comes in when courting a Google or Amazon or other high tech company unit (centers of regional use) to build in their city. They make those demands on power.
-
Doug_C at 18:00 PM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
The advantages to EVs are significant.
First off your "fuel" can be transported at near ligthspeed hundreds of miles with little risk, pollution and waste stream. And it weighs almost nothing.
EVs take that energy and deliver it directly and highly efficiently to the wheels meaning only a tiny fraction of the loss of potential energy we have with fossil fuel produced gas and diesel. And with so few moving parts the need for expensive after-market replacement parts is a tiny fraction with EVs compared to ICE vehicles.
And when the electricity generated for EV transportation is produced with low carbon renewables like solar and wind power that is a major step to an essential reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
One of the roadblocks so far has been battery pack cost and technological barriers. Wet lithium ion batteries do remove a lot of the risk associated with wet lithium metal batteries at the cost of about half the energy denisty, longer recharge cycles and shorter lifespan.
This does cause some incovenience to drivers as they have to plan for shorter range, longer "refueling" and at what speed to drive. The faster you go the quicker you draw down your charge and it drops very fast when EVs are operated at high performance levels.
What solid state lithium metal batteries will do is eventually significantly increase the energy density, lower the weight of the battery pack, increase range, decrease the recharge time and mostly remove the fire risk with the elimination of the flamable electrolytes in wet lithium ion batteries.
I think a decade from now there will be no comparison between ICE vehicles and the latest EVs that will have impressive range, much quicker recharging, much longer battery pack life and little of the risk of catastrophic discharge if the battery is damaged in an impact.
With inductive roadbeds it will be possible to charge your vehicle while driving in some schemes that have already been tested in places like New Zealand and London England.
The UK is testing out roads that charge electric cars as they go
Major new investment in wireless electric-charging roads
The future is electric with power provided by solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and other renewable utilized in ways that will simply drive innovation in ways we can't predict now.
The future for us all will be exceedingly dark if we stay the course with fossil fuels while the potential with alternatives could be very bright indeed if we choose.
-
dvaytw at 17:39 PM on 13 December 2018Corals are resilient to bleaching
@scaddenp Thank you so much! After being told I'm "suffering from confirmation bias" and "not interested in science", it was a real pleasure to serve that guy with this information this morning!
-
nigelj at 11:08 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
I think electric cars are great and the way of the future. I would draw a comparison between electric cars and smartphones in terms of the product growth cycle. The early smartphones such as Nokia communicator were actually quite good, but big, ugly looking and not that user friendly, and expensive. Electric cars have mostly been in the same space, a bit dull looking in the main, and unknown quantities with limited range etc so product market penetration has been slow.
Smartphones took off with the apple models because they were easy to use and looked stylish, don’t underestimate the importance of looks. Then the android models came along, and the price dropped and now everyone owns the things, just about. Growth has been exponential.
The latest electric car models are much better looking and have good range and great performance and comfort. What is needed is quick charging – don’t underestimate the importance of convenience to the public. It also takes a little time for the public to accept new technology. Then I predict growth will be exponential.
-
Doug_C at 10:38 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Riduna @15
With recent developments in lithium battery technology it's hard to see how ICE vehicles will remain competitive much longer.
Solid state batteries are likely going to spur a revolution in EV car design, capabilities and sales.
Milestone for next-gen solid-state batteries to power future long-range electrical vehicle
"Our results show that we can make solid-state batteries that have the potential to reach the capabilities of wet batteries, and this using manufacturing processes similar to those for wet batteries," says Philippe Vereecken, principal scientist and program manager at imec, "But unlike wet-batteries, our solid-state batteries will be compatible with metallic lithium anodes with a target of 1,000Wh/liter at a charging speed of 2C (half an hour). This, together with their longer lifetime and improved safety, makes them a promising compact battery technology for tomorrow's long-range vehicles."
The money that is being invested here in British Columbia alone in the fossil fuel sector is staggering.
- A $10 billion plus hydro-electric project at Site C located in the Montney formation that will almost certainly be used to power oil and gas fracking across NE BC.
- The $4.5 billion the Canadian government just spent to pruchase the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Kinder Morgan plus the approximately $4 billion it will take to finish the tripling of line to a capacity of about 900,000 barrels a day.
- The $40 billion LNG complex in north central BC that has just been approved by the provincial government with substantial tax breaks and subsidies.
All this is counter-prodcutive to the carbon tax we have had here in BC for years. The purpose of such a tax is to make all fossil fuels less and less competitive as time passes. But our government gives carbon tax exemptions to polluters.
I would much rather we were taking these significant resources and investing them where first off they won't become stranded assets in the near future and secondly where they don't help drive further climate change that is already highly disruptive and damaging here. And many other places a true global catastrophe in motion.
There are so many options and they get better all the time as with solid state batteries with longer life spans, higher energy density and far less failure risks. And as you point out in your article "Problems for Oil", battery packs are already nearing the point where they make EVs as affordable as ICE powered vehicles.
Certainly this will involve a great deal of change, it kind of reminds me of when gas and electric powered vehicles began to replace horse powered transportation. It's hard to imagine cities like New York and many others a little over a century ago with streets crowed by horse drawn carriages and their attendent "pollution".
We changed then and we'll change now. The air will be cleaner, there will be less geopolitical stress as sunlight is a univerally available fuel source not located in regional trigger points and we'll at least have a shot at mitigating the worst impacts of climate change.
-
Riduna at 08:42 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Doug_C @3
Those who seek to maintain or increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions use all kinds of ploys aimed at excusing such action – for example, calling for emissions to be measured on a per capita basis rather than in absolute terms, or tacitly not condemning misreporting or failure of the worlds’ major emitter to curb emissions until 2030.
While you are largely right in pointing to the imminent threat on public health as stopping use of CFC’s, as noted in the essay China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although China signed-up to the Montréal Protocol it nevertheless continued its use of CFC’s – and policies aimed at promoting use of coal to generate electricity.
-
Ed the Skeptic at 08:30 AM on 13 December 2018Climate's changed before
Dear PS:
That was a quick response! Thank you for that.
"...try reading the IPCC WG1 report to understand what the science actually says. Uninformed statements about what you presume science assumes do not helpful to any discourse. You would see that the science has actually carefully examined all known influences on climate and quantified these with error bars."
I'm not uninformed. I'm a well-published (dozens of peer-reviewed papers) science professional who's become interested in this subject. I've read the recent WG1 report, noted the error bars and confidence levels, and that's a big part of the reason for my posting here.
After some forty years of additional observations, intense scrutiny, supercomputer modelling, satellite technology, and massive capital investment, the stated range of estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of CO2 remains unchanged at 1.5°C to 4.5°C.
Climate omniscience seems still a very long way off. Don't you agree?
If I get a chance, I'll post links to some of the recent literature dealing with as yet unquantified natural forcings and feedbacks.
Moderator Response:[PS] Range for ECS (which is problematic because of feedbacks) has nothing to do with attribution of cause which you were querying. Scientific critique of the attribution chapter in the WG1 is welcome. Be sure to comment on the appropriate topic - use the search function to help find one. If you had read WG1, then why all the false presumptions?
-
Riduna at 08:11 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Doug_C @2
You are right to call for the appropriate policies, more action and less words. I think such calls will become more forceful as severe climate events intensify, occur more frequently and cause more costly damage– as they inevitably will.
In Australia – and most other developed economies – the next step is transport electrification which, as described in my essay Problems for Oil is expected to have a disruptive effect on demand for and use of oil and its products – particularly heavy oils. The countries most immediately affected by such disruption: Canada, Venezuela and Indonesia.
-
michael sweet at 06:34 AM on 13 December 2018Climate's changed before
Ed,
You say "It seems like changes in solar behavior, volcanism, impacting comets and meteors, seismic activity, and who knows what else would be tough to rule out." Fortunately, scientists have been working hard on these questions for the past 100 years. They have been able to make the difficult observations you have apparently missed. Looking at all the data we see that, in fact, scientists have shown that CO2 was responsible for almost all of past catastrophic climate change.
Read the references that the moderator linked to find out how all this is known.
I note that you have cited zero scientific reports in your post.
-
Riduna at 06:31 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Trevor-S @1.
Well, maybe – but the size of the Pipeline (at this date worth >$20bn) suggests more than slowing emissions increase, particularly if followed up with transport electrification. It seems likely that a Labor Government (if elected?) is likely to encourage commitment to mega renewable projects such as those proposed for W.A and NSW – or large industries such as Whyalla steelworks and remote mining operations.
-
scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 13 December 2018Corals are resilient to bleaching
dvaytw - I think you are talking past each other. Looking at this figure:
You can see that any no. of La nina blue dots are warming than past El nino red dots. I suspect that he is confused with how the ENSO anomaly condition is defined.
Figure 5 in this paper (esp 0-700) does not support his assertion that ocean warming is mostly high latitude. The sea surface certainly warms slower than land, but it sure is warming. Here is anomaly in SST to 2012 for tropical area, black line is for coral reef locations from here.
-
Riduna at 06:05 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
jbpawley - Quite right. Error corrected.
-
Ed the Skeptic at 05:56 AM on 13 December 2018Climate's changed before
The "science" statement here seems incredibly overly bold and lacking in sufficient supporting scientific corroberation.
"GHGs, principally CO2 have controlled most major climate changes"?
That seems like quite a leap of faith. It seems like changes in solar behavior, volcanism, impacting comets and meteors, seismic activity, and who knows what else would be tough to rule out.
The accompanying video appears to address a strawman argument in that skeptical references to prior climate change, specifically warming are not to argue that "therefore current warming must also be natural" but rather that it may be natural, or at least mostly natural.
On the skeptics' side an opposing science versus myth scenario plays out, where an AGW argument is offered that "it must be anthropogenic since the current/recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude and/or rate." Well, that just isn't true, is it?
The claim appears to assume high confidence in our understanding of all the various ocean systems' natural heat cycles with periods ranging in scale from decadal, to multidecadal, to century scale, and millennia scale. But aren't we now just beginning to learn about the various systems and cycles of ocean heat transport?
The science claim appears to also assume high confidence in our understanding of various natural albedo cycles and feedbacks, and also of multiple cyclic and random solar behavior, and also geomagnetic influences.
If Earth's natural climate response includes a combination of various natural cycles of various periods, then shouldn't we be having a very careful comprehensive look to identify ALL of such cycles, and then very thoroughly analyze ALL of them jointly rather than just dismiss each in turn for failing to fully cause recent observed behavior?
How do we know that what we've recently witnessed in the observed temperature record isn't mostly just the result of a so-called perfect storm scenario, a coincidence of multiple cyclic peaks? If we cannot know that, then how can we know that equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 isn't a benign or even beneficial 1.5°C, not the claimed 3°C?
That is the point of referring to proxy temperature records that indicate greater magnitudes of temperature and greater rates of temperature change. It is to say, hold on amigo, maybe we best not jump to such a bold conclusion prematurely; cause there's likely a lot we still don't know concerning climate, and so shouldn't we take some more time to be sure we comprehensively understand nature before calling the international 911 climate change SWAT team?
It appears to me that this particular myth-busting is premature.
The next 20-30 years of observations may prove highly informative, one way or the other. If needed, we can pretty easily pump aerosols into the atmosphere while we ramp up nuclear power plants and renewables. No?
Party on and be excellent to each other my brothers! And sisters, if there be any of the finer gender here. :)
Moderator Response:[PS] Please look at articles under the "arguments" to understand why the statement is soundly based in scientific observation and not a leap of faith. Better still, try reading the IPCC WG1 report to understand what the science actually says. Uninformed statements about what you presume science assumes do not helpful to any discourse. You would see that the science has actually carefully examined all known influences on climate and quantified these with error bars.
-
nigelj at 05:20 AM on 13 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
Looking at the chart of wildfires in the article, there appears to have been a step change in 1999. I wonder why? It does roughly coincide with the huge 1998 el nino, although that was just one year.
-
nigelj at 04:45 AM on 13 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
Some polling of interest: : "Around 4 in 10 approve of the way the president (Trump) is handling immigration (39 per cent approve), foreign trade (39 per cent approve) and foreign affairs (36 per cent approve)." Interestingly, the president's climate-change denialism is especially unpopular; only 31 per cent approve of his handling of environmental policy."
-
jbpawley at 04:22 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
In the last summary list, shouldn't the "MW" be "GW"?
-
dvaytw at 01:52 AM on 13 December 2018Corals are resilient to bleaching
Ps can anyone help me with an argument related to the above article in #33? I quoted Hughes as saying the following:
La Niña periods today are actually warmer than El Niño periods were 40 years ago.
The fellow with whom I’m arguing says in response to this:
BS. Here you can see the ENSO data going back seventy years and the zero degree anomaly line hasn’t changed at all. For your “expert” to be right, it would’ve had to have gone up by two degrees Celsius.
He also says:
Your problem is that ocean warming is far less than amospheric warming - and it is mostly at high altitudes. But yet somehow it is responsible for bleaching at mid altitudes.
I‘m in over my head as usual, but this guys *rules* the climate discussions in an FB group of over 30,000 people. If he is wrong - and I’m guessing he is - I’d really like to prove it.
-
Joe Wiseman at 00:42 AM on 13 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Humanity's fatal flaw may be greed. If we do not gain control of that basic flaw, I fear we are a dead end species. This flaw is most visible in our constant references to "economic growth" as the reason for not taking effective action on climate change. Should humanity not survive as a species, life on this planet will suffer cataclysmic consequences such as the meltdown of over 400 nuclear reactors as well as the release of all stored nuclear material. The climate will continue to deteriorate beyond our demise. The surviving life forms, if any, are beyond my ability to describe.
-
dvaytw at 16:08 PM on 12 December 2018Corals are resilient to bleaching
NYT has a hard-hitting report, linking to a new study from Hughes et al:
Global Warming’s Toll on Coral Reefs: As if They’re ‘Ravaged by War’ -
Doug_C at 11:01 AM on 12 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
The results would have likely been much greater if there had been an even playing field in many US states.
Due to GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression Democrat candidates oftern start with a -8 point deficit in many districts. This can really been seen at the state level in the popular vote compared to the election results.
I think it was Wisconsin where 53% of voters cast their ballots for Democrat candidates and only 45% for GOP candidates. Yet the Democrats only won 34% of the state senate seats and the GOP won 64% with independents making up the balance.
There is actually far more support for socially and environmentally sustainable policy in the US that is marginalized by GOP tactics at multiple levels.
-
Doug_C at 10:50 AM on 12 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
"All State Governments need to consider appropriate legislation to provide for orderly recovery and disposal of many millions of solar panels in an eco-friendly manner. Who will be responsible for paying for retrieval and recycling of this material – or that used for wind turbines made obsolete by advances in technology? There are going to be a lot solar panels, possibly over 100 million spread over the countryside by 2025."
This is a really important point, solar and other renewable energy production shouldn't just be as low carbon as possible, it should have the least waste stream possible.
Solar panels can be designed to be recycled at the end of their decades long lifespan and perhaps having a deposit attached to each panel would encourage as many people as possible to turn them in for recycling at the end of their useful life.
Recycling solar panels in 2018
The issues we now all face go far beyond fossil fuels forced climate change, it is now essential that all our activities be sustainable on a long term basis.
-
Doug_C at 10:40 AM on 12 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
nigelj @7
I think that sums it up well.
When you look at how much money, time and innovation has gone into developing the capability by the fossil fuel sector to go after increasingly hard to access hyrocarbons like tar sands bitumen, gas and oil in rock formations that need to be fractured and oil in reserves thousands of feet under the ocean, it would have been far more efficient, sustainable and ethical to put all of that into energy resources that do not present the harzards of fossil fuels.
It has been a conscious decision by those at the top of the coal, oil and gas corporate hierarchy to maintain their dominance in energy production no matter the externaized costs.
-
Josbert Lonnee at 08:44 AM on 12 December 2018A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
The flash (.swf) movies in this article do not work (for me). My browser refuses to load them as this website uses the HTTPS protocol and the .swf files are to be loaded over the HTTP protocol; their URL starts with "http://". For safety the browser refuses to embed not-secured obects in a secured page. I hope this helps.
Moderator Response:[DB] Try it now.
-
SirCharles at 07:24 AM on 12 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Also see this article in Renew Economy
=> Australia in midst of $20 billion wind and solar investment boom
-
nigelj at 06:02 AM on 12 December 2018Like health care, climate policy could tip elections
The way I see it you have a core group of Republicans who basically reject the whole idea of universal healthcare in principle, they reject publicly funded social security and they are deeply opposed to taxation and government regulation of business and environment. All the evidence points this way because they undermine all these things as much as they can get away with . It's the unfortunate Ayn Randian underbelly, and it mixes ideology and greed together.
Whats more it was not always this way, not to this degree: Article on how the GOP has come to reject environmentalism and a rules based approach to environmental concerns.
This group wield power. Republicans have gerrymandered election districts, and used scaremongering to get their way, and then there is the influence of corporate money in politics. They have ignored the views of the public, where the majority want some form of universal healthcare, a carbon tax etc. Polling clearly shows this, so to me the Republicans are being utterly undemocratic.
So you have the republicans holding the country as a hostage. What makes it particularly galling is the lack of logic of many of the Republican ideas and their dismissal of evidence and science based policy.
Like you say the Democrats have tried compromise and have tried being nice and have been walked over. One cannot blame them for taking a stronger position and it will force the Republicans hand.
However governments can't fix every problem in society so pick your causes logically, and the Republicans are not wrong on every issue, for example it doesn't make sense to let just any immigrants into the country, or uncontrolled numbers (although I personally favour immigration for all the usual reasons). Democrats need to avoid the temptation to oppose every Republican idea, just for the sake of payback. But good article.
-
nigelj at 05:13 AM on 12 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Doug C @6, yes the main reason for lack of action on climate change is an underhanded, irresponsible denialist campaign on unprecedented scale. This has clearly worn people down.
Not only was the ozone issue based on scientific evidence like the climate issue, it has an international agreement (The Montreal Protocol) and used similar regulatory and cap and trade mechanisms as recommended for the climate problem but the scheme for ozone was robust. Therefore what sets things apart is the size of the denial campaign.
The refrigeration industry is small and has limited lobbying power. Governments stood up to the ozone industry with a robust cap and trade scheme but not the fossil fuel industry and its hard to escape the conclusion its their lobbying power and campaign donations.
But there are other significant differences. Developing alternative products was easier with the ozone industry. However the fossil fuel industry like the oil producers could have developed alternatives but have refused to, apart from some window dressing. They have not really even tried and have effectively said the whole thing is someone elses problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:17 AM on 12 December 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj @10,
Self-Interest is not a problem. Everything that happens is the collective result of everyone's 'self interest', the result of what everyone perceives and chooses to believe and do.
Greed is the problem. Greed is the pursuit of self-interest in ways that are potentially harmful to others (from the perspective of developing a sustainable better future for humanity). Pursuers of greed act in understandably harmful incorrect ways, self-interested ways that are contrary to achieving collectively understood good objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals (and they will rationalize their self-interested justifications).
And one the the things the greediest have learned to do is to attract the support of people who have other incorrect self-interests that are not in conflict with their own self-interests.
Greedy people can often be relied upon to support each others greedy pursuits as long as they do not infringe on each other's potential for benefit (the honour among thieves thing, and the horse-trading that can happen in places like the USA Senate and House to get things that have a fundamentally understood incorrectness about them passed with bizarre and understandably unjustifiable additional requirements as part of the original incorrect thing).
When the collective of greedy people is not able to win their ways, as was the case that has been developing in the USA, the greedy have sought out other Allies.
The tribally intolerant are an easy fit with the greedy. It can cost a greedy person very little to get the support of a tribally intolerant person (just costs them their humanity - which they may not value anyway). And a tribally intolerant person can be easily impressed into supporting any influence on leadership that appears to get them the harmful understandably incorrect (from the perspective of developing a sustainable better future for humanity) leadership decisions they want.
That marriage of incorrectly developed self-interests (a United diversity of greed and intolerance supporting each other's understandably harmful and incorrect claims), can be understood to be the most damaging types of developments humanity has ever allowed (it is what the authors of the USA Constitution were trying to govern and limit). And it is the result of humanity collectively failing to limit or govern what happens, allowing each individual harmfully incorrect self-interested belief or action to be gotten away with.
What can be seen then, is that a diversity of socioeconomic political systems can develop leadership that is influenced or controlled by people who have understandably incorrectly pursued wealth and influence and who incorrectly act to protect their undeserved damaging perceptions of superiority relative to others.
Socioeconomic-political systems that allow understandably incorrect self-interests to participate in competitions for superiority can then be understood to be the root of the problem. Accepting the Sovereignty of those type of people when they gain control of a nation, and negotiating with those type of people has a history of allowing greater harm to occur before effective corrective actions are taken.
Will collective humanity let the collective of the current understandably incorrect leadership in the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (and apparently also Australia) get away with an incorrect global declaration regarding the corrections that climate science has exposed are required? Or will collective humanity more aggressively push for improved awareness and understanding to rule contrary to incorrectly developed self-interests?
Those questions need to be asked by everyone and be answered by every wealthy powerful person.
-
EsaJii at 01:05 AM on 12 December 2018Trump's disbelief won't stop dangerous climate change
The title of the topic includes Trump, so it in fact is political. In simple terms, US politics is driven by lobbying, less by voters. If we end up with public figures saying these things, their lobbyists paid more and their party manipulated votes more than the corresponding environmental lobbies in the Democrat camp. You have to play the politcs to get investment in environment restarted. This will be post 2020. Perhaps not till 2022.
Moderator Response:[PS] I agree that topic does lend itself to politics, but the post was about what the science says in sharp disagreement with what politicians are saying. It should not be treated as an open invitation to discuss USA partisan politics unless it is about the science discussed in article. Moderating these topics is difficult but the aim here is keep the discussion about climate science and on topic.
-
MA Rodger at 23:45 PM on 11 December 2018Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
Missing link within #23.
(which can be more readily calculated)
-
MA Rodger at 23:39 PM on 11 December 2018Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
dkeierleber @22,
(Sorry that this is a bit backwards in replying to your comment from the bottom paragraph up.)
I would agree with your final paragraph except to add that it concerns "the" greenhouse effect, thus it is talking about the Earth. Thus the major "physical processes" warming "the air" are Surface Radiation (396), Latent heat from Evapo-Transpiration (80), Incoming Solar Radiation (78) and Thermals ie heated by conduction fron the surface rather than "convection" which is how it is transmitted through the air (17).So in this context, the quote in the second-last paragraph from pp15-16 of Randall (2012) is saying that the vast majority (86%) of the heating experienced by the atmosphere originates from the surface. Most of this (70%) is due to radiation absorbed by GHGs.
The p25 quote in your 6th paragraph is only making explicit that the largest non-radiative part of atmospheric warming/cooling is evaporation which thus provides a balance (14%) to the net radiative flux. (The presence of the Trenberth Global Energy Flows diagram on p24 makes plain this meaning.)
The second quote from p25 is trying to say that there will be small amounts of this energy-transferred-that-result-in-a-local-heating-of-th-air which is then transfered away as warmth within air movements, its movement thus cooling some locations (that lose warmed air) and heat other locations (that recieve warmed air), "like the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system in a building." The point made is that such processes are small relative to the radiative fluxes.
Moving up to your 5th pargraph, the numbers you present are seen in the Trenberth diagram. But when @14 I called the absorption/emission of photons "rare," this was in slightly different terms, not energy as in Trenberth but as number-of-events. Consider that the energy held by a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength. Thus a photon from the sun will be 30-time more energetic than a photon from the atmosphere. So the ratio of photons will not be 333/160 = 2 but 333*30/160 = 60.
And it was this sort of number I am describing when I say "the emitting/absorption of photons are a rare events and most absorbed photons will become added to the energy in the gas rather than being immediately emitted as another photon." This is because the average time taken to re-emit a photon is very long relative to the time a CO2 molecule has before it collides with another air molecule. We are talking parts of a seconds to emit a photon from a vibrating CO2 molecule at 15 microns (see Blauer et al (1973) p48) relative to parts of a microsecond between collsions (which can be more readily calculated).In your 4th paragraph, your reasons for "not buying" do not appear sensible. The first quote you make from p125 Siegel & Howell (1971) concerns photon absorption/emission and so do not concern the transfer of vibrational energy to/from other molecules. The three modes of gain/loss listed are 'spontaneous' (a photon emitted from an excited state) 'induced' (ditto but caused by a passing photon) and 'absorbed' (the capture of a photon causing an excited state or as on p128, "The absorption of a photon can cause a transition of some state of the atom or molecule to a state of higher energy.") The second quote in paragraph 4 is stating that only descrete wavelengths can excite a molecule, "bound-bound" meaning that the energy involved is not enough to rip electrons from the molecule.
In paragraphs 2 & 3, I see descriptions of doubt rather than reasons for doubt.
The first paragraph considers the GH-effect of Venus and is probaly best answered by this SKS post.
-
Cedders at 21:48 PM on 11 December 20182nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I suspect the informal article with the jacket analogy, the intermediate article and the video all help resolve any confusion for most people. Actually seeing pyrgeometers measuring downward infra-red radiation adds to the knowledge of how we know. Intuition can be more important to non-experts than logic. On which subject, the intermediate page is very good, but my intuition tells me that a big atmospheric window from 10 to 13 µm should allow more than 40 Wm¯² of surface radiation (about 10% of it) to directly escape to space. What's the best way of doing that calculation?
Maybe rather than starting with the overall behaviour, it is good to show that each component in the system is behaving according to physical laws. Would presenting the simple equations for conduction and for radiation help, as it would clarify that heat transfer is proportional to temperature difference in the case of conduction, but not in the case of radiation? Some people seem to disbelieve Stefan-Boltzmann, asserting that an object somehow knows it should cease to radiate towards a warmer object.
Anyway, I wanted to mention to more 'grey literature' online resources helping to clarify the confusion, rather than textbooks. Science of Doom provides basics (mentioned in response to 1494) for those willing to go through them, but goes beyond them: here's a 2017 challenge to anyone arguing against the greenhouse effect on thermodynamic grounds: explain your own view numerically.
More simple, intuitive understanding of the principles is provided by Eli Rabbett's Green Plate Effect. In particular, here's a video by izen.
Moderator Response:[PS] Thank you. Those are all good resources.
-
Doug_C at 18:34 PM on 11 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
nigelj @4
The main reason that nothing real has been done for decades in many juridictions as I see it is pure corruption. The fossil fuel lobby pays millions to fund a massive disinformation campaign that is then used as a wedge by politicians they also pay huge amounts of money to who keep implementing policies that prolong fossil fuel use well past the danger zone of catastrophic impacts.
In some ways the CFC issue was simpler, but it was still based on the evidence presented by scientists of the necessity to phase out CFCs for the protection of humans and natural ecosystems. Scientists have been making the same case with close to the same amount of certainty with fossil fuels and climate change for decades and we get international agreements to limit carbon dioxide pollution based on this science that are essentially meaningless. The same didn't happen with CFCs, we had an international agreement and it was a followed.
We have alternatives to fossil fuels and every year they become more and more viable. And still far too many policy makers are pretending the existential threat posed by fossil fuel use doesn't even exist. And there seems to be no professional and personal cost to them in doing so.
-
nigelj at 18:11 PM on 11 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
And of course the ozone and tobacco issues didn't become so politicised as the climate issue. Once things become politicised and tribal this slows down progress but this appears to be strongest in America and Australia (ironically).
-
nigelj at 18:03 PM on 11 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
Doug C @3
Good points. Efforts to fix the climate problem are painfully slow while we have generally done better with things like the ozone hole and tobacco. The question is why? Here are a few ideas:
The ozone issue raises the big scary cancer word that gets people attention, and it affects them directly while the climate problem is just perceived to be that little bit further in the future and so easier to ignore. This is frustrating because climate change is so obviously a much greater problem.
The science for the ozone hole was simpler, and so less easy to cast doubt on that the climate issue. There was a denial campaign from industry but not on anything like the scale of fossil fuels. There were alternative products easily enough available, and the whole thing only affected refrigeration.
The tobacco issue is a different sort of thing. They are absolutely life threating while the climate problem is more nuanced and complex to grasp, although ultimately a much greater problem because of the range of issues and it affects everyone. However it actually took years before people realised the problems of tobacco and there were years of industry denial before anything was really done and years more before numbers of smokers really fell.
Tobacco taxes were not exactly popular. And the tobacco issue only affects smokers where fossil fuel use basically affects everyone thus the greater resistance to change.
None of this excuses for our poor response to climate change, but it does suggest we might get there eventually, haltingly. I don't see anything fundamentally different with the climate issue and the other issues, it just seems a matter of degree of differences between the factors involved.
-
Doug_C at 17:12 PM on 11 December 2018Australia - Moving to Renewable Energy
I also think what's going on with these emissions targets is largely a dodge or an outright scam and has been for decades. There's been talk about the need to control carbon dioxide emissions with growing force since the late 1980s when the first Earth Summit took place. In Rio in 1993 I think this was reiterated and 4 years later in Kyoto there was a firm agreement by most nations that it was critical to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to stave off significant impacts. That was over 20 years ago.
And emissions have kept going up, few nations honored their Kyoto commitments and this is still going on. New Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau made a firm commitment in 2015 to reduce our emissions here and they still remain some of the worst in the world per capita and the uproar in Canada at the moment isn't the existential crisis presented by unmitigated climate change caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels. It's how we're not building enough pipelines to get millions of barrels of tar sands bitumen to market each and every day. And creating the necessary infrastructure to keep the bitumen flowing for decades essentially ensuring that the worst case scenarios of catastrophic climate change really do happen.
We didn't allow this kind of recklessness with CFCs, there was agreement for an international moratorium that was carried through on. We've limited then phased out things like asbestos mining and manufacturing, controlled access to tobacco products and have strict restrictions on advertizing in many places. Thalidimide isn't perscribed to expecting mothers and the list goes on and on.
And yet we keep sitting back and allowing phony emissions targets and meaningless international agreements to dominate the production, sale and burning of substances that are rapidly making the entire Earth unlivable for ours and many ofhter species. When we've had alternatives for years like solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, nuclear and more.
We don't need emissions targets, we need need binding agreements to phase out fossil fuels on strict timetables that stop giving the sector all the room it needs to fudge the numbers and actually increase production at our expense.
There needs to be zero investment in products that are more destructive conbined than all those other toxins like tobacco, DDT, thalidimide, abestos etc... Fossil fuels are poison for the entire planet, policy needs to reflect this.
Anything that is going into fossil fuel development instead of renewables like solar and wind isn't just a waste, it is self destructive.
-
sunvox at 13:39 PM on 11 December 2018But their Emails!
This is JP66 just saying I can't discuss the issue because my login keeps getting deleted which, by the way, doesn't happen on the "anti" sites when you oppose their view point.
Moderator Response:[DB] Because you were on multiple occasions unable to comport your comments with this venue's Comments Policy, and because you previously voluntarily ceded any claim to posting any further comments here, your wished were honored and your posting privileges were rescinded, Mr Peck:
"I will never post here again because it is apparent this site is against discussion"
The commenting privileges of your other sock puppet account were also removed, as was those of this one.
Moderation complaints snipped.
-
waterguy13 at 13:20 PM on 11 December 2018Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Where is the summary of the data by research category?
-
dkeierleber at 13:18 PM on 11 December 2018Why does CO2 cause the Greenhouse Effect?! | Climate Chemistry
I think spectral broadening increases the warming. I mentioned it because focusing only on the lack of water vapor on Mars begs the question of Venus which also lacks appreciable water vapor.
Thanks to everybody for the kind feedback. I think I owe a response. I’ve been working on an online course for engineers on the science of global warming. I think the A/E community is already being impacted by changes and, being a sometimes pretty conservative group, engineers could use some exposure to this material. I want to be explicitly correct in everything I write. So if it seems like I’m a troll running a gotcha game, nothing could be further from the truth. I’m trying to construct a narrative that informs an audience that may be more knowledgeable than I am in thermodynamics, energy transfer, and quantum mechanics. I’m a retired structural engineer and my one online course is Wood Connections for heavy Snow Loads so I’m well outside my career field.
In my course material, I wrote, “When an emitted photon of long wave radiation (LWR) is intercepted by a molecule of a greenhouse gas (GHG) the molecule will absorb the photon and be raised to a more energetic state. The excited molecule may then bump into other molecules, thereby raising the temperature of the air, or it may re-emit a photon of LWR to return to its base state.” But, after reading the Pierrehumbert explanation of frequency bands and the quantum nature of excitation states in GHG molecules, I began to wonder if what I wrote was correct and how well I really understood the physics. By now I’m questioning the wisdom of venturing into the submicroscopic realm but, at least for my own edification, I’d like to understand the details of what really happens. Thus far I’m frustrated by easily understandable descriptions of what happens in the quantum mechanics constrained absorption of a photon while similarly detailed explanations of the other end of the process seem elusive. At the risk of sounding impertinent, any information given without a reference is taken with a grain of salt.
I’m still not buying the transfer of energy residing in the vibration of chemical bonds to the kinetic energy associated with molecular collisions. From the 1971 NASA paper on thermal radiation heat transfer, Chapter 4, “Microscopic Basis for Gas Properties” we find, “Neglecting scattering, the gains or losses are due to spontaneous emission, induced emission, and absorption.” And, “…the discrete transitions result in absorption of photons of only very definite frequencies… Hence this process is termed line absorption. Because both the initial and final states of the atom or molecule are discrete bound states, these energy changes between states are called bound-bound transitions.”I’m also unsure about the statement that photon emission is a rare event. It accounts for 333 W/sq meter of energy absorbed by the surface of the Earth compared to 160 W/sq meter absorbed by the surface from incident solar radiation.
At the macroscopic level, I recently found, “Overall, considering both solar and infrared radiation, the atmosphere is radiatively cooled. The radiative cooling is balanced by the latent heat released when the water evaporated from the ocean recondenses to form clouds.” And, “Atmospheric processes convert a small portion of the thermodynamic energy into the kinetic energy of atmospheric motion.” David Randall, Princeton Primers in Climate, Atmosphere, Clouds, and Climate, p 25.From the same source, pp 15-16, “Roughly speaking, the atmosphere is ‘heated’ by contact with the boundary; the heat enters directly into the base of the troposphere. In response, the troposphere churns like a pot of water on a stove, as buoyant chunks of air break away from the lower boundary and float upward, carrying energy (and other things) with them. The upper-level air is cooled by emitting infrared radiation to space.”
I’m waiting for delivery of another volume in the Princeton Primer Series but, so far in my mind, the picture that’s emerging is that the greenhouse effect is due to the back radiation of energy that raises the temperature of the Earth’s surface. The air is warmed by physical processes (convection and evapotranspiration). Global warming increases the back radiation from higher concentrations of GHGs.
Prev 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 Next
