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:
-
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.
-
Eclectic at 08:57 AM on 29 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
MA Rodger @1602 :
Dr Ward's novel ideas are certainly intriguing, and may be introducing us to concepts that go completely beyond Quantum Mechanics. In physics, they could represent a great leap forward (to borrow from the political terminology). Or a quantum leap (to use the vernacular term). What a time to be alive!
The commenter Likeitwarm may be on the cusp of understanding how these advanced ideas are producing a fusion ~ a fusion of Denialati and Illuminati. Truly a new Enlightenment.
Perhaps this new development will give Likeitwarm encouragement and . . . a quantum of solace?
-
MA Rodger at 05:49 AM on 29 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I was intrigued by the Ward (2016) quote made by Likeitwarm @1590.
"It is the frequencies and amplitudes of these radiating oscillations that, when absorbed by cooler matter, increase the amplitudes and frequencies of the internal oscillations of the absorbing matter, thereby increasing the absorbing matter’s temperature. It is these frequencies and amplitudes that appear to be reflected, rather than absorbed, by warmer matter [22]. When radiation has lower amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency than the prevailing amplitudes of oscillation within receiving matter, heat cannot flow into the matter by resonance, cooler to hotter. Therefore, by conservation of energy, “colder” radiation must be reflected."
How do you measure the 'temperature' of a photon to know that it is "colder"? We have no actual knowledge of what a photon is, just its impact on the universe it is emitted from and absorbed/reflected/refracted by. And that shows us the energy of a photon (so presumably some marker of its 'temperature') is solely a function of its wavelength. There is no variation in any 'amplitude'. So all this guff from Ward about radiation having both 'frequency' and 'amplitude' is a fantasy.
The reference [22] which Ward uses three times to support the same crackpot contention refers to Evans & Popp (1985) 'Pictet's experiment: the apparent radiation and reflection of cold', an account of a certain Marc-Auguste Pictet's 1784 experiment along with Evans & Popp's explanation of how the 'reflection of cold' was actually measuring a drop in temperature when the "relatively high-temperature radiation** is replaced ... the thermometer now recieves less energy per unit time than previously." [**That is radiation emitted from a relatively warmer source.]
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:55 PM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... "GHE is a hypothesis, not fact."
This is very base level climate denial. I mean, jeez, we literally measure the greenhouse effect and have been doing so for over a century. You can measure it from your own backyard with relatively simple, inexpensive equipment.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 23:51 PM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... The difference here is this: Given enough evidence and strong research, any of us could be convinced there is something other than CO2 responsible for warming the planet in the modern era. You, on the other hand, will never accept the overwhelmingly research that currently exists regardless of how convincing it is.
Being truly skeptical means being convincible. Thus, I would term you a climate science denier. And that is the very premise of how this website was named.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:58 PM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ah, yes. Likeitwarm brings out the strawmen of "AGW theory", "where's your proof?", etc. And now, he's using Friends of Science as a source. As Eclectic says, these sources are simply delusional about the science.
The last link provided by Likeitwarm is a paper published in Energy and Environment. As quoted on this Desmog page about the journal, E&E is "a journal that climate change deniers go to when their papers have been rejected by mainstream peer-reviewed publications."
The holes in the papers Likeitwarm has linked to are so large you could drive a Mack truck through them. They have been debunked many, many times in the past.
As for Likeitwarm's posting history here at SkS, he has pretended to have an open mind about the science, but his last couple of posts have made it clear that he has participated here with his mind made up, and that he only accepts information that fits his desired conclusion.
-
Eclectic at 14:46 PM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sorry, Likeitwarm @1597 . . . but the Miskolczi "paper" proves no such thing. His "constant infrared optical depth" ideas are junk science.
Rob Honeycutt is pointing you in the right direction. Look inside yourself and ask why you choose to cherrypick these disproven ideas originating from a few - a very small handful - of "contrarian scientists". That is the question for you . . . if you are brave enough to face yourself in the mirror.
Let me hasten to add : AFAIK the good Dr Miskolczi may well be a nice guy and kind to children & animals. And AFAIK, lawyers would not consider him legally insane . . . but he is delusional about this area of climate physics.
Sadly, Likeitwarm, there's a small number of scientists who are simply delusional. It's a quirk of their personality, a crazy streak. But that is no reason for you to be sucked in by them.
-
Likeitwarm at 12:35 PM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I counted on you guys reacting like you did. You are stuck on the false AGW theory and can't get over it. You denigrate all other theories. GHE is a hypotheseis, not fact. Where is your proof that increased CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere? You only have a correlation with rising temperatures and CO2. No laboratory proofs that the addition of CO2 does anything to temperature. Check this proof that CO2 does nothing to atmospheric temperatures. https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:43 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LIkewarm @ 1594:
Oh, my Jennifer Marohasy is a completely unreliable source. The article it links to starts with this paragraph (leaving the grammatical errors intact):
Central to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the assumption that the Earth and every one of its subsystems behaviors as if they were blackbodies, that is their “emissivity” potential is calculated as 1.0.
This is absolutely, completely wrong. No such assumption is made. The reference provide is to a book (?) about "slaying the sky dragon". The Sky Dragon believers are about as nutty as it gets.
You then post links to principia-scientific.com, which has strong ties to the Sky Dragon believers and is about as reliable as the Flat Earth Society.. It is a collection of deniers - not a useful source of anything remotely scientific. You can read more about the organization here.
You then delve into the standard "it's a plot" that characterizes the conspiratorial thinking that saturates the common denier mentality.
You claim to "...find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW." But what you are presenting here is just more of long-debunked crap.
There is no polite way to put it. You are believing sources that are obscenely wrong about climate science.
-
Evan at 06:37 AM on 28 September 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
rip71749@2, to add to the impact of your analogy, coming out of the last glacial cycle CO2 rose at a rate of 1 ppm/100 yrs for 1000s of years. So even the relatively slow increase you note of 1 ppm/year during the early years following the Industrial Revolution were, in geological terms, extremely rapid.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:58 AM on 28 September 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
Eclectic @5,
I agree that there is a preponderance of reporting of incorrect evaluations of ‘development progress’. Your example of a lack of improvement that could incorrectly be counted as an improvement is a god one. I would add the following case:
People living a subsistence living condition in a village would benefit from receiving assistance from more fortunate people like:‘public health care’ or ‘public education that sustainably improves the quality of their food production (even if they never produce any excess product for trade). But such a person moving from that zero-income and ‘deserving of improvement’ circumstance to a city where they earn income just above the poverty line is not really an improvement. It may, in fact, be a negative change.
Perhaps the most comprehensive recent documents I have seen that attempt to deliver a more accurate presentation are the UNDP Human Development Reports, particularly the HDR 2020 which delves into a diversity of improvements to ‘GDP measures of progress’.
Some other more realistic economic evaluations are:
- “Good Economics for Hard Times”, by Abhijt V. Banerjee and Ester Duflo, PublicAffairs 2019.
- “The Age of Sustainable Development”, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University Press 2015.
Thomas Piketty has also presented some of this non-current-norm economics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:57 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... Your description sounds like a severe case of confirmation bias. You're deliberately rejecting the overwhelming body of research in favor of small cherry-picked bits that confirm what you prefer to believe.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:26 AM on 28 September 20232023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
nigelj @4,
To be clear, I am optimistic about the future of humanity in spite of the current, and growing, popularity of misleading claims made in pursuit of 'benefit for some - to the detriment of others'.
I believe that the disastrous results of harmful misunderstandings, like the short-term (multiple decades is still short-term) surge of popularity of nonsense like Reagan-Thatcher-nomics (a main driving force opposed to the understood required corrections to limit climate change harm done), will be overcome as global leaders become bolder about taking action that conflicts with the interests of undeserving wealthy and powerful people.
But 'responsible harm reduction' leaders need to have clear support from a significant portion of the population. It is very hard work to limit the harmful influence of misleading populists.
Limiting the influence of misleading populists requires leadership that will compromise the ability of undeserving powerful people to mislead in ways that suit their unjust interests. But, more importantly, it requires a significant portion of voters to be dedicated to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to others. All major political parties sharing that objective but still having a robust diversity of perspectives aligned with that objective would be 'brilliant politicking'.
The battles to 'limit the success of misleading marketing', on all matters that really matter, not just climate science and limiting climate change impacts, need to be won in order for humanity to sustainably improve the future for the robust diversity of humans and other life on this amazing planet. SKS is just one of the many important players in battle against 'mis-Leaders pursuing harmful unjustified unsustainable benefits For Their Type of People.
-
rip71749 at 05:16 AM on 28 September 2023At a glance - How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Look at human-added CO2 as borrowing debt on a fossil fuel credit card. When we were young (>200 years ago), we had 280ppm CO2 in the bank and life was good. We had just received a fossil fuels credit card (which created debt in CO2) with seemingly no limit. Our family started to grow and we needed more energy so we borrowed a little fossil fuel. It seemed like we were borrowing almost nothing and thought there was almost no CO2 to worry about.
But as the years went by and the balance, grew we became shocked at how much it had grown. At first there was only about 1 billion of us and we had 280 ppm CO2 in the bank. We needed a little extra and started borrowing, just a little, less than 1ppm per year. But as our family grew (population), we borrowed more and more fossil fuels because suddenly we needed the extra energy to support our growing family (population) using our fossil fuels credit card (fossil fuels from 300 million years ago, and our 100 million CO2 account credit limit of stored solar energy).
By the time we reached 1960 our family (population) had grown to about 3 billion and our fossil fuel credit borrowing had increased to about (315-280= 35ppm) of CO2 debt, still not too bad. But then things started going crazy and our family was increasing by another billion every 12-13 years. All of a sudden in 2023 our family was 8 billion and we had borrowed so much fossil fuel our CO2 debt reached (421-280=141 ppm). We owed more than half of our entire starting bank account of 280ppm, and were borrowing more than ever at 3ppm with no end in sight. Instead of retiring in comfort in our old age, we are going to have to work until our dying day.
It all seemed like such a small amount of borrowing at the start, but now, we are in big trouble! We will never be able to pay off that CO2 credit card debt?
-
Likeitwarm at 04:38 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sysop, Thank you for allowing this conversation with scaddenp and myself to continue.
1562 scaddenp
You said "What I am asking is whether you can remember what switched you into looking for sites like CO2Science or temperature.global? Was it just disbelief about trace gases or were there other considerations?"I've been thinking about an answer for you.
I started looking into "global warming" back in the mid 2000s, 25 years ago,
I think with this site https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.
Many other places and books since then.
I find a lot, 1000s or more, of scientists that disagree with AGW.
One is Nasif Nahle who has calculated the emissivity of CO2 at less than .003 and and says that it doesn't absorb or emit much if any IR. You can see his calculations at https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/total-emissivity-of-the-earth-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Then there is the Club Of Rome, a bunch of rich elitists that think they know best for the rest of us. Back in 1968-1974 they decided they needed a scare tactic to get people to reduce births, thus reducing the population of the earth and the resources used by them. They settled on AGW because CO2 is emitted when fossil fuels are burned. Reduce the available energy and you will reduce the birth rate.
The U.N. IPCC was not charged with finding out what makes the climate change but rather how to pin it on human causes. See https://shalemag.com/manmade-global-warming-the-story-the-reality/ and https://principia-scientific.com/the-club-of-rome-and-rise-of-predictive-modelling-mafia/
UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
You see, the goal was not to save us all from overheating the planet or acidifying the oceans. The goal was to scare everyone into giving up cheap fossil fuels.
I don't know what the goal of you and your colleagues at Skeptical Science is but I do know you can create logic and equations to describe anything, so I remain skeptical of your site.
Now you know where I'm coming from. See www.ourwoods.org.
Cheers -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:11 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... Well, I guess Peter Ward believes, in effect and contrary to conversion of energy, that energy can be destroyed.
Ward also claims, "...however, [ozone depletion] provides a much more detailed and precise explanation for changes in climate observed since the industrial revolution and throughout geologic history." And this us pure, unadulterated BS.
You might be interested to know that Ward is a Seismologist, not an an atmospheric scientist nor a physicist. He speaketh from an orafice unbecoming for a serious researcher.
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:11 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
FYI, there is a more complete debunking of Peter Ward's "theories" at this blog site:
https://hannahlab.org/climate-skeptics-peter-wards-ozone-depletion-theory/
-
Bob Loblaw at 04:08 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Frankly. likeitwarm, you are simply not understanding what you are reading....
In comment 1590, you quote a paper that says "Thermal energy..." and "mechanical contact"
IR radiation is not "thermal energy". It is "radiative energy". It does not need mechanical contact - that's why radiation from the sun reaches us through the vacuum of space.
The quote you provide, and the paper you link to, are very, very confused. Radiation does not have "temperature". Radiation has no memory of what temperature it was emitted from - it just has a wavelength and frequency.
In its figure 2, the paper provides Planck curves for perfect emitters. Gases are not perfect emitters.
The paper starts section 7 (titled "RADIANT ENERGY IS NOT ADDITIVE") with the following:
Where most people have trouble intuitively visualizing electromagnetic energy and understanding E=hν is in recognizing that electromagnetic energy cannot be summed over frequency or wavelength, as is done today by virtually all climate models. It makes no physical sense to sum frequencies. For example, red light at 400 THz plus violet light at 700 THz does not equal ultraviolet-B radiation at 1100 THz
This demonstrates that the author is pretty much clueless as to what climate models and radiation models do. Nobody sums frequencies in the manner he suggests - they can and do (properly) sum the energy at different frequencies. That's called an "energy balance".
In section 11, the author cites Angstrom's 1900 paper. We've actually learned stuff since 1900, and Angstrom's errors are discussed on the advanced CO2 is saturated thread.
You need to find some less obvious sources of misinformation, likeitwarm.
-
Likeitwarm at 02:56 AM on 28 September 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
1585. Rob Honeycutt
"what's it do? a u-turn?"
Ha! You're funny!
Not exactly a u-turn, but effectively.Re-radiated IR cannot warm the surface according to Peter L Ward at the U.S. Geological Survey.
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/wp-content/uploads/Papers/Ward2016OzoneDepletionExplains.pdf
He explains as follows:
"Thermal energy can only transfer
physically via resonance in this way from higher
amplitude to lower amplitude at a given frequency
and, through mechanical contact in matter, from
higher frequency to lower frequency, thus
explaining the second law of thermodynamics.
…
It is the
frequencies and amplitudes of these radiating
oscillations that, when absorbed by cooler matter,
increase the amplitudes and frequencies of the
internal oscillations of the absorbing matter,
thereby increasing the absorbing matter’s
temperature. It is these frequencies and amplitudes
that appear to be reflected, rather than absorbed,
by warmer matter [22]. When radiation has lower
amplitudes of oscillation at each frequency than
the prevailing amplitudes of oscillation within
receiving matter, heat cannot flow into the matter
by resonance, cooler to hotter. Therefore, by
conservation of energy, “colder” radiation must be
reflected. It can only flow away from the matter,
hotter to cooler. There is no physical way for
warmer matter to absorb “colder” radiation.
Resonance does not work in that direction. The
flow of thermal energy is all about the propagation
of a broad spectrum of oscillations in matter, in
space, and in gas molecules from higher
temperature to lower temperature."
