Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Comments 1951 to 2000:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:02 AM on 14 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... This conversation is becoming a classic Gish gallop.
Regarding your HBR article, please read down to the bottom of the article.
None of this should raise serious doubts about the future or necessity of renewables. The science is indisputable: Continuing to rely on fossil fuels to the extent we currently do will bequeath a damaged if not dying planet to future generations. Compared with all we stand to gain or lose, the four decades or so it will likely take for the economics of solar to stabilize to the point that consumers won’t feel compelled to cut short the life cycle of their panels seems decidedly small. But that lofty purpose doesn’t make the shift to renewable energy any easier in reality. Of all sectors, sustainable technology can least afford to be shortsighted about the waste it creates. A strategy for entering the circular economy is absolutely essential — and the sooner, the better.
This article clearly isn't making the claim that you seem to think it does. They're not saying renewables are dirtier. They're merely discussing the challenges we're going to face with waste from renewables. No one denies that, but the alternative of continued use of oil for energy is vastly worse. -
Likeitwarm at 07:07 AM on 14 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Sysop,
I posted and could not find it. Got a page expired message. Could not see that a new page was added(63). It still said 62.
So could you please delete 1569 as it is a second incarnation of the same post.
My apologies.
-
Likeitwarm at 07:00 AM on 14 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp 1549 and sysop
"how far a photon of appropriate wavelength would travel up through the atmosphere on average before encountering a CO2 molecule"
Depending on the humidity it might get caught first by H2O. It could travel 3 inches or 300 inches. I haven't calculated the odds. I guess it would be like shooting into a flock of birds to see if you hit one.
I read somewhere that the maximum amount of earths radiation that is of an appropriate wavelength to react with CO2 is about 16% of the total. I think that is attributed to John Tyndall.
"what did likeitwarm think would happen to that energy?"
If the object was inert and isolated from the rest of the universe and emitted to a perfect reflector/re-emitter and absorbed this redirected energy, Its temperature would not change. In order to emit it must lose energy and it would just regain that energy back at absorption. I think it would need an external input to rise in temperature.
"I do not believe we should be destroying the world economies..."
I think is has been shown in the development of all economies to-date that cheap energy is key. Solar and wind energy have been shown that they are anything but cheap and dirtier to build, at this time. I do acknowledge that we need incentive to work on new technologies but I think we are turning off fossil and nuclear energy too soon. China certainly doesn't give a hoot about global warming.
I really feel this thread could get way off topic fast and needs to go to some general discussion. These things are not the science, but affect the science or are affected by the science.
These articles are not science but the problems noted in them will be solved by it, eventually. I just wonder how soon?
https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/?sh=3c94bf1c5fe5
https://daily.jstor.org/the-downside-to-renewable-energy/Moderator Response:[B} I will only respond to the part of this comment that is answering my question ""what did likeitwarm think would happen to that energy?".
First of all, you need to think about just what you mean by "inert and isolated from the rest of the universe". What you then describe is a system where an object is emitting, and then another object is sending all that energy back. And that leads to a constant temperature. You then say an external input is needed to raise the temperature.
In this system, ask yourself the following questions:
- Is the original object isolated, or are both objects part of one system that is isolated?
- It can’t be just the first object, as it is exchanging energy with the other object. So your isolated system has two objects, plus the space between them.
- What are the edges of the space around them that leads to isolation?
- What other energy exchanges are happening within that system? Are there any other objects?
- What would that temperature be?
- With your description, it could be any temperature. As long as the reflector/re-emitter sends all the energy back, there is no change in energy in that object.
- How did that object get to the temperature it is currently at? There must have been energy added from somewhere.
- You talk about external energy sources (at which point the system is no longer isolated).
- What about internal energy sources of heat, such as combustion or radioactive decay? That can still happen in an isolated system, and leads to additional energy flows (heat and otherwise).
- What happens in your system if you remove the reflector/re-emitter?
- At this point the energy is not being returned to the first object, so will it cool?
- If it is cooling, then would you conclude that the reflector/re-emitter was indeed keeping the first object warm?
- If it is cooling, then what is happening in the rest of the system? There is energy leaving the first object, and not returning, but the system is still isolated so the energy has to go somewhere.
All-in-all, what this demonstrates is that to really understand the behaviour of "the system", you need to define all objects, all energy fluxes, etc. If you only have a vision of a partial system, then you will make errors in drawing conclusions about its behaviour.
...and on the topic of the blog post and the 2nd law, the serious part that is left out of the "system" by people that believe the myth is that our earth/atmosphere system has a huge external source of energy in the sun. We do not live on an isolated (energy-wise) system, and the real behaviour is not what the myth-believers think it is.
...but from your earlier comment (after reading The Green Plate post at Eli's) tells me that you already realize that not including the energy source of the sun was part of your misunderstanding.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:23 AM on 14 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
Leonard Bachman @12,
I agree in general with your points. But I have concerns about part of what you presented.
I am a civil engineer with an MBA. My initial interest in climate change was how it would impact items I design. I quickly learned that a rapid ending of the climate change impacts, a strict limit on impacts to levels to only slightly higher than 1.0 C of warming, was required to establish reasonable certainty regarding the design requirements that would adequately limit the probability of future harmful outcomes. How severe will a severe rain or wind event be? That depends on how severe the peak level of climate change impact is. How easy is it to be certain about regional climate change design requirements? The less total impact when human impacts are ended the easier it is to understand the likely design impacts.
However, my interest has expanded to become the larger scope of development of sustainable improvements (the Sustainable Development Goals and improvements of them). Climate change impacts challenge the development of sustainable improvements. Certainty regarding the limit of harm done by damaging developed activities is required to develop adaptations that will be sustainable.
From that perspective, admittedly not the developed norm, I agree in general with your points. However the statement that “Comparing technology based generation to fuel based generation on that basis is a logical fallacy. All that matters is $/kWh and grams CO2/kWh. The SYSTEM handles spatial distance and temporal load matching issues.” is itself a narrow and potentially flawed presentation.
Grams of CO2/kWh do matter. But things like grams of CH4/kWh also matter. And other unsustainable impacts of developed popular and profitable activity also matter. Most important is understanding that the amount of accumulating impact of CO2, or other harmful human impacts, need to be based on the full cycle of the system ‘From obtaining the materials used - to the end of use impacts’.
Stating $/kWh first is a more problematic part of the presentation. That could be interpreted to mean that more CO2/kWh, or other unsustainable impact, is justified if it is cheaper. That only applies if the marketplace effectively fully costs all harmful unsustainable impacts. And that price must be certain to be the cost of effectively neutralizing the impact. The marketplace marketing also needs to effectively reduce the popularity of less sustainable alternatives. And any required collective action to neutralize the impacts, because the people benefiting are not required to pay up front for the complete neutralization of impacts, should be certain to be publicly funded by the extra fees and taxes collected from those who personally benefited from the permitted damaging activities (activities that are permitted to not completely neutralize negative impacts).
Leadership (in business or politics) is understandably unethical if it permits or encourages accumulating damage to be done because of expectations of ‘temporary perceptions of benefit for their portion of humanity and it is perceived to be more beneficial if the harms done do not have to be neutralized by those who are benefiting’ (from a sustainable development perspective total humanity includes all future humans).
Without the full cost to neutralize the impact being priced by the system games get played to claim that benefits obtained excuse the harm done. Those games include trying to claim that a lower price is applicable to the harm being done (economist game playing regarding ‘Carbon Pricing’ is an example). And those games discount the consideration of damage done to others who are not considered to be important people (higher discount rates lead to a lower ‘Carbon Price’). Those games also try to attract popular support for misunderstandings that appear to justify or excuse the harmful actions. And making $/kWh a governing consideration can fuel popular support for harmful misunderstandings.
The responsible ethical order of evaluation is like the evaluations of alternative ways to engineer something. The cost comparison only applies to the alternatives that meet stringent limits on potential for harmful results. Any cheaper option that is more harmful or more likely to be harmful is excluded from consideration.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:15 AM on 14 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
A couple more tidbits on this Davis paper, and then I think that one is sufficiently put to rest.
The paper lists his primary association as the Environmental Studies Institute, which on close inspection appears to be a one-person operation where the website hasn't been updated since 2015 (implied by the copyright).
The ESI has Davis' CV listed and it clearly demonstrates he doesn't even have a background in physics. He has a PhD in biology and apparently works in sports medicine, according to his certification in 2002.
This all seems par for the course in climate denial world.
Moderator Response:[BL] Yes let's please let this one rest. The 2017 paper also gives an affiliation of University of California at Santa Cruz, although the linked CV indicates that he ceased to be employed there in 2004.
-
Eclectic at 00:12 AM on 14 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rob Honeycutt @1564 , regarding the Davis paper [Davis W.J., 2017], he does indeed go on at length about the GHG forcing from CO2 . . . and yet overall he appears to have little understanding of the physics of terrestrial GHGs.
"... large variations in CO2 exert little or negligible effects on temperature" [unquote]
"The generally weak or absent correlations between the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and T [Temperature] ... imply that other unidentifiable variables caused most (>95%) of the variance in T across the Phanerozoic climate record." [note the "unidentifiable variables"]
A one-line mention of water vapor.
No mention of Faint Young Sun.
Extensive mention of statistical analysis of CO2 / Temperature . . . from which Davis seems only to have identified "a prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle" ~ but he makes no attempt to link this alleged cycle to any physical processes or occurrences on planet Earth.
"anthropogenic emissions of CO2 accelerated at the start of the Industrial Age in the mid-18th century" [did he mean to say mid-19th ?? ]
I could go on.
Rob ~ as you stated earlier, this Davis paper is ridiculous.
[ Moderator ~ I would prefer to say that Motivated Reasoning is a consequence of Cognitive Dissonance . . . but as you rightly indicate, this is not really the thread for such discussions. ]
-
blatz at 23:48 PM on 13 June 2023Which EVs qualify for new federal tax credits?
I bought a Kia EV6 last month. It was manufactured in Korea so it didn't qualify for any tax credits. FYI. I believe they will be manufacturing them in the US in a the future. Love the car FWIW.
-
scaddenp at 15:06 PM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RH - it is an MDPI journal - open access, aim to publish within 7 weeks of submission!! I'd say just lazy review.
Moderator Response:[BL] Beall's List is a good resource to check out the reliability of various journals and publishers. The list mentions MDPI at the bottom, under "Excluded - decide after reading", and links to this Wikipedia page for further details.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:24 PM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Bob... There's also a very weird part of the Davis paper where he goes on at length explaining the non-linear aspect of GHG forcing, as if anyone reviewing or reading the paper wouldn't already understand that. In a paper on paleoclimate that aspect should get one sentence and maybe a reference and be done with it.
I'm not conviced this is an actual peer reviewed paper.
-
Eclectic at 13:01 PM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1550 commented: "These things are put out there by people I don't think are dummies. I wonder if they would put them out there if they knew they were wrong?" [answer: Yes, because of Cognitive Dissonance]
Thanks for the chuckle !
Yessir indeed. Even some very intelligent Denialists repeatedly put stuff out there when they know it's wrong. Over and over again, they put out there some favorite pieces of wrongness, despite repeatedly being shown wrong by scientific literature or repeatedly being shown wrong in science-based blogs such as SkS= SkepticalScience / ATTP= And Then There's Physics / etcetera.
Why do Denialists keep posting wrongness? ~ because they are angry and have huge cognitive dissonance and they indulge in Motivated Reasoning. And a small percentage are paid for such propaganda [looking at you, Heartland Institute and GWPF= Global Warming Policy Foundation ] of using half-truths & other misleading stuff.
Likeitwarm ~ there certainly is some value in reading denialist blogs such as WUWT= WattsUpWithThat , and ClimateEtc [blog by Dr Judith Curry]. You won't learn much genuine climate science there, but you will learn something of the flaws & follies of Human Nature. ~Which can be entertaining . . . as you see the persistent wrongheadedness of 90% of the commenters there.
The big question, the interesting question, is why do those people (both the intelligent ones and the moronic ones) keep on persistently misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting stuff**
** An amusing example from just a few days ago on ClimateEtc ~ a certain regular commenter stated: "many studies on sea level [show] rising for centuries at approximately the current rate" and he cited a scientific paper. When I myself accessed that paper: it showed the complete opposite picture in its very first diagram [which showed centuries of flatness followed by a spectacular "Hockey Stick" upwards trend in the past 200 years]. The original commenter's egregious error was pointed out by another commenter . . . whose post mysteriously disappeared a day later.
Moderator Response:Large amounts of speculation about the motives of various people can be counterproductive.
Without reference to motive, the aspects of Cognitive Dissonance (one flavour of Motivated Reasoning) can indicate how a person can genuinely develop and maintain non-logical conclusions.
Morton's demon also provides an interesting look at this phenomenon, and is worth a read.
-
scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm, your link to temperature.global does point to what interests me most. There are numerous global temperature records (eg HadCrut, GISS) which have peer-reviewed methodologies, public source code and validation by hostile review (eg Muller's BEST project). Instead you are giving credence to a site with short time frame, no review and refusing to reveal their methodology.
That to my mind means you have very different priors to me, different biases, and that is what interests me most. Different priors is normal and we all have different biases. 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?Moderator Response:[BL] In order to try to limit the range of the off-topicness of this discussion, I am going to ask likeitwarm to focus on this branch of the thread.
I gave scaddenp limited permission to go off-topic in comment 1549, and in the current comment, scaddenp is trying to dig further back in time to see how likeitwarm came to the positions that he arrived here with.
likeitwarm: as this discussion continues, please try to give additional detail on how your thought process developed. When you link to a specific source, please try to tell us in your own words what it is you read into that, what it is about that source that you found convincing, what it is about that source that confirmed or contradicted previous ideas that you had, etc.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:52 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rob Honeycutt @ 1557 and 1558:
Yes, I see that Davis paper mentioned at the top of the page - I had grabbed the reference listed at the bottom of the page.
Even the Davis paper says, at the end of its abstract (emphasis added):
This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
Over 425 million years, many factors affect climate. Solar output, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building. A quick glance at the paper suggests that they have not really made any attempt to consider confounding variables. They mention them, but do not quantify them.
Moderator Response:[BL] Considering that this discussion has rapidly progressed into a number of side-issues, I am going to recuse myself from further participation as a regular commenter, and switch into a moderator role again. I cannot do both.
Note that one part of the Comments Policy says:
No dogpiling. In the interests of civility and to enable people to properly express their opinions, we discourage 'piling on'. If a comment already has a response, consider carefully whether you are adding anything interesting before also responding. If a participant appears to be being 'dog piled', the moderator may designate one or two people from each side of the debate as the primary disputants and require that no other people respond until further notified. On topic comments on other matters not being discussed by the primary disputants will still be welcome.
In order to give likeitwarm a chance to keep up with and respond, I ask all participants to try to limit their somewhat-off-topic responses.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:40 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
...and continuing with likeitwarm's third link on comment 1550:
The web site, temperature.global, has been discussed previously here. Read this comment.
I agree with what Eclectic says in that comment, and with what Rob says in comment 1554. With no idea what their methodology is, there is no way of knowing how many basic errors they are making.
To properly process weather station temperature data, you need to account for station location density and coverage. You can't take 10 stations in one small area that all record 15C, and one station in another small area some distance away that records 25C, and say that the average temperature across all the area is 15.9C. It is probably closer to 20C.
Trend analysis also requires accounting for changes in station locations, and measurement methods.
You also linked to that site in a comment last August. Attempts were made to correct your errors at that time, including pointing you to The Escalator. Please re-read the responses you got on that thread.
You can read additional details on how to properly assess global temperatures in a four part series of posts here at SkS that starts with this one.
-
scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
RH - well CO2"Science" have long history in misrepresenting what science papers actually say, secure in the knowledge that their intended audience won't read them to check. LikeitWarm, I agree that the Idso's are intelligent and smart - just not in a good way.
Likeitwarm - I appreciate that it is very difficult to evaluate material that you dont know very well. However, a common strategy for the deniers is the"strawman fallacy". Ie they claim that "science says X", which means that it follows that Y should be observed. If Y is not observed, then clearly X is wrong. (eg Idso is effectively claiming "Science says CO2 is only thing that effects temperature, therefore past temperatures must reflect CO2 concentration" ). If you discover that science says no such thing (eg check with what the IPCC reports claim instead) and that your source would likely be aware of that, (eg quoting or misquoting IPCC) then you have reasonable grounds for assuming that the source is bad actor, and not to be compared with what peer-reviewed science is saying (no matter how appealing their presentation is).
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:24 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
But you're also right, they're referencing Came et al at the bottom for some inexplicable reason.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:21 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Actually, Bob, I think this is the paper CO2 Science is discussing.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:19 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Continuing to look at likeitwarm's links.
As Rob Honeycutt points out, looking at peaks is not good practice. The second link provided in comment 1550 actually provides linear trends for all three datasets they display, and all are within agreement of climate model predictions. The temperature series with the greatest amount of short-term variation is the UAH one - which is not surface temperature. It is satellite-derived tropospheric temperature.
Looking at the peaks and seeing "flat spots" is a classic error. So classic that Skeptical Science produced a graph call The Escalator. It has recently been updated. You can read about that update on this blog post.
For convenience, here is the graphic in that post (and you can always see it in the right margin of each web page here.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:11 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @ 1550:
Your first link claims to be presenting the results of a Nature paper from 2007, as indicated under the figure. A link to the paper itself is this. Although paywalled, Google Scholar finds free copies, such as this one.
The last sentence in the opening paragraph (visible at Nature) says "Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures."
What does it tell you when the CO2science web site tells you the exact opposite of what the authors of the paper they reference are saying?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:06 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Third link: These guys I tried to contact at one point to ask them why their data looked so different than everyone else's. The guy wouldn't identify himself nor would he identify anyone who was working on their supposed team. He wouldn't explain how they processed their data. After a few polite questions he blocked me.
My suspicion is he's not gridding his global data, which means his data is going to be more a representation of temperature in the most densely measured regions. And that makes his representations of global temperature, well, not global. It also makes it worthless.
This one is just comically bad.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:02 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Second link and comment: You don't define trends by peaks and troughs, but by long term trends.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:58 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
The first paper (which I had to track down since there's no link at CO2 Science) reads as fairly ridiculous. There are a ton of graphs in the paper that clearly demonstrate correlation but he (a single researcher) says there is none. Better to stick with Dana Royer and his collegues who've done extensive research on this topic over the years.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:35 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I see. So when you wrote 1998, you actually meant 2016. Makes sense. How much scrutiny have you applied to that CO2 science website, exactly?
-
Likeitwarm at 06:56 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Rob Honeycutt 1547
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/sep/a13.php Unrelatedness of co2 and temp does look like CO2 did not affect temperatures much at all.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/satellite-and-surface-temperatures/ looks like 1998 was a peak high temp and now it's back up to that peak 25 years later.
http://www.temperature.global/ shows that averaged raw temperatures have been fairly flat since 2015. The 2 groups of warm in 2015 & 2016 are summer months. I know that's only 8 years, fairly short, but I would have expected temps to reflect the increase in CO2 of about 2.5 ppm per year.
These things are put out there by people I don't think are dummies. I wonder if they would put them out there if they knew they were wrong?
Moderator Response:[RH] Activated links
-
scaddenp at 06:41 AM on 13 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LikeitWarm. Thanks very much for your response and I hope the moderators wills tolerate me continuing thediscussion. So you think what sounds like a very small amount of gas triggered your skeptcism? You also state "I do not believe we should be destroying the world economies..." That is also an interesting statement. What do you think informs your opinion that transitions from fossil fuels would destroy the world's economies? If you can think back to when that idea first formed, it would be good.
Also, since you are without a physics background, can ask you what your intuition would be about how far a photon of appropriate wavelength would travel up through the atmosphere on average before encountering a CO2 molecule. Please dont look it up or attempt to calculate it- I am really interested in your intuition on this, not your knowledge.
Moderator Response:[BL] Although we try to keep discussions on topic, we will allow some latitude here.
In order to maintain a bit of on-topic discussion, I would suggest that likeitwarm also provide a bit more of an indication of how his intuition (or materials he read elsewhere) led to his initial statement "I didn't know an object could be made hotter by reflecting its own radiation back on it. "
In particular, since the process of reflecting radiation (or absorbing it and re-emitting it back towards the original object) requires that energy be directed back to the object, what did likeitwarm think would happen to that energy?
-
Leonard Bachman at 23:01 PM on 12 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
All critique of specific energy generation sources taken in isolation are myoptic and flawed. The SYSTEM of solar/wind/existing-hydropower as firmed with battery, pumped hydro, demand response control DRC, and distributed energy resources DER, is far superior to the SYSTEM of fossil/nuclear as firmed by natural gas peakers and substation burn-off of overcapacity all night.
It is equally flawed to ignore the SYSTEM of blending/sharing/pooling/shifting/shaving/smoothing functions of grid interconnection, especially as HVDC and transactive smart grid features continue to incorporate DRC and DER. Grids are going transcontinental now.
Finally, the efficiency ratio of output energy from input energy sources that are perpetual, ubiquitous, and essentially infinite is a meaningless number. Comparing technology based generation to fuel based generation on that basis is a logical fallacy. All that matters is $/kWh and grams CO2/kWh. The SYSTEM handles spatial distance and temporal load matching issues.
Much of this is evident in the prior comments here (thanks all) and the specific mention of Mark Z. Jacobson's work.
For those of you following the old PNAS Jacobson/Clack debate... Clack has long since come over to the 100% renewables side.... just follow Clack's publications to confirm. -
BaerbelW at 15:08 PM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1544
How about signing-up for our free online course (MOOC) "Denial101x - Making sense of climate science denial"? The course - created in collaboration with the University of Queensland - explains the basics of climate science and which techniques are at play to sow doubt about human-caused global warming. The MOOC is offered in self-paced mode and is open until end of February 2024.
Another helpful MOOC is "Climate Change: The Science and Global Impact" also offered on the edX platform in self-paced mode. I wrote a blog post about it when I "binge-watched" all the lectures in January 2021 and can really recommend it if you want to dig deeper.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:56 PM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... Not sure what you mean by "especially with the history of CO2 volumes and estimated historic atmospheric temperatures not jiving with each other."
CO2 volumes and global temperature actually corrolate very well. It's one of the key reasons why we know our human emissions of CO2 are responsible for modern warming.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:53 PM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm... On the 0.04% topic, looking from space to the surface, a concentration of 0.04% is essentially opaque.
You can think of it this way... a square of 1000x1000 molecules = 1 million molecules. Right? At 0.04% that means 400 will be CO2 randomly distributed. Add the next layer of 1M molecules, and 400 more randomly distributed CO2 molecules. And so on.
It doesn't take very long before there is a near 100% chance that every one of the positions in that 1000x1000 grid will end up being a CO2 molecule.
When you're talking about the full vertical profile of the atmosphere, 400ppm is a very significant concentration, significant because of the specific radiative properties of CO2.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 12:35 PM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
There is no scientific source claiming that temperatures have been "fairly flat" since 1998.
-
Likeitwarm at 11:16 AM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I know this post will technically be off topic, but is a direct answer to scaddenp's inquiry.
scaddenp 1543 - I see there are many who claim their science is right on both sides of the climate argument and everyone presents what appears to be good arguments to support their position. I know that it is normal human behavior to have some bias toward one's own argument. This is the opinion of all that I talk to in the non-scientist group. Many don't know who to believe and pay any attention to what can be a confusing subject. Myself, not being a well educated physicist, feel at a disadvantage. My math is only basic, algebra 2 in high school. Someone very good with math could easily pull the wool over my eyes with complex formulas involved in this science. I am a machine designer/cost anayizer/production programmer/personel manager for the production of an old product who got there by the seat of my pants. I have been retired now 6 years.
I just could not believe a trace gas of .04% of the atmosphere could have such an effect, especially with the history of CO2 volumes and estimated historic atmospheric temperatures not jiving with each other. There are so many factors that have different affects, it is hard to discern which are reasonable causes. With "global" temperatures reportedly being fairly flat since 1998 and CO2 continuing to rise at a steady rate and the U.S. Government spending $375B, recently, towards climate initiatives(some is my tax money and yours if you pay U.S. taxes), I am still seeking the truth to inform my congress of the truth that I see. I do not believe we should be destroying the world economies and spending vast amounts of the public treasure when there is so much disagreement on what is causing climate change. That was the opinion of Dr. Allen Carlin of the EPA in 2009. He called the evidence for AWG incomplete.
I know you guys that support this site put a lot of time and effort into the science and site. That's why I come here to investigate.
If there is a better place to have this conversation, please let me know.
Moderator Response:[BL] For the "it's a trace gas" discussion, go to this post.
To learn why measuring CO2 as a percent of the total gases is not the correct method when it comes to radiation transfer, go to this post. There is a certain level of mathematics in some of that, but the simple experiment with the dye in solution should be easy to follow.
For the "it hasn't warmed since 1998" canard, go to this post.
In general, the next time you find yourself wondering about a new topic, you should probably go to the Most Used Climate Myths section in the left sidebar of every page here. If it's not on the top 10 ("It hasn't warmed since 1998" is #9 there), then click on "View All Arguments" to get the entire list.
You can also use the search box to search all the myth rebuttals, blog post, and (with an extra click) all the comments for the search terms you enter.
-
michael sweet at 07:19 AM on 12 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
David-acct:
So still no analysis to support your wild claim that renewable energy cannot supply all energy for the whole economy. You are like the people who said ICE cars would never be used because there were no gas stations. Only a partial renewable energy grid has been built. Obviously the partial grid cannot supply total energy since it has not been finished yet. Batteries are now cheaper than gas peaker plants for storage.
I am amazed that solar power does not provide energy at night!!! (/sarc)
I note that baseload fossil plants cannot supply peak power in the middle of every day. Somehow the grid does not collapse when the baseload plants cannot supply enough power. Perhaps a renewable system will have some way of providing stored power (batteries) when solar and wind are low.
You are wasting my time with your repetitive, unsupported claims.
-
scaddenp at 06:56 AM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm - wanting to learn is great - and frankly why this site exists. I was making assumptions about your priors on climate science because of multple posts in different topics. I am very curious about what leads non-scientists into "the science is wrong" mindset (fairly critical people that people dont do that in my own field) and how that originates. If this doesnt apply to you, then my apologies. No shortage of other people to ask.
-
Likeitwarm at 04:31 AM on 12 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
To all who posted in response to my question in #1529,
Thank you all for tolerating my ignorance. I came here to learn and that I have.
What I thought was a simple question was maybe not one and the answer required more thoughtful study than I gave it to begin with.
I did read the post at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html and have a much better understanding of radiative heating, now. I think I understand that you can add streams of radiation to heat a warmer object with a colder one, if that in fact is part of what Eli is teaching.
On my original question, I was thinking an object isolated from the universe(not receiving radiation from another source) and surrounded by some imaginary material that somehow returned the objects own radiation to it. I was thinking conservation and being in thermal equillibrium with itself that it would not get warmer. I see because of scaddenp's answer in #1537 that that is not true or I was not clear in #1529.
@scaddenp #1537 "what made you decide that the science must be incorrect?"
I don't know that I thought the science was wrong, I just did not understand how an object could increase its temperature with no other input. I'm still puzzled somewhat. I will require more study. Eli shows steady input of new energy to the plates and I meant an object with no other inputs.
I owe all a big apology to all for not being clear in #1529.
Thank you all for the lessons. I will study more before asking more questions. Maybe I'll just ask for references if I can't find info on my own.
Moderator Response:[BL] Thank you for following that link, reading the material and having the honesty and courage to return to this site and and providing this feedback.
-
David-acct at 02:45 AM on 12 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
Michael that is an incorrect characterization of NERC. The oversee the various utilities to ensure reliability of the grid. See the NERC report 2023 summer reliability report I previous linked to.
I also urge everyone to examine the EIA . gov website I linked to above for the electric generation by source. As noted in your response to the loss of wind for the extended 3 week period in August 2022, your reply was that solar produced electricity during that period. However as noted in the EIA data, the solar electric generation is only effective for 8-10 even during the summer, thus leaving 12-16 hours dependent on wind (if not for the fossil fuel electric generation).
I have linked to the EIA electric generation website so that everyone can see the raw real time data.
-
nigelj at 08:42 AM on 11 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
David-acct
Nameplate ratings and related performance can be misleading:
"Rated output, also known as Nameplate Rating, is determined by the wind turbine manufacturer, based on their chosen wind speed. The rated output can be a high number or a low number, depending on the wind regime chosen for performance calculations. In its current state, there is no unified approach to wind turbine ratings, making the process capricious."
There are of course periods where output of wind turbiness drops meaning we need gas backup. This is better than using gas 100% of the time. And storage systems are developing as an alternative to gas backup. There are other solutions as well.
No system is going to be perfect, but until you propose an alternative to renewables you arent making much of a case.
I agree with M Sweets take on the situation.
-
michael sweet at 02:08 AM on 11 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
David-acct:
Think about it: what do you expect to happen in 50 years of BAU when all the cheap fossil fuels have been used up? Will everyone go back to living in caves or will they set up a completely renewable energy system? There is no need to ruin the entire ecosystem when we have the technology to make the switch now.
-
michael sweet at 02:01 AM on 11 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
David-acct,
So no analysis to respond to the scientific consensus that renewable energy can powe r the entire economy for about half ote cost of fossil fuels, including any storage needed. There are a great many scientific papers, written by specialists with actual experience and data to support their conclusions, that analyze this issue in great depth and you respond with "look at this website with no analysis".
Fwiw, NERC is a legacy organization run by utilities who have a vested interest in not changing the profitable status quo.
-
fertilityacupuncture at 23:18 PM on 10 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
You make an excellent point about the inefficiency of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Not only does burning coal have detrimental effects on the environment, human health, and emit large amounts of carbon pollution, but it is also an astonishingly inefficient process.
-
Aimeeraupp at 21:41 PM on 10 June 2023What ‘The Simpsons’ taught ’90s kids about climate change
Great article! "The Simpsons" has always been known for its clever satirical commentary on societal issues, and it's fantastic to see them tackle the topic of climate change. By using humor and wit, the show effectively raises awareness about the urgent need for action and the potential consequences of ignoring climate change. It's important to recognize that even popular culture plays a role in shaping public opinion and driving conversations about such critical issues. Kudos to "The Simpsons" for using their platform to educate and entertain while addressing the pressing reality of climate change.
-
David-acct at 20:30 PM on 10 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
Michael
I again urge you and others to become familiar with the EIA detail, Its a great source of the real time and historical source data.
My comments are consistent with the NERC 2023 summer risk assessment. As noted on page 44 of the report, wind will produce in the range of 19% of name plate capacity during peak periods. fwiw, the NERC is run by individuals with actual experience .
www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_SRA_2023.pdf
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:32 PM on 9 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
I disagree with using ‘thermal efficiency’ to promote Renewable Energy vs. Fossil fuel use. And I also disagree with claims that ‘reliability’ of a specific type of renewable generation justifies continued fossil fuel use.
Comparisons of the relative merit of different energy generation and use (the full cycle evaluation) should be based on Sustainability and Harmfulness.
Developing sustainable improvements requires less sustainable and more harmful activity to be corrected, even if the correction is more expensive, or less efficient, or unpopular. Coal with effective CCS will have lower ‘overall, complete system, thermal efficiency’. However, based on ‘harmfulness’, that ‘lower efficiency’ is clearly better than continuing to run the coal plant without CCS. Of course, if modifying a coal plant to add CCS is not ‘cost effective’ compared to less harmful and more renewable alternatives, then the coal plant should be shut down and replaced by the less harmful and more renewable generation. However, even more expensive replacements that are less harmful than existing developments should be implemented. And ‘more expensive’ alternatives could include needing to over-build the capacity of renewable generation with associated renewable sustainable energy storage. That will probably be required for truly sustainable energy generation system development.
The obvious resulting understanding is that reducing energy consumption to what is ‘truly needed’ and reducing the harmfulness of ‘that essential (actually needed, not desired)’ energy generation and consumption is the most important action. Reduced energy use is the most efficient way to limit the harm done while the system is corrected to end harmful unsustainable developed activity.
As is mentioned in the article: “No form of energy is without environmental and social consequences, but they certainly are not all equal. Energy that’s cleaner and more efficient is a clear improvement in many ways.” Reducing energy use is a very Efficient way to be cleaner (very effectively limiting harm done)’.
But the article makes a major error by saying that energy generation is “essential for powering modern life”. That fails to clarify that a major problem with modern life is the development of popular and profitable harmful unsustainable over-consumption. The more popular or profitable an activity and related beliefs become, the harder they are to correct. The ‘successful resistance’ to reducing, and ultimately ending, fossil fuel use is only one of many developed proofs of that understanding.
Supplementary points:
- Sustainability: Only renewable energy generation has the potential to be continued and improved on for the millions of years that this amazing planet could potentially support humans living as a sustainable part of a robust diversity of other life.
- Harmfulness: The harm to the sustainability of life on this planet, not just human lives, should be the primary measure for ranking the merit of ‘potentially sustainable’ alternatives. A potentially sustainable alternative would not be sustainable if it cause accumulating harm or consumed, rather than recycled, non-renewable materials.
-
michael sweet at 08:22 AM on 9 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
David-acct at 1:
Many peer reviewed papers like Jacobson et al 2022 find that a completely renewable system can be built at a much lower cost than using fossil fuels that provides 100% of power 24/7/365. They use past weather data to show that enough electricity can be generated so that all uses are met. They measure every 30 seconds for several years to show that all needs can be met. They also put in the various times you cherry pick to see if all needs can be met during those periods.
You claim without any analysis that the supposed low wind periods you mention will cause a problem. I note that one was during the summer when large amounts of solar will be available. Sufficient battery storage to cover low wind periods is part of the system. Hydro can cover 1-2 week periods in seasons when there is not an excess of solar power.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:07 AM on 9 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Also @1533... "CO2 does not hold on to that energy."
CO2 does, though, slow the rate at which energy is emitted to space. Essentially, what greenhouse gases do is raise the altitude at which energy is emitted to space. In turn, it is the resulting thermal incline which determines the rise in surface temperature.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:01 AM on 9 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1533... You might want to take note that the earth does not shed heat to space via convection. It does so through radiation.
-
Jim Eager at 00:29 AM on 9 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
Another advantage that renewables have over coal are the CO2 emissions of first extracting that coal from the ground, and then moving it from the mine to the power plant, which can be considerable.
True, some strip mines use electricly powered draglines to dig out the coal, and some power plants are located adjacent to the pit, but in the United States most extraction is by diesel-electric excavators and haul trucks, and then huge quantities of coal are moved very long distances by rail, powered almost exclusively by diesel-electric locomotives.
-
John Mason at 17:38 PM on 8 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@ Likeitwarm #1533
Your dismissal of the blanket analogy - "a blanket works by preventing convection of air near and heated by conduction from my body", demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the human body loses heat.
If you lie outside with no clothes on on a cold day or night, your body will lose little heat due to conduction. Air is an utterly useless conductor of heat. Instread the human body loses almnost all heat by radiation - look up "radiative cooling". Then when you've done that, contemplate how frequently on winter mornings you've noticed cars covered in frost crystals but no grass frost. Some things are better at radiative cooling than others. Conduction within the metal body of the car makes sure it cools more evenly, but the cooling mechanism with respect to the surrounding air IS radiative.Anything that blocks that radiation through the surrounding air - by any mechanism - will give you a chance of survival - hence space-blankets, carried by many outdoor folks. It's also why we wear clothes and why on a hot summer's day we wear less of them.
-
MA Rodger at 16:00 PM on 8 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1534,
You ask "Why can no body just answer my simple question?"
Your "simple question" was posed up-thread asking (as presented @1533 "Can an object be made warmer by reflecting its own radiation back on it?") to which the simple answer is "Yes" although your question is so poorly framed and using such inexact terminology that the "simple" answer is pretty meaningless. That is why you don't "just" get an answer to your "simple question."
An object's temperature is defined and defined by the energy it emits to its surroundings. Also, emitted energy cools the object while energy absorbed warms it. If an object has its radiation somehow reflected back to itself while also still receiving energy that has been maintaining its temperature, it will "be made warmer."
The interesting phenomenon in all this is the cause of the "reflecting its own radiation back" if the physics creating that energy flux is not actually 'reflection', which it isn't in this case. Such circumstance will require the "reflecting" agent to itself be "warmer" so what causes that. There in lies the cause of the greenhouse effect.
-
David-acct at 08:48 AM on 8 June 2023The little-known, massive advantage that renewables hold over coal
From Key takeaways in the article
· Selecting one example from the graph above, coal and renewables generated approximately the same amount of electricity in February 2022 — around 250,000 billion British thermal units, or BTUs.
While it is true that renewable electric generation with coal, One important point in the article which is missing is how poorly renewables did during parts of February 2022. Starting Feb 23, 2022 through Feb 28, 2022, electric generation from wind was only producing 30%-40% of the average for the month.
Similar though much worse drought of electric generation from wind occurred across the north amercian continent from February 8, 2021 through february 19, 2021 ( 11 days) with a loss of electric generation from wind averaging 60-80% over those 11 days. The month of august 2022 had nearly 3 weeks where electric generation from wind was only 20%-40% of the regular level of electric generation. ( even lower percentage of name plate capacity)
I have linked to the EIA.gov website which provides real time electric generation by source.
You can follow the link to see how frequently electric generation from wind drops percepiticely for several days at a time.
I can not over emphasize the benefits of using source data for understanding and comprehending the variability of electic generation by source
-
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 8 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Leaving aside the exact mechanism of a blanket, it keeps you warm by slowing the heat loss from you body. The earth is exactly the same - it is warmed by sun more than internally because atmosphere is largely transparent to incoming radiation and opaque to outgoing radiation. You dont have to dance around complicated explanations. You can simply measure it. And Eli succinctly explains how in that link, yes , a body can be made hotter by reflecting radiation back.
I'm curious - you have repeated myths all over the place which suggests somehow you got impression the science is wrong and then went searching for confirmation. Right back when you first heard about global warming, what made you decide that the science must be incorrect?
-
Charlie_Brown at 02:23 AM on 8 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Likeitwarm @1533
You are correct that CO2 does not hold onto the radiant energy that it absorbs. By Kirchoff’s law, absorptance = emittance. But Kirchoff’s law has a caveat – at thermal equilibrium, which involves the collisions between molecules. However, your description about the importance of water vapor is not correct. The radiant energy mechanism for water vapor is similar to CO2, but the energy emitted to space is greater because it is emitted at warmer temperatures of the troposphere. By Beer’s law, the low concentration of CO2 is sufficient to create a cold emitting layer in the tropopause. Your discussion of emissivity gets lost in descriptions of cooling, getting hotter, and oxygen and nitrogen being the real greenhouse gases. I suggest that you review the “Intermediate” rebuttal of the 2nd law myth. It has a very good description of the radiant energy mechanism of global warming.
