Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Next
Comments 2051 to 2100:
-
Gordon21829 at 12:02 PM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Bob, Rob,
Lets call Acidic South and Basic North - using the logic of moving from pH 9 to 8 described as becoming more acidic (i.e moving South) then which direction are you travelling if the moves from pH 4 to 5 which is described as becoming less acidic ? It has to be less South correct ?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:48 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Gordon, perhaps you'll remember from your chemistry class that "pH" means, essentially, "the power of hydrogen." Right?
The link you reference is Forbes, hardly a scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination, and one which is more prone to publishing politically motivated opinion articles. And that's exactly what you're reading there.
No one has ever claimed the oceans are acidic, or have become acidic. No one has ever claimed anything other than the oceans are "acidifying," meaning exactly what it says.
You can literally be at a pH of 14, move a solution to a pH of 13, and that would acidification.
The only possible other word one could use would be "debasification" but good luck finding that in any scientific research. Plus, that would clearly not describe the underlying process that's occurring.
Bob's point, which you're avoiding, is appropriate. When traveling from NYC to Atlanta no one claims they're going "less north."
-
michael sweet at 11:47 AM on 5 July 202397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Duran3d:
As has been pointed out, a consensus is a supermajority of those consulted. For IPCC reports they usually state what the consensus is for the least amount of harm from the discussed issue. For example, the IPCC sea level rise projections are set at what a consensus thinks are the minimum rise expected. That means that a large majority of scientists who study sea level rise think sea level rise will be greater than the IPCC consensus. Trying to minimize something that has already been minimized is not a consistant argument.
Claiming that it must be a unanimous consensus will not get you any traction here at Skeptical Science.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:41 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Gordon @ 9:
Let me introduce you to the equator, and the concept of north latitude and south latitude. It appears that this geographical concept is one that you are unfamiliar with.
London is at 52N, Paris is at 49N.
By the logic you present in #1, you cannot go south from London to Paris.
And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to say that Paris is not as far north as London.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:35 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
If you actually read the Comments Policy, you would also see that "moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted".
In other words, you don't get to disagree with the Comments Policy, Following it is not optional.
Now, if you are saying you disagree that going from London to Paris is "going south", then you really need to make your comments more specific. Being specific helps honest discussion. Being vague and evasive does not.
-
Gordon21829 at 11:26 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Bob @3, if you apply the logic that I was presented with @1 then by traveling from Sydney to Singapore you would going less South as you can never travel North !
-
Gordon21829 at 11:18 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Bob, there is a time when one has to agree to disagree.
-
Eclectic at 11:07 AM on 5 July 202397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Duran3d @75 ~ the short version is that Rob Honeycutt is correct. The long version is that Rob Honeycutt is still correct. [See also: Bob Loblaw @77 ]
In derivation, the word consensus has a (narrow) range of meanings . . . but the meaning which you wish to use is nowadays an extreme outlier (used by hardly anyone). Over decades, the meaning of a word can gradually drift in one direction ~ and the drift does occur by consensus ;-)
Consensus does not mean merely a majority, or even a supermajority [indeed some sources claim "over 75%" agreement is a consensus ~ but that is far too weak for expressing consensus among scientists]. And some people try to gild the lily by going all mathematical: e.g. in year 2010 the consensus among scientists was >97% about the human cause of modern Global Warming . . . a figure which has now risen to >99% agreement (at time of writing). # But that sort of thing is unnecessary, because the overall evidence (of AGW) is so overwhelming, that it is a justifiable short-hand to use the simple word consensus.
Duran3d , you may be pleased to hear that one of the range of meanings of consensus used by the Ancient Romans . . . included a situation involving "plotting together". That fact could be joyous news to current climate-science-denying contrarians & Conspiracy Theorists ! Though I think most of that group are not really interested in meanings or facts.
As an aside ~ the word consensus is attacked by one of the (current) U.S. Presidential candidates [RFK.Jr] who uses his lawyerly skills to advocate the Anti-vaxxer cause. But coming from him, it is all just a torrent of words intended to convince the already-convinced intransigent Anti-vaxxers. He continually demands "scientific evidence in controlled studies" while also continually ignoring the bleeding-obvious evidence which already exists as a huge mountain. He is a true Denialist.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:02 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Gordon:
I see that (so far) you are evading the question about whether you are going south when you travel from London to Paris.
If you read the "dogpiling" rule completely, note that "the moderator may designate one or two people from each side of the debate as the primary disputants". It applies to large numbers of people - usually arguing with one person. It most certainly does not apply when the number of opponents is small.
As far as being evasive is concerned, please read the section on Sloganeering. It includes "Comments ... which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion." Completely ignoring counterarguments, and behaving as if they were never made, is not genuine discussion.
-
Gordon21829 at 10:28 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Bob, I've read the Comments Policy but I can't see anything about evasive behaviour ? I did notice the offence of Dogpiling though !
-
Gordon21829 at 10:24 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Rob, Acid solutions are composed primarly of H+ ions. Alkaline solutions are composed primarily of OH– ions. Neutral solutions contain equal amounts of H+ and OH- ions. When I studied Chemistry (many years ago) we always described the pH of a solution based on its direction from Neutral - <pH7 more/less acidic >pH7 more/less basic.
Actually, after reading around it would seem that the term Ocean Acidification has more of a political connotation than a scientific one.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:12 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
By the way, Gordon. We're still waiting for you to provide a definition of "catastrophic" on this thread here. Don't think we've forgotten about your previous evasive behaviour on other threads.
Have you read the Comments Policy yet?
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:57 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Oh, Gordon @1. Not that old canard.
In heading from London to Paris, are you going south? Or "less north"? How on earth can you be going south if you are north of the equator?
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:55 AM on 5 July 202397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Well, duran3d (comment 75) and Rob Honeycutt (comment 76) disagree on the definition of "consensus". Perhaps a dictionary would help?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/consensus
consensus (countable and uncountable, plural consensuses or consensus)
- A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members.
- General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
Hmmm. Well, that's just one site. How about
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consensus
noun,plural con·sen·sus·es.
- majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
- general agreement or concord; harmony.
Hmmm. Looks like Rob is on the right track....
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:58 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
Gordon, a state of being frozen or liquid is determined by a "phase change." The pH of a solution doesn't go through a similar phase change.
When you add CO2 to H2O you get H2CO3, or carbonic acid, which further dissociates into H+ and HCO3-. Regardless of where your solution is on the pH scale, that process is called "acidification."
The "H+" is the key since pH is a measure of free hydrogen ions in a solution.
I think I have that right.
-
Gordon21829 at 08:04 AM on 5 July 2023At a glance - Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin
When did the language of pH become focused on acidity ? I posed the question to an AI ïf the pH of a solution changes from 9 to 8 what happens ? The answer was it becomes more acidic. I rephrased the question to what happens when it changes from 4 to 5 and the answer was it becomes less acidic. Shouldn't the current state determine the designation ? How would you describe an ice cube in a freezer where the temperature has been adjusted from -20C to -2C ? Would it be more liquid or less frozen ?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:32 AM on 5 July 202397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
duran3d @75...
Incorrect. The definition of "consensus" is "a general agreement." Thus, there can obviously be levels of agreement or consensus.
-
duran3d at 06:03 AM on 5 July 202397% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven
Wrong use of the word "consensus" all around. Consensus means agreement among all individuals. If 99 say yes and 1 says no, that is no consensus. That is called majority.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:21 AM on 4 July 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Correction of my comment @4,
The CCPI evaluations are for 59 countries plus the EU - 60 listed evaluations.
-
nigelj at 06:45 AM on 4 July 2023Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
Moderator's comment @ 3
"To simple keep making the same arguments, without responding to criticisms or correcting errors, borders on several aspects of the Comments Policy, such as excessive repetition and sloganeering."
This is very good. Its very annoying when people don't reply to criticisms. Its not in the spirit of open debate and discussion. Its discourteous.
In my view websites are entitled to require people to respond to their critics, at least in situations like the above. Nobodies opinions are being censored doing this. If you dont like being required to actively participate in discussions you dont have to use the website.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:23 AM on 4 July 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
prove we are smart,
Thanks for pointing to the "Climate Change Performance Index 2023".
I appreciate your Australian Perspective.
I live in Canada. Canada has performed poorer in the CCPI evaluations than Australia. That poorer performance happened in spite of Canada's 'centrist' leadership since 2015. The 'centrist PM' openly, and rather irresponsibly and unethically, declared that Canada would be foolish to not try to maximize the benefits obtained from extracting and exporting the massive oil sands resource.
I am even more aware of the tragic result of populist nationalist/regionalist government captured by 'harmful pursuits of benefit'. I live in Alberta. Alberta (~10% of Canada's population) is the main reason that Canada's overall CCPI evaluation is so poor (likely similar to what would be experienced in Queensland, Australia).
Tragically, it is likely that a threat of significant global trade penalties will be required to get responsible performance from Canada's leadership, especially from the leadership of Alberta. That will temporarily boost populist nationalist/regionalist political support. But it is probably better for harmful people to be angry about having their ability to be harmful limited than it is to compromise with them to let them be more harmful than they need to be.
An observation regarding the CCPI rankings. The evaluation is only of 60 countries. The evaluators wisely 'locked-in' a minimum of 3 spots for the highest level of performance. None of the nations evaluated had overall performance in that top category. So the lowest rank nation is number 63 out of 60.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:44 AM on 4 July 2023Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
daveburton,
Your observation does not change the conclusion that "..., we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming."
But it raises interesting questions you may be able to answer.
How much sea level rise at the West Side Highway would be 'locked-in (occur in the future)' by a 'locked-in' doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm?
What would the expected high tide levels be relative to the elevation of the lowest point of the West Side Highway?
And what flood levels and frequencies of flooding would likely be the result?
Note that in May of 2017 portions of the West Side Highway were flooded due to heavy rain and an inability to drain the areas quick enough. The level of such flood events are higher if the water level that they drain into is higher.
Also note that Hurricane Sandy (2012) also flooded many parts of New York.
-
daveburton at 01:56 AM on 4 July 2023Hansen predicted the West Side Highway would be underwater
It appears that Hansen added that "assuming CO2 doubled" caveat later. Many years later he claimed to recall that that's what he had said to Reiss back in 1988, but there doesn't seem to be any contemporaneous evidence of it.
Moreover, his claim doesn't pass the smell test, not only because of the implausibility of remembering such details years later, but also because in 1988 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was less than 352 ppmv, and it was rising by only 1.63 ppmv or +0.476% per year. For the CO2 level to reach 570 ppmv by 2028 would have required a wildly accelerated average annual increase of ((570-352)/40) = 5.45 ppmv or +1.21% per year.
The rate of CO2 level rise did accelerate, but only slightly. Over the last decade the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased at an average rate of 2.45 ppmv or +0.603% per year.
With only five years to go before 2028, the average sea-level at The Battery in Manhattan has risen by only about 6.7 inches (some of which is due to subsidence), and the "West Side Highway" (Henry Hudson Parkway) is still about ten feet above mean sea-level. -
prove we are smart at 14:59 PM on 3 July 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
Thanks for your reply One Planet Only Forever, My countries efforts so far? , "Australia has climbed just four places to rank 55th out of 63 in this year’s global Climate Change Performance Index 2023, launched at COP27 in Egypt, a slight improvement on last year’s where it came in dead last for climate policy. See here, "www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/new-global-climate-ranking-sees-australia-go-from-dead-last-to-far-from-pass/ Admitantly, our dismal climate change response was from a right wing political party in power for nearly a decade. We elected a more centrist party last year and I suspect many countries will have the same slow motion response because of this, www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHB0vDhdM3c..
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:21 AM on 3 July 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
The pessimism of people like Prove We Are Smart is justified. But I do not agree that the end of developed human civilization is inevitable due to the current, and historical, success of pursuers of benefit from harmful unsustainable developments and the related misunderstandings and lack of awareness.
There is a robust diversity of evidence indicating that ethical consideration, the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and a commitment to limit harm done and repair damage caused, is not effectively governing the actions of all people, especially not the most powerful and influential. But that could be corrected.
It will be interesting to see how the “Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future” evaluation stands up, and is responded to. In addition to identifying that, by itself, increased CO2 levels are a serious problem that has already caused measurable damage, it essentially establishes that the only helpful climate change related geoengineering is actions that effectively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. See the following Quote:
Abstract (last part)
...Today's atmospheric CO2 concentration, ∼421 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponds in the most recent marine fossil record to a biodiversity loss of 6.39%, implying that contemporary anthropogenic CO2 emissions are killing ocean life now. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that unabated fossil fuel use could elevate atmospheric CO2 concentration to 800 ppmv by 2100, approaching the 870 ppmv mean concentration of the last 19 natural extinction events. Reversing this first global anthropogenic mass extinction requires reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting immediately.Key Points
• Past mass extinctions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration, but not with long-term temperature nor radiative forcing by CO2
• Present CO2 concentration is associated in the fossil record with a 6.39% genus loss, implying current human destruction of biodiversity
• Future anthropogenic mass extinction can be stopped only by cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now.The statement that “...cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now.” is ethically questionable. The ethical objective would be a quicker reduction, more sooner, while maintaining the development of sustainable improvements for the portion of humanity that is not living at least a basic decent life. And the first step of the ‘optimal transition’ would be a ‘big step’ of very rapidly ending unnecessary activities that cause increased CO2 levels, even if doing that would reduce developed perceptions of ‘success or superiority’ for many people.
In the bigger picture, the future of humanity, the concern is human actions that reduce the magnitude of the biodiversity of life, even if extinctions are not the result. And reduction of biodiversity happens due to many other human activities, not just fossil fuel use. Also, there are many other impacts of human fossil fuel activity that negatively impact biodiversity. Increased CO2 levels are not the only fossil fuel related problem. However, as the research report indicates, other actions to protect biodiversity are meaningless if action is not taken to limit the increase of CO2 levels.
The bigger picture bottom line is the need to reduce the harmful impacts of fossil fuel use and repair damage done in parallel with rapidly ended the activity. Also, the difficult challenge we face today due to the lack of responsible harm reduction through the past 30 years indicates that limiting the damage done by fossil fuel impacts will need to happen much faster than democratic free market action will ‘choose to end it and repair the damage done’. One established certainty is that removal of CO2 will be required to minimize and repair the damage done.
Currently developed methods for CO2 removal from the atmosphere, and measures to reduce CO2 releases from fossil fuel burning while the activity is being rapidly ended, will need to be implemented even if they are not considered to be ‘actions that are economically preferred today’.
The challenge is getting ‘economically motivated people (people who want to personally benefit from economic activity)’ to admit that the developed systems have a history of motivating the development of damaging results (because more harmful action can be quicker, easier and cheaper). Those unsustainable developments can be very hard to correct, especially if the harmful development is popular among, or profitable for, a powerful and influential portion of global humanity that has little interest in correcting their developed perceptions of superiority relative to others.
I am optimistic about the future of humanity (otherwise there is no ethical purpose). But I am very pessimistic about the rate of success humanity will have in efforts to govern/limit the damage done by seemingly insatiable pursuers of ‘increased perceptions of status’.
-
Bob Loblaw at 23:22 PM on 2 July 2023Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Yes, manuel2001nyc, there are some major things missing in the questions you pose in comment #444.
I'll start by trying to address questions 1 and 2 that Rob Honeycutt skips over, but I'll need to explain a bit of background, first.
To begin, your description of "saturation" suggests that you think of CO2 as a reservoir of energy that gradually fills up to the point that it can't hold any more. This is not the case.
- Individual molecules can only store energy at certain levels, dictated by their molecular structure. Electrons "jump" from one energy level to another, absorbing or releasing energy in specific quanta as they "jump". Encyclopedia Britannica has a nice explanation.
- When the absorption or release of energy occurs via radiation, the photons absorbed or released must have a wavelength that matches the energy quanta - photon energy is uniquely linked to wavelength.
- This link between molecular structure, energy levels, and photon energy explain why molecules such as CO2 only absorb and emit certain wavelengths or radiation.
So, for question 1, yes CO2 absorbs and emits at the same wavelengths. And it does not matter whether the IR radiation came from other CO2 molecules or the earth's surface, etc. A 14um photon is just a 14um photon, with no memory of where it came from.
As for question 2: the term "saturation" makes no sense in this context. Individual molecules do not get "saturated". When they absorb a photon, their energy level increases. They very rapidly pass this energy on to any other gas molecules (CO2 or anything else) they collide with. This will increase the energy levels of those molecules. This will raise the overall average temperature of the air.
- Note that "temperature" is not a property of individual molecules. It is the average kinetic energy of a very large number of molecules. Temperature will "average out" because those molecules are always colliding with each other and sharing energy.
- Sometimes, when a molecule such as CO2 obtains energy from a collision with another molecule, it will shed that energy by emitting a photon instead of colliding with a different molecule.
- The warmer the air, the more often a CO2 molecule will obtain extra energy via collision, and the more often it will emit a photon. This is how temperature affects total radiation energy emission - by emitting more photons, not by emitting more energy in each photon.
For additional information on the process of absorption and emission, you might benefit from reading this post here at Skeptical Science. In particular, some of the comments talk more about emission. (The original post is more about absorption.)
-
BaerbelW at 18:45 PM on 2 July 2023It's not us
Please note: the basic version of this rebuttal has been updated on July 2, 2023 and now includes an "at a glance“ section at the top. To learn more about these updates and how you can help with evaluating their effectiveness, please check out the accompanying blog post @ https://sks.to/at-a-glance
Thanks - the Skeptical Science Team.
-
prove we are smart at 08:39 AM on 2 July 2023Skeptical Science New Research for Week #26 2023
I have become so cynical towards a real global response to reducing our still increasing global greenhouse gases. Climate will only respond to action-the talks, studies and asessments and tools are nice, positive affirming to read but when your up against this www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ApjSrB6E1c it's no surprise the enfolding biosphere collapse with us included is inevitable.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:46 AM on 2 July 2023Wildfires are not caused by global warming
PollutionMonster @9,
Regarding 'attribution of Canada's current wildfires to human caused climate change', the following Carbon Brief article may help you: "Media reaction: Canada’s wildfires in 2023 and the role of climate change"
The article states that:
"No attribution studies have so far made a climate connection with the ongoing wildfires in Canada.
But previous studies have looked at the link between climate change and other extreme weather events. One study found that climate change made a 2020 Siberian heatwave at least 600 times more likely. This heat broke temperature records and led to wildfires.
Additionally, the IPCC said that wildland fire has been “identified as a top climate-change risk facing Canada”.
The interactive map below displays a 2020 review of scientific studies finding that climate change is increasing the risk of wildfires globally."
The bolded words in the quote are links to additional information in the article. Read the article to access those links. And read the entire article. It includes additional information you may find helpful in your attempts to help others learn to better understand this issue.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:05 AM on 2 July 2023Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
manuel2001nyc... You've got quite a mishmash of errors embedded into all of your questions here. It seems quite a mess to untangle, but here are a few of examples:
"...absortiom / IR (14/16) emission) by a molecule of CO2 from IR comming from the sun(day)..."
Incoming energy from the sun is higher frequency and does not interact with CO2.
Your questions 1 and 2 are completely indecipherable to me. Maybe others understand what you're trying to get at.
"...it seems termal IR emitted by the sun overpass IR emmitted by the Earth. is this right?"
Here again, you're not understanding that incoming energy is not primarily in the IR spectrum. There is some short wave IR but it doesn't have a lot of effect. CO2 interacts with LWIR (long wave IR).
Your question 4 is also hard to decipher but also seems to contradict your own statement in question 2.
"someone has made calculations on how much themal IR (earth surace) and how much IR from sun is absorved by CO2?"
Same problem here. Incoming energy is in the short wave frequencies, primarily in the visible light spectrum.
Here's a diagram that may help you:
"6) as CO2 accounts for 0.035% how we can explain their impact in global warning?"
Simple answer, yes. This question has been repeatedly asked and answered essentially the same way for well over 150 years.
-
Eclectic at 23:31 PM on 1 July 2023Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Manuel2001nyc @444 ,
The IR thermal energy absorbed by a CO2 molecule is very quickly passed (by impact) to nearby N2 and O2 molecules. N2 and O2 molecules can give vibrational energy to a CO2 molecule ~ which may then emit a 15-micron IR photon . . . or more probably instead pass vibrational energy back to N2 or O2 molecules. All this happens over and over again ~ many times per second. Similar processes happen with H2O and other Greenhouse gasses.
Therefore "saturation" is unimportant near the Earth's surface ~ but becomes important at very high altitudes in the atmosphere.
Your 6 questions are far too few for an education in the physics. You first need to do much reading to understand the complex mechanisms of radiation entering and leaving the planet.
-
manuel2001nyc at 20:57 PM on 1 July 2023Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
thank you all for your post, I fully support respectfull debate as a way to create your own opinion. I relly concern about global warning and the future of our planet and as technologist i belive that make the right question leads you to the right asnwer. I read a lot about global warning and its consequences nevertherless i am not an expert. Thus, an after reading here posts from 2001. I reached (learnt) a basic conclusion: the key concept is balance between the ratios( IR(14-16um) absortiom / IR (14/16) emission) by a molecule of CO2 from IR comming from the sun(day) and from the earth surface(night) also considering CO2 saturation . right?
I kindly rise these questions:
1) IS the IR range the same for absortion/emission (14-16)? what happen with the termal radiation between 8um-14um also emtitted by the earth surface?
2) Saturated CO2 is not able to absorve but it emits during 12 hours aprox? how much time does a C02 molecula to be satured? I guess is close to 0 seconds, right?
3) even most of the IR from the sun are under 3um, it seems that there is low percentage in the termal range (8-16un), but considering the global IR emmitted by the sun, it seems termal IR emitted by the sun overpass IR emmitted by the Earth. is this right?
4) A satured CO2 emits energy a very low pace, right? if we consider it is exposed during the day to sunlight and during the night to the thermal IR. When CO2 emits energy?
5) someone has made calculations on how much themal IR (earth surace) and how much IR from sun is absorved by CO2?
6) as CO2 accounts for 0.035% how we can explain their impact in global warning?
thank you in advance for all your asnwers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:50 PM on 1 July 2023Wildfires are not caused by global warming
PollutionMonster @9,
The Health Canada resource "Wildfire smoke, air quality and your health" may help you deal with the smoke effects.
-
PollutionMonster at 05:03 AM on 1 July 2023Wildfires are not caused by global warming
Seems to be a lot of wildfires in Canada this June 2023 I think this is related to climate change. Yet, I am having trouble convincing others. Also, what can I do to protect myself? I've been wearing a n95 mask but my eyes feel and chest feel worse than usual. Thank you in advance. :)
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:58 AM on 30 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
The bucket analogy does relate to the greenhouse effect in terms of reducing the rate of loss, which requires an adjustment of the bucket level. The reason the bucket reaches a new equilibrium is that as the water level rises, the pressure increases (a linear function of the height of water above the hole), and that increased pressure succeeds in forcing enough water through the smaller hole. We need to remember that there is a pressure term that drives the flow.
The increased pressure in the bucket is an analogy to the increased surface temperature creating a larger temperature difference between the surface and the ubiquitous 255K emitting IR to space in the greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, the Green Plate effect is intended as a specific counterargument to the "cold object can't cause a warm object to heat up" myth. It does not need any reference to the greenhouse effect at all to demonstrate that this "cold object/warm object" myth about the 2nd law is wrong.
If the "cold object/warm object violates 2nd law" argument was correct, then the argument would have to show an error in the Green Plate scenario. If any hard-core denier want to continue with that argument here, they are going to have to do it without any reference to the greenhouse effect. If they can't "disprove" the Green Plate effect, then there is no way that they will be able to apply the [lack of] logic to the more complex greenhouse effect.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 01:57 AM on 30 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
The green plate analogy is the most fun to argue with hard core climate deniers. It's amusing to watch all the contortions they go through to avoid understanding the concept. You end up with energy appearing and disappearing everytime they say something.
I had one guy insisting that energy actually does disappear because of superposition when a photon is received by a warmer object. (sigh)
-
Evan at 00:47 AM on 30 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
Eclectic@2, although there may be "one ring to rule them all", I don't think there is ever one analogy that works for all. My hope is not to muddy the waters, but rather to provide a different analogy in case the Green Plate analogy does not work for some people.
-
Evan at 00:45 AM on 30 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
I should have added that with the smaller hole the flow rate is reduced at the point the size of the hole is reduced. Once equilibrium is reestablished, the flow rate out of the bucket is the same as it was for the larger hole, at equilibrium. But to achieve the same flow rate with the smaller hole as for the larger hole, the water level in the bucket must rise.
-
Eclectic at 00:43 AM on 30 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
Evan @1 , the "bucket and hole" analogy seems (to me) to be even more distant a connection to "Greenhouse Effect" than is the Green Plate . . . and will start still more argument & confusion among newcomers.
-
Evan at 23:23 PM on 29 June 2023The Dynamics of The Green Plate Effect
Nice post Bob.
Another way to view this is that greenhouse gases cause warming by reducing the energy lost to space. They are not generating energy, they are merely reducing the rate of loss of energy to outer space, which allows the atmospheric temperature to rise.
Much like a bucket with a hole in it being filled by a garden hose. The flow into the bucket balances the flow out of the hole, maintaining a constant height of water at equilibrium. Reduce the size of the hole, and the flow rate of water out of the bucket decreases, allowing the water level to rise. The smaller hole is not filling the bucket, it is merely reducing the water lost from the bucket.
-
michael sweet at 23:08 PM on 29 June 2023Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
David-acct:
The study titled " Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States" primarily looks at the United States and attributes 13% of childhood asthma to gas stoves. The study you cited titled "Cooking fuels and prevalence of asthma: a global analysis of
phase three of the International Study of Asthma and
Allergies in Childhood" (free copy of the whole paper) looks primarily at open fires and is worldwide. The selection criteria for the United States study included the term "gas" in the title. Your curiosity about why a worldwide study primarily about open fires was not used in a USA study about gas stoves is completely misplaced.Both studies point out that much more work has been done in developed countries concerning the effect of gas stoves on public health. Since much more work has been done in developed countries on the hazards of gas stoves it stands to reason that the conclusions of those studies are on firmer scientific grounds.
In the study discussed in this OP titled "Gas and Propane Combustion from Stoves Emits Benzene and Increases Indoor Air Pollution" the data and discussion are about the release of the kinown carcinogen benzine into peoples houses. Your comment is about a completely different study and harm and therefor is off topic on this thread. You often post comments that don't really relate to the OP but complain that scientists are making some sort of mistake. Perhaps if you were on topic you would have less to complain about.
I doubt your complaints about PAF have any merit. Professional scientists are better informed than anonymous internet posters.
It is beyond any doubt that gas stoves release large quantities of harmfull pollution into the homes where they are used. You are arguing about a single tree when the forest is indisputable. The gas industry kinew as early as 1911 that gas stoves released harmful pollution into homes and damaged peoples health. This iinformation has been hidden by the fossil fuel industry to further their profits.
In any case, induction stoves, which release no detectable benzene, are better than gas stoves to cook on. You are arguing against the rising tide. In 30 years gas stoves will be as outdated as coal stoves are today.
-
David-acct at 21:39 PM on 29 June 2023Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24429203/
Curious why the study "Cooking fuels and prevalence of asthma: a global analysis of phase three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC)" was omitted from the meta study showing that 12% of asthma was caused by gas stoves. This study involved 500k + children. Key statement "In both age groups, we detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis."
Also curious why population attribution fractio was used when it is widely known to be less than robust when there are multiple cofounding variables. Asthma is a disease that is trigger by numerous factors.
The big complaint is that PAF doesn’t work when there are multiple confounding variables. The challenge for academics unfamiliar with the tool PAF is found in many widely used epidemiology texts, but often with no warning about invalidness when confounding exists.
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.88.1.15
Moderator Response:[BL] You have previously made an argument against using PAF (probability attribution fraction) on this previous post about gas stove health risks.
On that previous thread, many of your errors were pointed out, and you did not engage in discussion - neither making counterarguments, nor admitting your mistakes.
To simple keep making the same arguments, without responding to criticisms or correcting errors, borders on several aspects of the Comments Policy, such as excessive repetition and sloganeering.
-
IVF acupuncture at 21:35 PM on 29 June 2023Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
Gas stoves offer convenience in cooking, it is important to be aware of their potential health implications. Taking appropriate measures to improve ventilation and considering alternative cooking methods can help minimize the risks associated with gas stove use and promote a healthier living environment.
-
gws at 00:53 AM on 29 June 2023Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds
Well, as is covered in the paper, methane flames have long been known to create benzene as a minor combustion product. The EPA even has an estimate of the associated annual national emissions (also in the paper).
The main point thus is not the finding that benzene is emitted from gas stoves, but that those emissions are much larger than the previous emission factor derived from a "clean" combustion suggested they are.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:12 AM on 29 June 20232nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
For anyone reading this thread and thinking about the various references that have been made to Eli Rabbet's Green Plate Effect post, Skeptical Science has created a new blog post that looks at the dynamics of the Green Plate Effect.
-
Eclectic at 06:35 AM on 28 June 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
EddieEvans @173 ,
Please, please do not post a Youtube link [especially an unactivated link] without giving a brief description of its contents and why it is relevant to the current discussion. There is a huge amount of stuff out there on the internet, and a lot of it is minimally relevant (or contains a vast amount of rubbish) . . . all of which is a time-waster for readers of this thread.
Your recommendations are quite welcome, I am sure, but please remember that most readers here are likely to be already well-acquainted with much of what is being discussed. Don't re-hash old stuff. Or repeat yourself in almost-identical posts. But novel ideas are still welcome !
-
EddieEvans at 04:59 AM on 28 June 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 27 June 2023
Greenhouse effect has been falsifiedModerator Response:[BL] As noted by Eclectic in the following comment, our Comments Policy discourages posting comments that have nothing more than a link. The Youtube video that you have linked to is reasonable - the topic being Eunice Foote, John Tyndall, and a Question of Priority (as discussed in previous comments on this thread). You will probably get more eyeballs on what you want to discuss by providing some summary text, though.
In addition, please remember that the web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
-
John Mason at 18:27 PM on 27 June 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
OPOF #171: that will indeed be done when this rebuttal comes up for updating. It is in the queue - somewhere!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 27 June 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
I suggest that an edit be made to mention Eunice Foote in the 2nd para. Maybe something like the following:
"The explanation for this observation was based on the pioneering work of Eunice Foote (in 1856) and John Tyndall (in 1859), who independently discovered that several gases, including carbon dioxide and water vapour, could trap heat."
This 2019 Research Article in The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science indicates that they independently made their discoveries: "Eunice Foote, John Tyndall and a question of priority"
-
EddieEvans at 23:53 PM on 26 June 2023Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Robotic Reading: Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.
