Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Comments 1251 to 1300:
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:41 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Frankly, Rabelt, you are not making any sense. You are throwing out vague assertions, and you are not providing any logical argument for those assertions.
Carbon cycles are not interpreted solely on the basis of correlations, which is essentially all that you have referred to.
You state "..that Delta C13 is a precise indicator of FF usage...", which clearly shows that you do not understand what C13 ratios tell us. As I explained, it is one small piece of the puzzle, and it is combined with additional information to draw conclusions. You seem to expect a perfect correlation - but if you understood why C13 ratios change (different sources and sinks over time), then you would realize how the specific C isotope characteristics of different sources can help us identify which sources are active.
I have provided additional links to places that will explain it to you, and all you can say is that you think part 1 is irrelevant. I see no evidence that you have understood anything in part 1, or any indication that you have bothered to read any of the other links I provided.
You also state "I have never said that because there was change before any other change is normal/justified in nature", but that is essentially the logical consequence of what you say. Read Michael Sweet's comment at 10. You are assuming that behaviour patterns of C13 ratios and CO2 concentrations prior to 1800 must follow the same variations that occur once fossil fuel sources are added to the mix. Any argument that you make includes the logical consequences of what you state, whether you state it explicitly or not.
You finish with "I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2." The way you have worded this suggests that you think that either CO2 concentration changes cause C13 changes ("delta changes ... following CO2 concentration"), or that C13 changes cause CO2 concentration changes ("delta ... accountable for ... CO2"). This is not even wrong. Both CO2 changes and C13 ratios are the result of other factors in the global carbon cycle. As long as you persist in ignoring the carbon cycle overall, you will be doomed to drawing erroneous conclusions.
-
Rabelt at 09:00 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
"or that FF dont have an effect on Delta C13" Sorry, I meant: "or that FF does have an effect on Delta C13"
-
Rabelt at 08:54 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
Delta C13 is the fingerprint left by FF, if the fingerprint doesnt match then one of the assumptions is wrong: that Delta C13 is a precise indicator of FF usage or that FF dont have an effect on Delta C13, we know the latter true, so it has to be the former. The proof to this is that even using the cumulative co2 gives you a too small amount to affect Delta C13 in any meaningful way, the period specifically is 1750-1850, physically impossible in fact.
I have never said that because there was change before any other change is normal/justified in nature, I said Delta changes previous to human emissions following co2 concentration not FF emissions as there were none, and the ones that existed were accountable for insignificant amounts of co2.
-
Rabelt at 08:27 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Bob Loblaw,
I would appreciate if people started to read the comments they are responding to, because I already answered your "response", plus I treated more than 1 period (1000-1800). In fact I used the 1000-1800, 1750-1850, 1850-1900 and the 1960s-2010s periods.
There is not a single thing from part 1 that is relevant to this part 2, and all the relevant points are adressed again in this part.
Please next time refer to my comments not to a fantasy you decided to dismantle, thank you.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:40 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt @ 9, 11, 13, and 14:
You are really missing the big picture on carbon isotope ratios. The C13 levels alone are not "proof" that the fossil fuels are causing the atmospheric rise in CO2 - they are one line of evidence that rules out other sources. You are over-interpreting what you are reading here (or elsewhere).
This post is titled "Part 2". I suggest that you also read Part 1. It gives essential background about how isotope ratios differ across C12, C13, and C14, depending on the source.
You should also read Climate Change Cluedo. Steps 4 and 5 note the significance of changing C14 and C13 levels. To quote,
- Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
- Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
Isotope ratios are also discussed on How we know human CO2 emissions have disrupted the carbon cycle, and on What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The caption on figure 3, which states that declining C13 ratios tell us it is fossil fuel combustion should really be interpreted as "the declining C13 ratio tells us that it is not volcanic. Since volcanoes are the only other possible source of C14-depleted carbon, the only remaining explanation is fossil fuels".
And none of those explanations require that C13 ratios be solely dependent on fossil fuel combustion. Figure 3 shows that for 800 years, C13 ratios were only slightly variable, and have now changed significantly once fossil fuel combustion began.
Your argument that "it changed before, so it can't be fossil fuels now" is just a peculiar flavour of the general "climate's changed before" myth that is number one on the hit parade listed on the upper left of every SkS page.
Just because you don't know of or understand an explanation does not mean that there isn't one.
-
Rabelt at 07:08 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rob Honeycutt,
If FF was the only/main reason for the changes in Delta, why is the period 1750-1850 visible? If the cumulative co2 was just 5Gt, thats not even a full point increase in the co2 ppm, the reduction in Delta should be insignificant; for reference the drop from 1850-1900 is smaller but the cumulative co2 is 45Gt, 9 times greater
-
Rabelt at 06:22 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rob Honeycutt,
I am no saying that FF had/has no effect, just saying that our ability to give a good estimate in the human part of this effect is laking at best, when we cant explain with any consistency the behaviour of the data.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:54 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt... I don't think it's the correlation alone that makes the basis of this piece of evidence. It's the basic physics in conjunction with the correlation. Say, the cause of warming was something other than burning FF's. In that case you'd expect to not see such a correlation.
-
Rabelt at 04:55 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
michael sweet,
You don't see how delta c13 changes with the co2 concentrations, from 1000-1800? During this 800 years there is no emissions or they are negligible, in terms of yearly emissions and cumulative.
Ignoring that problem with the theory of changes in delta = emissions, we have the problem of a steady decrease, in delta, from the 1960s to the 2010s, which do not match the increase in emissions, nor the accelerating growth of co2 concentrations.
-
michael sweet at 03:42 AM on 17 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
Rabelt,
I don't see your point. The graph of delta CO2 clearly shows that around 1800, the start of increasing fossil fuel use, the amount of C13 in the atmosphere changes dramatically. Before 1800 there are small shifts in the ratio. These shifts seem to correlate with small changes in total CO2. After 1800 the delta C13 goes way down; much, much more than anything before 1800. Are you comparing the small changes before 1800 to the very large changes after 1800 and saying that the small changes indicate the very large changes are natural? The changes are so different in magnitude that you need to provide an explaination why they are so different. The scientific explaination is they are different because of fossil fuel use.
-
Rabelt at 22:21 PM on 16 October 2023From the eMail Bag: Carbon Isotopes, Part 2: The Delta Notation
In this post there is a graphic of co2 concentrations and delta carbon 13 that "proves" human emissions cause co2 increases, it seems disingenuous taking into account that prior to 1800 human emissions were null or insignificant yet the value in delta carbon 13 changes, following co2 concentrations not emissions.
-
PollutionMonster at 21:20 PM on 16 October 2023CO2 limits will harm the economy
One Planet Only Forever @118
Thank you for the thoughtful post, I am looking into buying/borrowing the book you mentioned. :)
-
Doug Bostrom at 12:36 PM on 16 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023
There is no "the answer." The concept is found as both an accidental and intentional cognitive short circuit, depending on circumstances.
Among the range of "it's not a simple question" there are answers that are ephemeral (fossil fuels, not useful for completing another 5,000 years of attempting to be civilized) and more decently reliable (the fortuitous nearby fusion reactor).
Meanwhile, let's not forget: "Climate change evangelists" = "people who accept physics as a means of predicting certain possible features of the future."
Personally, I'll enthusiastically evangelize that people not accidentally or intentionally hit themselves in the face with a hammer, or change the impedance of the atmosphere's impedance of certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation in a broadly harmful way. Both involve physics as a means of improving outcomes. With regard to the latter, what used to be an accident is now to some degree intentional, something that seems increasingly stupid the more people insist on persisting with that choice.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:27 AM on 16 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41
Berkeley Earth also has temperature updates on a monthly basis. The graphics for each month include maps showing where the monthly temperatures are in the 5 hottest or 5 coldest values in the record.
I wonder if Davz can tell us where on these maps we'll find the UK?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 16 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41
And just to pre-bunk Davz' claim...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:39 AM on 16 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41
Davz... I'm not sure there's a point to explaining it to you since you never stick around long enough to listen or discuss any issue. You merely make drive-by comments and disappear.
-
Davz at 03:08 AM on 16 October 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #41
Can you explain why it's been the coldest summer on record in the UK?
Moderator Response:[BL] Such blatant, unsupported, erroneous claims are not welcome here. There is no need for anyone to "explain" something that has not happened.
In comment #3, Rob Honeycutt has posted data that shows that your claim is not true. In addition, a simple web search provides reports that contradict your claim, such as:
Record-breaking June temperatures means that the UK has had one of its ten warmest summers on record, despite an unsettled July and August, according to provisional Met Office figures. Meteorological summer 2023 was the eighth warmest on record by mean temperature, thanks largely to June’s record breaking temperatures, in a series which dates back to 1884.
Warning:
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
If you wish to continue posting here, your habit of drive-by statements with little supporting evidence and no responses to criticism will not be allowed. Unless you return to this thread and do at least one of the following, any future posts will be subject to deletion with a pointer back to unfinished business here.
- Admit that your above statement is wrong.
- Provide supporting evidence of your statement, in the form of
- a clear definition of the area you refer to as "the UK",
- a clear indication of the period of time you consider to be "summer",
- a clear indication of the period of time your claim of a "record" covers,
- and a link to the source of data that you have used to draw your conclusion.
-
BaerbelW at 21:06 PM on 15 October 2023Clouds provide negative feedback
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on October 15, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:48 AM on 14 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023
Davz... Is this another drive-by posting or are you willing to discuss this issue in a substantive manner?
-
nigelj at 09:24 AM on 14 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023
Davz @1
"Solar and wind power is not the answer purely down to cost. In the uk there is currently approx 12 thousand wind generators supplying between 5% to 20% of requirements dependant on velocity of the wind. Much of the energy created is lost as there is little requirement for energy at night.To save the energy would require a significant investment in batterie. "
Some wind power is wasted at night but it's the same with gas and coal fired power, so its a weak reason to criticise wind power. However if demand is low at night some wind generators (and gas generators etc) are typically switched off so not much power is wasted. So no batteries are needed. You have been told this several times before.
"The uk would need approximately 100,000 wind generators and batteries, this will cost a minimum of triple the UK's Gdp, completely unaffordable for the UK and completely unaffordable for the consumer, facts that completely ignored by not just environmentallists, climate change evangelists but also govt, who are just waking up to the reality, hence the govt postponing the transition to Ev's"
The average cost of wind turbines is about 1 million pounds so you need 100,000 equals 100 billion pounds. The Uks gdp each year is 2.2 trillion pounds and triple this is 4.6 trillion pounds. Its very difficult to believe batteries would cost over 4 trillion pounds and you provide no evidence they would.
Another alternative is to rely on an overbuild of wind power, so rely purely on wind power with no battery backup. This means you have to assume 12,000 generators operating at the the lowest wind velocity thus providing only 5% of power. To provide 100% of power this is about 200,000 wind turbines, so this is a total cost of 200 billion pounds. This is far less than 4.6 trillion pounds, even allowing for cost escalation, other grid infrastructure like transmission lines, etc, etc.
So your numerical claims just dont look credible.
In reality you would actually combine some level of overbuild of the wind power and some battery backup.
The government is more likely postponing the transition to Ev's because they are a right wing conservative government, and such governments globally have a track record of doing as little as possible about climate change.
-
Davz at 06:38 AM on 14 October 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41 2023
Solar and wind power is not the answer purely down to cost. In the uk there is currently approx 12 thousand wind generators supplying between 5% to 20% of requirements dependant on velocity of the wind. Much of the energy created is lost as there is little requirement for energy at night. To save the energy would require a significant investment in batterie. The uk would need approximately 100,000 wind generators and batteries, this will cost a minimum of triple the UK's Gdp, completely unaffordable for the UK and completely unaffordable for the consumer, facts that completely ignored by not just environmentallists, climate change evangelists but also govt, who are just waking up to the reality, hence the govt postponing the transition to Ev's
-
John Hartz at 07:48 AM on 13 October 2023Antarctica is gaining ice
Suggested supplemental reading:
Forty percent of Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking, worrying scientists by Kasha Patel, Environment, Washington Post, Oct 12, 2023
-
John Hartz at 07:44 AM on 13 October 2023Antarctica is too cold to lose ice
Suggested supplemental reading:
Forty percent of Antarctica’s ice shelves are shrinking, worrying scientists by Kasha Patel, Environment, Washington Post, Oct 12, 2023
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:18 AM on 12 October 2023American society wasn’t always so car-centric. Our future doesn’t have to be, either
nigelj is correct that 'modern city building' has most unfortunately been based on 'car culture'. That has put all those 'car fuelled developments' at a competitive disadvantage. Owning and operating a car is a significant cost (a pick-up truck is even costlier) that is not suffered by people living in a '15 minute city'.
The concept referred to as the '15 minute city' does not require personal vehicle ownership. NPR's Climate Week included the following article about the 15 minute city concept: "It's a global climate solution — if it can get past conspiracy theories and NIMBYs". It also presented the following similar article as part of its Climate set of articles: "The '15-minute city' could limit global warming — if it can counter misinformation"
The absurdity of claims made about the pursuit of '15 minute city' redevelopment by people fighting against learning to be less harmful and more helpful would be amusing if they were not so absurdly popular. And it is particularly nasty that some of the arguments against the helpful harm reducing redevelopment are fuelled by the desire of people in 'isolated un-diverse suburbs' to 'not have those other types - the poorer people - living among them'.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:52 AM on 12 October 2023CO2 limits will harm the economy
PollutionMonster @117,
As a Professional Engineer with an MBA who is interested in ‘actually sustainable’ human development, particularly the sustainable improvement of living conditions for everyone who suffers a less than a basic decent life, I agree with your concerns. But solving the climate change problem is more complex.
Carbon pricing, cap and trade (and related carbon offsets) are potentially helpful actions within the currently developed socioeconomic political systems. Those measures can motivate people be less harmful. But note that Carbon Fees are harder to evade or manipulate than Cap and Trade or carbon offsets. Also rebating Carbon Fees can be helpful, more helpful if more rebate goes to lower income people (no rebate to high income people).
There is plenty of evidence to justify concerns about individuals or organizations (like companies or political groups) trying to benefits by being more harmful and less helpful because that is often easier and cheaper. ‘Pursuit of self interest’ can motivate people to evade or fight against things like fees, fines, restrictions, or programs paid for by taxes that are related to getting people to be less harmful or more helpful. That evasion and fighting includes unjustified demands for more freedom to believe and do as they please.
Also, it is important to understand that the required objective is ending the accumulation of global climate change impacts (and reducing the likely excessive harm done by delayed reduction of unnecessary harm by the most fortunate), not just reducing the rate that it is happening. And, ethically, that objective has to be achieved while sustainably improving the living conditions for all of the less fortunate people. A major challenge to achieving that objective is getting all of the people who enjoy better than basic decent lives to help end the harmful unnecessary activities they enjoy benefiting from.
Carbon pricing measures may not achieve the required result of altering the actions of all of the most harmful people, even if the price is very high. Some of the most harmful higher status people will delay the required correction by abusing misinformation to gain support for their fight against costs and restrictions on harmful things they benefit from. In addition, the most fortunate will be able to pay the higher price and claim that that justifies their continuing to be unnecessarily harmful.
A nasty complexity of Carbon Pricing is the many ways that it can negatively impact people who need assistance to sustainably develop to live basic decent lives. And richer people will fight against paying more to help those who need assistance. They try to evade changing by complaining that measures to end climate change impacts will hurt the poor. What they do not admit is that the more fortunate need to do more to help the least fortunate sustainably develop basic decent livings while the more fortunate give up benefiting from more damaging, but cheaper and easier, ways to unnecessarily obtain more benefits.
This is an age-old systemic problem. And Matthew Stewart presents it well in "The 9.9 Percent". His evidence-based book (loads of references) explains how the most powerful 0.1% unjustifiably win with harmful unjustified support from the rest of the top 10% (the 9.9%), and are excused by a portion of the remaining 90% that divisively fights with misunderstanding trying to become 'higher-status' like the top 10%. It is a developed systemic problem. In a nut-shell the required corrections compromise the ability of the undeserving among the top 0.1 Percent (in wealth and power) to be supported and excused by the rest of the top 10% or any of the 90%. Note: 0.1% of the current global population is 8 million. And 10% is 800 million. Essentially every nation, corporation, and political group is influenced by undeserving trouble-makers.
So, it is justified to be concerned about ‘harmful cheaters’. However, a key challenge is increased awareness and understanding of the magnitudes of harmful influence. All people, companies, political groups, or nations are not equally harmful or helpful. And they can all change to be less harmful and more helpful (note that people who are less fortunate can be excused for being more harmful and less helpful). The important difference is how hard people, and the organizations they are part of, try to be less harmful and more helpful. More fortunate people who fight hardest against the undeniable required corrections need to be the focus of concern.
-
Lawrie at 09:56 AM on 11 October 2023At a glance - How reliable are CO2 measurements?
Atmospheric CO2 has been measured at Cape Grim in Tasmania for the last 50 years where there has been no volcanic activity for at least hundreds of thousands of years. See:LINK. Results are similar to those obtained at Mauna Loa.
Moderator Response:[RH] Activated link
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 11 October 2023American society wasn’t always so car-centric. Our future doesn’t have to be, either
Our cities have mostly been designed around the automobile. I agree that its not inevitable that we base our transport system on the automobile, but we have thus far and the end result is we have desined cities with certain activities zoned and grouped together for practical reasons, and so we typically live in suburbs quite long distances from our places of work, the shops, the entertainment, the farms.We have become frighteningly reliant on automobiles, trucks and buses etc,etc to make this system work.
It seems unlikely to me that we can keep this system going indefinitely at large scale because of the pollution and load it puts on the earths resource base. Its just not very sustainable. Evs are an improvement on ICE cars but dont solve all the problems.
The walkable city concept has been proposed as a solution( easily googled but one source below) .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city
I've heard this expressed as everyhting should ideally be within comfortable walking or cycling distance, so your place of work, the shops, the doctors and dentists, ideally even the farms. This means you dont need a car unless you have special needs. We would presumably still need some cars for emergency services, travel between cities etc,etc and during the transition phase to walkable cities - and better that they are EV's.
And I can see the walkable city working for office workers but it would be more challenging to deal with industry. Although China have designed entire new industrial cities so that housing is grouped quite close to the places of work within cycling distance.
And there is the issue of our food sources. Do we continue to live in large centralised cities remote from our food sources? Or should we move back to a small town model where everyone can walk or cycle to the farms?
Most existing cities are designed around the car and assuming we stay living within these cities, physically changing them to make them even partly walkable cities will clearly be a big undertaking. But we have to start somewhere, because its not plausible for billions of cars to be made and this continued indefinitely, and walkable cities have multiple benefits.
The question is whether we are proactive and push things slowly towards a walkable city (of some sort), or we do nothing and wait until scarcity of materials forces a collapse of our transport system and makes the transition to a walkable city urgent and more painful to achieve. I hope for the former, but my cynical side thinks the later.
-
PollutionMonster at 22:48 PM on 6 October 2023CO2 limits will harm the economy
I had some concerns about a cap and trade program and carbon tax. Is this simply a form of greenwashing or will this actually work?
I worry that companies which already find lots of ways to avoid fines and taxes will just find loopholes. I might be being paranoid, but what's to stop a company from just transfering all their fines to a victim corporation via leveraged buyout, saddeling the corporation with debt and selling all the assets? Like what is already happening with private equity firms.
I feel carbon pricing is a system designed to be abused and is greenwashing when we could focus on more effective means like simply shutting down all coal plants and making the switch to electric cars. Is a carbon price just another form of greenwashing similar to carbon capture and storage?
-
gwaldthausen at 20:56 PM on 4 October 2023At a glance - Climate scientists would make more money in other careers
My organisation funds a wide variety of scientists (including many related to sustainability & environment), so we cross check FTE rates carefully as people costs are often the largest prject expense. I can confirm that scientists employed in the public arena (universities etc) are not that well paid - working for commercial and private organisations often pays a lot more. And working for fossil fuel, tobacco companies etc pays best of all (for obvious reasons). Ridiculous to think that climate scientists work just for money, especially given the constant hate mail and controversy that they receive.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:51 AM on 3 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
amhartley @ 4:
You've had a few answers that might help. I'll add the following.
You mention "thickness of the atmosphere". When discussing radiation transfer (absorption in this case), it is not the physical distance that matters. It is the number of molecules of the absorbing gas that affects the probability of radiation absorption. You can pack the same number of molecules into a short physical distance, or spread them over a larger distance, and the absorption characteristics will remain the same. In radiation transfer, you will see the term "optical thickness" or "optical depth". to distinguish this from physical distance.
This post on Beer's Law gives an illustration of this.
...but yes, IR radiation emitted at low altitudes will be unlikely to reach space directly. But at each level, the atmosphere also emits IR radiation, and the further up you go, the more likely it is to reach space directly. Understanding the greenhouse effect writ large requires looking at both absorption and emission, and at all levels.
There is more discussion of this on the Beer's Law post I linked to above, but a useful resource online is MODTRAN. You can play around there with a full atmospheric IR radiation transfer model that includes all these effects.
-
Eclectic at 22:25 PM on 2 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
CORK @7 :
What is your phrase "less arriditic explanation" [unquote] ??
. . . "arriditic" is not in my English or German dictionaries.
Hossenfelder is a German woman, but speaks fluent English and also supplies some humorous quips in her many Youtube videos. She is a mainstream scientist ~ not a denialist crank, nor harridanitic at all.
( Or am I misunderstanding your dry humor, CORK ? )
On the GHE, you find a better explanation at SkS , really.
-
CORK at 21:18 PM on 2 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
There is also a less arriditic explanation here. it is a bit longer but there are some drawings that help the simple minds like mine.
Enter "I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here's How It Works"; and the name of the author: "Sabine Hossenfelder" in the search bar and you will find it on Utube.
Moderator Response:[RH] Link added. She's saying exactly the same thing as Dessler in the PhD version.
-
scaddenp at 14:40 PM on 2 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
A single photon of IR of right wavelength leaving earths surface doesnt travel very far at all. I think mean path length before absorption is less than 10m at 400ppm (too lazy to calculate). As the Dessler video shows, what matters is the height where IR can escape to space.
I am fond of Chris Colose explanation. -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:24 PM on 2 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
amhartley... What you stating isn't a good explanation of how the greenhouse effect works. Andrew Dessler has a good explanation here.
Essentially, the GHE functions due to the effective IR emission altitude. Adding greenhouse gases causing that emission altitude to rise and the thermal gradient determines the temperature rise at the surface.
-
amhartley at 12:15 PM on 2 October 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
I'm a statistician, not a natural scientist, so I cannot say it matters, but I wonder whether we should call attention to the thickness of the atmosphere &, in particular, of the troposphere (bottom 8 to 14 km of atmosphere). Given that thickness, an IR ray passing upwards thru CO2, CH4, & other GHGS at even very low (but increasing) concentrations would have diminishing chances of escaping to outer space. Is that a valid argument?
-
BaerbelW at 18:40 PM on 1 October 2023CO2 measurements are suspect
Please note: a new basic version of this rebuttal was published on October 1, 2023 which includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:08 PM on 30 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp lost any remaining credibility when he started comment 51 with "IPCC apologists".
From wiktionary:
apologist(plural apologists)
1. One who makes an apology.
2. One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institutionMarkp's choice of nouns leaves the impression that he thinks of people that disagree with him as defending a faith or a cause. He'll probably say that he meant the third version - defending an institution - but the dog-whistle of "apologist" (rather than other possible choices, such as "defender") tells us more about him than it tells us about his opponents in the discussion.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:51 PM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Yes, the "explanations" that Likeitwarm prefers are indeed "the most screamingly laughable, unphysical explanations".
In comment 1606, Likeitwarm brings us back to the laughable paper by Peter Ward. Likeitwarm says:
Your radiated photons from all emitting gases carry wave length and amplitude dependent on temperature emitted from.
This repeats the laughable statements from Peter Ward, that attribute "amplitude" as a characteristic of radiation. Radiation does not have "amplitude". It has been over 100 years since physics addressed the issue of particle-wave duality in radiation. Radiation has attributes that can be described or explained by treating it as a particle, and radiation has attributes that can be described or explained by treating it as a wave - but in none of those scenarios does "amplitude" show up.
When Planck's Law calculates more energy at a specific wavelength or frequency from hotter objects, the increased energy comes from more photons, not higher amplitudes of waves. Every single photon that ever existed at a specific wavelength had exactly the same energy, regardless of when, where, or at what temperature the emission occurred. Any talk about "cold" and "hot" photons of the same wavelength is crank physics.
The "explanations" that Likeitwarm prefers are not simply "CO2 causes climate change science" denial, or even "climate science" denial - they are basic physics denial.
-
scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
"I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change""
And yet you somehow pick on the most screaming laughable, unphysical explanations because they suit your preference. You cant just cherry pick bits of physics to back up an explanation. All the laws of physics apply, apply the time. Frankly no one like the idea that we have to stop to emitting GHG but scientists are too honest to ignore it. Invoking "reflecting photons" and other fairie dust doesnt cut it.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:11 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... "The surface is warmer, not from the GHE, but from gravity doing work on the atmosphere causing adiabatic heating."
If this was true, how do you get these shifts in the thermal gradient of the atmosphere? Inquiring minds want to know if you think gravitity is fluctuating through the vertical profile.
-
michael sweet at 09:45 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm, I usually don't comment on the thermodynamic thread, but you have it completely backward. Scientists have never argued that CO2 causes warming because they measured warming and then said CO2 was the cause.
In fact, scientists measured the IR absorbtion spectrum of CO2 (in 1850) and then predicted in advance that increasing CO2 would cause the atmosphere to increase in temperature. Your claim that "All you have is a correlation that doesn't prove anything." is false. Scientists predicted 150 years in advance that increasing CO2 would cause the atmosphere to heat up.
A prediction in advance that is correct is very strong evidence in support of a theory. Can you provide an example of a prediction that your data sourse has made that was correct???
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:31 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Let's put it this way: It is wholly implausible that the past 200 years of science, consisting of 100's of thousands of research papers, is getting this wrong in any fundamental sense.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:24 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... "I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change."
This is quite obviously untrue because clearly the most plausible reasons for climate change come from the overwhelming body of research demonstrating that CO2 is the primary cause.
I think you just don't like that conclusion and are cherry picking your way into "alternative facts," as they say.
-
Eclectic at 04:59 AM on 30 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp @51 :
Your link to the extract from Wim Carton's 2020 book is not (IMHO) particularly useful. Carton supplies many paragraphs of general discussion ~ mainly equal parts vagueness and bloviation.
2020 may have been a bit early for ChatGPT as a co-author. Then again, Carton may have been an early adopter, and was contracted for a 100,000 word book. Yes I am being a bit harsh : but a book with extensive sociological commentary is always in great danger of being vague and so all-inclusive that it ends up failing to produce a clear message ~ it can be Bible-like, in that you (the reader) can find & select almost anything your heart desires from it.
-
Eclectic at 04:31 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1606 :
Please make up your mind ~ are you arguing that "gravity" is causing the 288K temperature of the Earth's surface . . . or is the 288K the result of Dr Ward's good vibrations of non-photons ?
-
Likeitwarm at 04:18 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1600. Rob Honeycutt et al
I'll wear that name proudly!
I'm just looking for the most plausible reasons for climate change.
I have found a number of theories. You will call them all quackery because they are not your theory.I like Peter Ward's. Scroll down the page you sent me and read Peter's responses to his challengers. He makes a lot of sense. His challengers did not prove him wrong, only disagreed with him.
What I find wrong with your version of the science is that you say the small amount(less than 8% of all IR from the surface) re-radiated IR from a colder part of the atmosphere causes warming of the surface per Trenberth chart. That cannot happen. Your radiated photons from all emitting gases carry wave length and amplitude dependent on temperature emitted from. Not enough energy to heat the surface there. Per Ward 2015 colder IR is reflected by warmer object, not destroyed.
Magically, your chart shows the down welling radiation is greater, almost double, than what the sun supplies. Satellites see 255k for the temperature that is radiated from about 5-6 km altitude, not from the surface. The surface is warmer, not from the GHE, but from gravity doing work on the atmosphere causing adiabatic heating. This is why near surface temperatures are ~33c warmer than Planck equations predict. That makes sense unlike the GHE raising the temperature that much.
There is no experiment showing co2 warms the atmosphere.
There is no measurement showing human emissions of co2 cause the recent warming.
All you have is a correlation that doesn't prove anything.
The extra UV-B radiation reaching the surface warms the ocean and the warmer ocean emits more co2 per Ward 2015 makes sense and he does have a correlation with ozone levels and temperatures. Read his paper I linked to.I know you like labels, but get the label right.
It's "CO2 causes climate change science denier" not "climate science denier". -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:40 AM on 30 September 2023Climate Confusion
Markp... Who do you think should be taking action on climate change and how do you think they should endeavor to do it?
I would note that, somehow, I guess inconceivably, government-led action is how we ultimately solved the crisis related to emissions of CFC's.
Mark, you might also want to note the IPCC doesn't have any power to regulate anything, nor can they implement any solutions. They are merely the intergovermental body that communicates the science, risks and impacts we face.
It's the UNFCCC at the COP conferences where goverments meet in attempts to create agreements that would address the problem. And those agreements are non-binding agreements between nations. The Paris Agreement was a product of the UNFCCC.
What is not clear in your post is, what do you think William Carton is saying?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:16 AM on 30 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
A Christmas gift idea for Dr Ward and Likeitwarm:
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link
-
Markp at 22:40 PM on 29 September 2023Climate Confusion
For all you IPCC apologists, I found a nice piece of research that will help those with their thinking caps on to better appreciate the problems with refusing to accept that this government-led body is not acting in our best interest the way you may think it is. This comes from Wim Carton of Lund University in Sweden. His article Carbon Unicorns and Fossil Futures; Whose Emission Reduction Pathways Is the IPCC Performing? appears in the book Has It Come To This? The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink, (2021) Rutgers University Press
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:31 AM on 29 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I think you're on to something, Eclectic. That's pretty much what it would take to overturn our modern understanding of the GHE and climate change. It would require a complete restructuring of physics as we understand it today.
It's certainly a possibility that Dr. Ward is the person who accomplishes this feat. An infinitessimally small possibility, but still a possibility none-the-less. And if that should come to pass, we will all recognize Likeithot for his keen insight and can re-embark on burning FF's with reckless abandon.
Until that time, I'm going to stick with the current overwhelming body of scientific research.
