Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 Next
Comments 23701 to 23750:
-
KR at 13:27 PM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
fake reality - One sun, four suns at 1/4 the intensity (assuming identical spectra), it makes no difference to the daily average of 240 W/m^2 insolation as the Earth rotates. Your harping on that _irrelevant_ point indicates, IMO some basic lacks in high school geometry.
If you can work past that, perhaps then we could discuss other issues, such as your misunderstandings of the interactions of the lapse rate and effective emission altitudes. But, quite frankly, I'm not optimistic in that regard...
-
fake reality at 12:36 PM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@131
Which parts about the difference in number of suns is mostly flawed. That you have four and I have one? Or opposite?
Moderator Response:[PS] This 4 suns stuff is a nonsense argument. You are simply demostrating that you dont understand the geometry. Please actually take the time to understand what is going on. Open a text book. Tom's reply is best, including actual data.
Explain this data in light of your understanding. If you cant get your head around basics, then you have no hope sensible discussion of science.
Any further rubbish about multiple suns will be deleted.
There is a simple online reference here for solar calculations.
-
KR at 12:21 PM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
fake reality - Sunlight covers the disk of the Earth as seen from the Sun, with an area of pi*r^2. The surface area of the Earth, a sphere, is 4*pi*r^2, or 4x that of the intercepting disk, therefore averaging over the day to ~240 W/m^2 insulation. That's basic geometry, and until you understand that, there is little reason to go on to your many other errors (such as claiming 80% surface emissivity in IR, when the ground actually has a _measured_ emissivity between 95-99% at those wavelengths, depending on the exact surface composition).
Your basic assumptions are flawed - and your conclusions simply don't stand up as a result.
-
fake reality at 12:13 PM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@128 Tom Curtis
"there is no interpretation of fake science's words in which they are not refuted by geometry."
So lets go with the idea of 4 weak suns, that seems like the right thing.
You can not find any made up numbers in my calculation.
You start out with an analysis claiming that 4 suns is the way to describe reality when we actuallly have one strong sun.
The rest is irrelevant. 1000W from one sun is shown to a correct description of irradiation that results in a temperature of 290/m^2-
4 suns is not even close.
1000W i reached everywhere at sea level under irradiation. That is the right one to use. Any other flux density would drift off.Show me and everyone why a model of 4 suns irradiating with no light, only far-IR and a mean @-18C flux density, can heat the earth to 290K by emitted photons from an icecold gas.
I don´t think you should focus anything else than explaining what your model is based on. It doesn´t work, it´s even saying that cold is heating something because 4 weak suns without any light.....
And I present an alternative model. That works.
-
fake reality at 11:54 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@126
I use real measured values in calculation of temperature. I am not trying to make reality fit with the co2-molecules being dominant, while your calculated value for surface temperature is a mathematical model of 4 weak suns irrradiation at 4*240W/m^2.
That is very long from reality. The model of real irradiation from our star is one sun heating the surface with a flux density of 1000W/2m^2 * 0.8.
I use the value of 0.8 for emissivity is also from real observation at the surface400W OLR = (1000W*0.8)/2m^2.
That is 80% left from 1000W in SW.
The absorption results in an excited state with a distribution that induce emission at a temperature of 290K.
Where am I making an incorrect description of anything included in the system.Only measured values. I am fitting the theory to reality, you calculate 4 small weak suns that heat 4m^2 with a hazy foggy light that delivers only -18C worth of heat transfer.
It is a really big leap to be lojal to a theory buildt on getting the wrong value of solar irradiation. 255K=4*240W/m^2
When measured real value is at a maximum level reached by the whole system, that divided over twice that area is equal to flux density of an averaged 288K, that is a good model for mean temperature in the graybodys emitting surface in far-ir.
you see who is using a model that does not fit reality. One of us has four small suns that hardly gives light.
The other has One sun with high density flux. You choose, 4 or 1 sun. Which one is more true to reality.
As for accounting for what is heating "something" or whatnot, I was of the belief that the level of knowledge would reach an understandning in you, that you know that there is only 1 heat source available. The sun does the heating. All of it.
The vague view of "something has to heat....."-problem is answered and clear.
"Stupidity I can cope with. Yet I have to say that for somebody to be so incredibly stupid not to know they are entirely out of there depth in such"
You are the one saying that a model of 4 weak suns is a correct description of reality.
"comment; to be that and also sincere could only be true if they are repeating the nonsense of others. I see no sign of that. The other and more likely explanation is an insincere commeter - a troll, who cannot spell rhetoric."
You are the one showing decreased spectral intensity saying that intensity is increasing.
You are claiming that the earth absorbs it´s own emitted radiation and explains it with icecold gas of average -18 degrees as a very cold source of heat transferring to a much warmer surface.
This is not my language so I apologize for my poor writing
Moderator Response:[PS] It is not your writing, it is your comprehension that is the problem. People are not making the claims you that you state. You are not understanding what the science actually claims and instead replacing it with nonsense.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:54 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
fake reality, claims @116 that:
"If we use measured values from real observations of solar irradiation at the surface, we find that 1000W is a median value when we look at variations from pole to pole."
If you take an arc from solar terminator to solar terminator such that, for all points in the arc it is local noon in an airless world (so we do not need to worry about diffusion), then the length of the arc is π times the radius, while the sunlight intercepted represents a distance of 2 times radius. It follows that the mean solar irradiation along that line at 1 astronomical unit from our Sun is 2/π times 1360 W/m^2, or approximately 865.8 W/m^2.
Of course, fake reality makes a claim regarding the median rather than the more relevant mean. So, if we take the inverse cosine of 1000/1360 we find that in any area of the daylight surface of a planet where the solar zenith angle is less than 42.67o, the surface insolation (ignoring the effect of the atmosphere) is 1000 W/m2 or greater. Using the formula for the area of a spherical cap defined such that the solar zenith angle is less than 42.67o, we find that just 32.22% of the daytime hemisphere fits that condition. As 32.22% is much less than the 50% required for the median to be 1000 W/m2, there is no interpretation of fake science's words in which they are not refuted by geometry.
fake science claims his values are justified by "measured values", but he gives no link to the data nor description of what is being measured. If the value measured in insolation falling on a collector held perpendicular to the Sun's rays, he may well be correct. Ignoring the effects of atmosphere, the insolation falling on such a collector in daytime will always be 1360 W/m2. However, except when the solar elevation is 90o, the shadow of such a collector will have a greater area than the collector. If it is near nightfall or the poles, the area of the shadow will be much greater. The insolation on the surface (ie, the area of the shadow) will be the insolation on the collector held perpendicular to the Sun's rays divided by the cosine of the zenith angle of the Sun (ie, the ratio of the area of the collector to the area of its shadow):
(Source)
If, however, fake reality is not discussing measurements of insolation on collectors perpendicular to the Sun's rays, but rather those perpendicular to the radius of the Earth, his claim is simply false. Here, for example, are the mean monthly values for 2010 measured hourly insolation at Lafayette, Indiana:
The latitude of Lafayette is 40.42o North, so Lafayette lies within "pretty big area from the equator outward to the poles" where supposedly measured values are 1000 W/m2 (fake reality @123). Despite this, measured values are approximately 700 W/m2 at peak daily insolation in July; and much less than that for most of the year and most of the day even in July.
fake reality may consider Lafayette to be too northerly. In that case his "pretty big area" doesn't even extend to the 32.22% of the sunlit area discussed above. Nevertheless, we can consider Singapore (1.28o North) where mean measured hourly insolation does not exceed 650 W/m2 (see figure 2).
To summarize, at best fake reality is using data for insolation on a collector perpendicular to the Sun's rays (equivalent to two angle tracking on the graph below); but the relevant data is that for a horizontal plate (horizontal on the graph below) and on that data his claim in glaringly false:
(Source)
To this point, the refutation of fake reality applies nothing more complicated than simple geometry. If he cannot even cope with that discipline which has been in existence for over 2000 years, it is pointless to expect him to give consideration to conservation of energy or other "recent" discoveries. I therefore suggest that his discussion be restricted to the geometrical points only until such time has he shows some semblance of coherence in thinking about it. Further, given his flood of posts, all endlessly repeating the same claims and appealing to 'measured values' which he nowhere describes, cites or links to, I suggest that the comments policies on sloganeering and excessive repetition be scrupulously applied.
-
nigelj at 09:55 AM on 20 July 2016Reshuffle: DECC folded into new department headed by Greg Clark
The removal of the words climate change are indeed some cause for concern, but there is nothing about Theresa May's background which says "climate change sceptic" to me. In fact she has a degree in geography from Oxford, and geography normally includes an introduction to weather and climate processes, so this looks promising.
She is also defined as a liberal conservative (!). I would define myself as a conservative liberal, so there you go. Greg Clark does not seem like a climate change denialist.
So maybe things are looking ok with this new government leadership, or at least people should give them a chance. "Know them by their works." This is what the bible says I think, and Theresa May of all people will be familiar with that, and will know people will be watching her.
-
michael sweet at 06:03 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Fake,
I see from your response that you have no desire to learn about the heat flux into the atmosphere of the Earth. What you have to say has no relationship to the reality that scientists have learned. If you cannot recognize that scientists that have worked their whole lives on this problem have learned more than you picked up in High School it is a waste of time to try to engage with you. I will not respond to your posts again.
MA Rodger,
I agree.
-
MA Rodger at 05:47 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
michael sweet @125.
It is difficult to know how to react to the likes of fake reality. My first take is that such folk are trolls. Consider his continued holier-than-though stance on being snarky: - the passages that precipitated his warning are marked. Who cannot see they are crossing the line by suggesting somebody does not tell the truth and saying that this is instead of calling them a liar. Or suggesting that somebody is corrected by providing for them an alleged 'no bullshit approach'. If somebody truly cannot see the line they cross with such comment, then they are beyond help. But is that likely?
As for this alleged measured value - 1000W/m^2 - "a common value in a pretty big area from the equator and outward towards the poles" - what is that about? If it's measured, who measured it? A reference please!
And the bizarre objection to my comment "you must account for the 'something' that is "cooling" which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'." - Does this mean we have to explain conservation of energy as well as basic geometry?
Stupidity I can cope with. Yet I have to say that for somebody to be so incredibly stupid not to know they are entirely out of there depth in such comment; to be that and also sincere could only be true if they are repeating the nonsense of others. I see no sign of that. The other and more likely explanation is an insincere commeter - a troll, who cannot spell rhetoric.
-
fake reality at 05:11 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@125
I know how and why you do it that way. But since flux density is not linear it is the wrong way to handle it. And most of all, if there is a way to calculate with measured values at the surface, and that gives you the right number immediately, then you know that it is right. The main point is real observed flux density at the surface.
Do you agree that dividing by four is equal to 4 weak suns @ 250-ish K?
Do you agree that maxwell-boltzmann is correct about energycontent in matter by describing the probability of diffrent states of excitance in matter, is correct?
If you do, then you should agree that it is the wrong approach to divide flux density en four equal smaller suns that each has the same probability for a certain exited state in matter, and that it is the same when they all is added as irradiative flux at their respective m^2.
And you would also agree that a single sun at the same fluxdensity as the sum of the 4 suns, will deliver a flux density to the total surface area in one irradiated m^2 that is emitted radiation from 2m^2 surface.
It´s not like I´m making numbers up here, they are real measured values at the surface. If I´m remembering right solar cells are calibrated to 1kW. There is of course a real reason for that.
Your number is not real, it may be measured in a cold place sometimes, but a uniform value of 240W is not more than sunlight worth of 255K from all directions at the surface. You must realize that 255K irradiating the earth from all directions heats the surface less than 1000W in one direction.
I think I wrote wrong value earlier, 1000W=364K nothing else. If I have written 390K somewhere that is the value of TSI-1370W.
Show me where the absurdity comes from in my calculation. Then show me what is not absurd in calculating the temperature with a value that is way off from observations in reality.
I get the right number at the surface. You get the wrong number. Isn´t the absurd residing in you saying that your number, that we know is not right from observations, is more valid than my calculation that use measured value from real observation that is documented?
We have measured 1000W/1m^2 at the surface, it is absolutely right to use that number emitted as /2m^2 when calculating OLR. And since we agree on OLR surface flux at about 400W, we can use real observed emissivity as well. All real values from reality, and it gives the right surface temp. You have 4 suns evenly heating 4 m^2 each with 255K=240W, and you say that it should be equal to 1000W/m^2 which comes from 1370W at TOA, same as you are using.
You are saying that 240W/m^2 is equal to 1000W/m^2 that is averaged as 400W/m^2 when emitted by double the size Area?
What is real about that?
I have this attitude as I have seen your collective attitude against the ones not agreeing with you. My comments is nothing compared to that I was attacked above when I was assigned the belief in a flat earth. That is really low rethoric.
I am very sure that I didn´t make an error since I use real measured values and get the correct results. And I am sure that the basic math error is made in your theorys calculation since it is not anything real about 4 weak suns heating the earth to 255K with 240W/m^2.
But OK,if you want questions I can ask: where did you get the idea that 240W/m^2 from 4 suns irradiating 4m^2 is equal to 1370W/m^2 in heat transfer, since temperature and Watt/m^2 is not linear?
Why do you use an absorbing body at a low temperature in earths radiation field for heat transfer to the surface, when we know that heat transfer from a warm to a cold body is something that only affects the cold body?
-
michael sweet at 04:03 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Fake,
It is common knowledge that for a spherical object you have to devide the cross-sectional radiation by four, not two times. That means the incident radiation is about 240 w/m2, not 400 as you calculate. It follows that if you cannot calculate the incident radiation within a factor of two, your calculation of the temperature is grossly in error. Since you were so assertive that you are correct and the rest of the world is stupid, MA Rodgers probably thought it was a waste of time to engage you and discuss the actual calculations.
If you want to drop your attitude and ask how you came to have such absurd ideas there are people at this site who would help you to understand what the real data calculations are. If you continue to insist your incorrect calculations are correct I doubt many will engage with you. Ask quesitons about those ideas you do not understand. If you think you have discovered an error everyone else is making consider that you probably have made another basic math error.
-
fake reality at 03:36 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@121 MA rodger
Do you realize what you just did there? You were trying to discredit me by attaching a belief in unscientific theorys to my character. That is very bad behaviour, you should keep to the things discussed. That was bad rethoric.
You dont understand the simple concept that radiation absorbed at any surface area from solar irradiation, is emitted from twice that area?
Are you saying that the earth is not cooled by half and heated by half?
And about measured values, 1000W/m^2 is a common value in a pretty big area from the equator and outward towards the poles. It represents a mean value uf emitted intensity since it is absorbed as a ~maximum and will distribute through the earth evenly and emitted from twice that area.
That makes it the value defining the maximal averaged intensity possible=mean temperature emitted.
So I am using measured values, when I use 1000W/m^2.
About the 130degrees on the moon, 117 is even closer to my calculation. So you prove my point. And please stop attacking my character by attaching views to me that I don´t have.
I got a warning further up for being snarky, if the mod is not biased you will have one for this.
"you must account for the 'something' that is "cooling" which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'."
This is why I get snarky. I gave you numbers in calculations and instead of addressing that with scientific arguments, you talk about "something" "allowing" something else to be "warmed".
Do you realize how far from science such an argument is?
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaints are prohibited and will be summarily deleted per the SkS Comments Policy.
In order to be taken seriously on this website, you must document the sources of the information you present. You have not done so in either this comment or in previous comments. Without documentation, you are merely expressing your personal opinion which carries very little weight in a serious discussion about science.
-
fake reality at 03:19 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@110
There is no balance at the top. 1370W/m^2 going in and a tenth of that going out. If you want you can double OLR from 220K or whatever value you use, since it represents the amount absorbed in 1m^2 from solar irradiation when it is emitted from twice the surface area. That doesn´t help much though, it´s not possible to find any balance in those numbers. And of course we should not expect to, earth is not a lossles system, it leaks energy at every point of absorption and emission as it is a greybody and not a blackbody.
A greybody is defined by it´s lacking ability to convert irradiation into radiation. It is cooler than a blackbody.
You might be right in that more co2 would increase height of tropopause, but wrong in the assumption that it would affect surface temperature. Everything radiates according to it´s own temperature. That temperature might be the product of heat from a more intense source, but it never is a product of a less intense source.
You claim that earth surface radiates with an intensity that is influenced by a cold body absorbing heat in it´s radiation field. That is in direct opposition to what we know of heat transfer, that the rate is the difference in T and that the hot body never changes in temperature even when the absorber has reached an equally excited state.
In fact, when you want to increase heat transfer from the hot body, one method is to add another surface that absorbs energy and radiates more energy from a larger surface area. Then more energy will transfer to the surroundings, in this case that is the optimal heat sink in 3K space vacuum.
Ooops, I just said that according to heat transfer as heat and thermal radiation in theory and practice, the atmosphere increase heat transfer to space. Well, that is in line with science and we don´t need to violate it with horrific ideas about how much cold we need to get something warm.
Where did you get the idea that the surface is communicating with TOA about what balance needs to be attained. The surface radiates according to it´s own temperature, as everything does, and the surface temperature is the suns. It radiates as a greybody in relation to the sun, and the atmosphere radiates in longwave as a greybody in relation to earth, and through the earth it radiates as a greybody in relation to the sun.
The atmosphere radiates according to what it receives. And in heat transfer we learn that even if photons might be funny little things, they should never be included in calculations of heat transfer as heat or thermic radiation. That would give the wrong results.
Still, that is just what you do.
Another detail is that all radiation in earth system is thermic radiation, from visible at 500nm through the whole spectrum of IR. It is a product of temperature/heat. The hotter the brighter.
Why would an intensity of 250K/300W in the atmosphere add anything to the 1000W we get from the sun? It is not a question of the numbers adding up to more energy, it is about excitance of matter.
The maxwell-boltzmann distribution tells us that a temperature is a measure of the probability of different states of excitance=levels of energy in a particle/photon. The higher temperature having more probable states of higher energy in more photons/particles. So you can see why a 100 sources of radiation at 250K will not give a higher probability for higher states in particles/photons. Much less an icecold atmosphere in relation to a hot surface, it actually decrease overall probability of higher states. That is cooling.
Only something hotter can increase temperature of a body in an open system.
-
jdixon1980 at 01:01 AM on 20 July 2016Déjà vu: as with tobacco, the climate wars are going to court
Nit: I would change "agree" to "agrees" in that graphic. "Climate research" is a mass (uncountable) noun/quantity, so it should follow that a portion/fraction/percentage of climate research is also a mass noun/quantity, taking a singular verb conjugation.
-
MA Rodger at 00:47 AM on 20 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
fake reality @115-120.
Hurrah! I thought the theory of a flat Earth was behind us but evidently not with you. @116 you tell us "Since only half of the surface is heated we must divide this in 2." This can only mean you subscribe to a flat Earth. It is truly fantastic to see such a wonderful theory maintained in the face of modern science. Well done you!!
@177 you address my comment @114 that concerns Lunar temperature. You declare that I am "not correct" (which is thankfully less strongly put than some of your other comments @115-120) and provide what you describe as "the No Bullshit Approach" which perhaps may be some terminology used by 'flat Earth' theory? I am also in the dark over your comment about the "using real measured values." Who is/is not using such values?
The 130ºC quoted @114 is a rough value and not the measured temperature which would likely be nearer 117ºC for the noon-time equatorial temperature. (I'm hoping the concept of 'equator' does not clash with your 'flat Earth' beliefs.)
However, you do rather queer you own pitch with your reference to Earthly temperatures. With a Lunar day lasting ~29 days, Lunar temperatures at noon are not far off that of steady-state. This is far from true on Earth. So when you state "we get a higher night temp but that is the result of cooling, not warming," this is of course correct. But critically you must account for the 'something' that is "cooling" which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'. That 'something' would be the day-time. (Thankfully, flat Earth theory does not refute the existance of night & day so that should make sense to you.) Warmer nights due to cooler days. Simples.
-
MA Rodger at 00:29 AM on 20 July 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
Mike Hillis @208.
You embark on yet another episode of poorly described nonsense. You now tell us that the surface temperature of Venus results "obviously because of the lapse rate heat pump I described above." I assume you refer to the comment thread at some point "above" your comment @171 when you initiated a long and rather silly argument about the relative size of absorption wavelengths in Earth's atmosphere.
To recap, at that point, you had just declared that you were "on the same page now" as Glenn Tamblyn @168, a page which Glenn helpfully put in context @170. So this 'above description' cannot be there.
I appreciate you find such tasks difficult, but you refer to a comment that is a very long way up the comment thread. Thus it is properly beholden on you to indicate you 'above description' with a little more exactitude. -
fake reality at 22:15 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Edit in 119:
That should of course be 400W*2m^2 of surface heat from irradiation of 1000W/m^2.
-
fake reality at 22:13 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@113
As I have shown in my other posts, No.
The 33 degrees is entirely a product of you using 4 weak suns irradiating 4m^2 with the intensity of 290W/m^2. Since the surface is heated with an intensity of almost 400K/1000W transformed into heat equivalent to 400W/2m^2 with a surface emissivity of 0.8, the 33 degrees is a product of imagination. Or just flawed application of physics.
Moderator Response:[JH] Comments that include snarky and inflamatory insuations are not welcome on this website. Please cease and desist immediately. If you do not, you will relinquish your privilege of posting comments.
-
fake reality at 21:46 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@105
I don´t want to call you a liar so instead i say that your words does not tell the truth.
a) The surface receives about 1000W/m^2 of solar irradiation flux. It emits about 400W. There is no way around that other than using methods that gives values that is not real.
b) Flux at TOA is not 1370W/m^2 in average. Not 1000W or 400W either. So you are not telling the truth. Sure, it may add up to your fictive values, but those does not correlate with observations and can be disregarded as they must be wrong.
c) I can see no argument here. You are saying that a decrease in spectral intensity is a sign of rising temperature. That is as wrong as it can get. If the atmosphere shows an effect on flux that is decreasing intensity, that means that the atmosphere is cooling. You mus pay attention to the fact that absorption is not the same as emission. Only increased emission that gives increased temperatur/flux density, is a sign of heating. Only that. Heat doesn´t hide.
It is not a sign of warmer surface if the tropopause show that co2 decreasing intensity in spectral flux. Co2 shows that it effectively keep tropopause flux in peak wavelenghts down to a 220K balckbody curve. What you see is the bottom regulator of the temperature in the atmosphere. Co2 makes sure that tropopause keeps its temperature @ 220K, according to spectrum.
Since we all know that it radiates equally both up and down, we can be sure that 220K is the contribution downwards as well. Not very hot, don´t you think?
c´) If co2 was increasing temp we would see an increase in those wavelenghts that it absorbs. Are you aware of that heat can be absorbed and transformed into lower temperature?
That happens when it takes more heat for the absorbing body to reach the same temperature. And we know that co2 radiates at 220K, so it apparently will not heat up unless it gets a lot more energy. That could be an effect from the molecule colliding with other gasses and dissipating the energy. It doesn´t matter, the measured spectrum at TOA is proof of co2 cooling, not heating.
c´´´) In heat transfer the rate of transfer is the difference in T. The smaller the difference, the slower transfer we get. The hot body that transfer heat to the cold body is not affected by the rate of transfer. It keeps the same T all the way up to when the cold body reaches the same T, and then there is no measurable transfer.
I like photons as much as anyone, but we know from experimental evidence that they must not be included in heat transfer. Because a hot body does not change it´s temperature because a cold body absorbs heat from it´s radiation field.
That is, a hot body does not get warmer because a cold body is colder.
And you are right, it is necessary for the greenhouse effect to have cold IR-radiation adding to surface temp. But it is not necessary for reality.
Moderator Response:[JH] Comments that include snarky and inflamatory insuations are not welcome on this website. Please cease and desist immediately. If you do not, you will relinquish your privilege of posting comments.
-
Mike Hillis at 21:39 PM on 19 July 2016Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
As for Venus, let me put this as simply as possible. Venus has an albedo of .65 which means 35% of the sun's radiation is absorbed. We know that only 10% reaches the surface, which means that 25% is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in. But the atmosphere is not as hot as the surface, which is the hottest place on Venus, even though it only receives 10%. Why? It's obviously because of the lapse rate heat pump I described above. Heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and pumped downward.
How can you call this scenario a greenhouse effect?
Moderator Response:[JH] Please specifiy who you are addressing a question to.
-
fake reality at 21:03 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@114
That is not correct. The reason that surface temp of the moon under irradiation is 130C, is that it gets 1370W/m^2 of flux density. (1370/0.0000000567)^0.25=394K. That is 121C. Right?
You see that there is no need for any other explanations. I cannot understand why you include night temperature in a calculation of heating from solar irradiation? The night side is not irradiated, why should that be taken in to the calculation of the effect of irradiation?
Mean temperature is a useless value in radiative heating of a surface, it is a measure of cooling, not heating. And it is the result of adding colling to heating for a net value.
On earth we are lucky enough to have an atmosphere that evens out the mean temperature by cooling irradiated surface area with air that distributes the heat in every heated point to the whole volume of the atmosphere. Sure, we get a higher night temp but that is the result of cooling, not warming. The surface of the earth would be 394K without an atmosphere. No one kan argue the fact that irradiative flux density is lowered by the atmosphere. Solar irradiation is what heats the earth, if that is lowered by the atmosphere it means that the atmosphere cools the earth.
That is the No Bullshit Approach that is the beauty in using real measured values.
Moderator Response:[JH] A word of advice: "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched."
Sloganeering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
fake reality at 20:34 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@113
The 33 degrees you point at as a proof for the greenhouse effect is enirely a product of lacking understanding of the physics in radiation and heat. I will show you why.
If we use measured values from real observations of solar irradiation at the surface, we find that 1000W is a median value when we look at variations from pole to pole.
If we use that, the real value of irradiation, and an emissivity of 0.8 derived from measured surface flux OLR, we get:
1000W is 800W transformed into heat in the surface. Since only half of the surface is heated we must divide this in 2. So, 800W/m^2/2m^2 gives 400W OLR. Which fits very nicely with the average temperature of about 290K. Without even have entered the atmospher on it´s way to space.
So, when we calculate radiative flux from the surface with measured real values, we can see that the surface temperature has no room for any greenhouseeffect.The reason is that you use an average flux density that is wrongly calculated by using TOA irradiation/m^2 and divide by four. That gives a surface flux equivalent to 4 small weak suns which heats a m^2 with an intensity of 259W, when the surface cools with a flux of 390W.
Do you see the difference? The problem comes from the fact that flux and temperature is not linear but logarithmic. Four suns with a flux that adds upp to the same wattage as one sun can not heat the surface as much as the one sun in reality does.
You use a deeply flawed approach to solar irradiation flux when you average to a value that we know is wrong according to measurements. It totally ignores that the connection between flux and temperature is non-linear.
You use values in a calculation that gives a temperature of 255K, which is wrong according to measurements that show 288K, and then you apply a greenhouseeffect to cover up the difference. No other explanation than the difference of 33 degrees is given to show how this rise in temperature from greenhousegasses occur. There are no calculations that show how icecold gas can heat a warm surface, other than your calculation of surface temp that give the wrong temperature compared to measured values.
I think that by using measured real values as I did, and arriving at pretty much exactly the right temperature without any fictive greenhouseeffect, before it even has entered the atmospheric gasvolume, I have proven that there is no greenhouseeffect.
Remember that you calculation uses values of flux that is not real, they don´t exist anywhere as a value of irrradiative flux density, and that I use a value that is measured in reality. In my calculation the numbers fit perfectly, in yours there is need for a fudgefactor.
There is a big difference in how you treat radiation when you calculate temperature. You must pay attention to the relationship between Watt and K, only if you do that you realize why the model you use get the wrong value of 255K.
If you think about it, 4 suns around the earth that radiates @255K in 4m^2, will only heat 1m^2 to 255K.But one sun heating 1m^2 @ a median 1000W, which is a real measured value, will heat 2m^2 to 290K.
I´m pretty proud of this point I´m making. I think I have just proven that there is no greenhouse effect.
-
fake reality at 19:18 PM on 19 July 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
@111 Without reading the links I suspect that they are about spectral signs of absorption from co2?
The strange thing with co2-theory is that a massive decrease in spectral intensity is interpreted as increase in temperature. That is a direct opposite of how spectral intensity works. A decrease in intensity by co2 absorption is a decrease in temperature. There is no way around that. Any heating at any level must show up as an increase in intensity. Heat doesn't hide
-
TonyW at 20:40 PM on 18 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
Apologies for the poorly formatted comment - it wasn't poorly formatted in the comment box! -
TonyW at 20:38 PM on 18 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
"the INDCs aren’t quite enough to bring us in line with the Paris Agreement’s climate goal of keeping warming to well below 2C"That's an understatement. The "quite" implies that it's close but the text of the article says that for even a 50% chance, the INDCs (and an assumed continuation of the assumed effort) are nowhere near close enough to stay below 2C. But a 50% chance is nowhere near to "keeping" warming to a target. Let's get real; a 90% chance would give us some hope that warming could be kept to a, still disastrous, 2C but the INDCs barely scratch the surface of what is needed.From a Guardian story, the elders of the UN are worried that actions are already failing the words of Paris: 'Presidents and prime ministers across the world are making investment decisions that run contrary the Paris deal, they warned. “Some countries are even increasing subsidies to fossil fuel production. This is simply not good enough. While all countries need to act, the industrialised and wealthy countries must lead by example.”'The Paris agreement is already failing. -
denisaf at 12:19 PM on 17 July 2016Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe
Another other issue that will affect how people respond to climate change is the inevitable reduction in the domestic, communication and transportation services as the availability of the vast range of irreversibly used natural resources, including the fossil fuels, irrevocably declines. The article warns of many likely consequences without taking into account the declining ability of society to cope because of this loss of services they have become so dependent on.
-
Paul D at 20:07 PM on 16 July 2016Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
Pity that this article is a bit vague about the potential knock on effects!
Warming has much wider implications for vegetation, especially trees.
Warming has an impact on rainfall, drought, soil etc.
These all have an impact on tree species survival and migration, that in turn has an impact on the species that depend on the trees.For instance English Oaks are a habitat for about 400 species, this includes a butterfly that only uses the oak as a habitat. That in turn has an impact on farming and other species that may prey on the 400 species that use the Oak.
Trouble is the majority of people don't look at the wider picture, the get out clause is that it's to complicated for humans to understand.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:57 PM on 16 July 2016There's no empirical evidence
jobel @308, the formula for forcing from CO2 is:
1) ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/Co)
where ΔF is the change in forcing, C is the current CO2 concentration, Co is the initial CO2 concentration, and ln(x) is the natural logarithm of x.
Increasing the CO2 concentration from 287 parts per million by volumn (ppmv) to 400 ppmv at a constant exponential rate requires an annual increase of 0.2% each and every year. That exponential growth rate, therefore, provides an approximate model of the increase in CO2 levels from 1850-2016. Plugging that into formula (1), we have that each year on average, the forcing goes up by 0.0107 W/m^2 (for a total increase of 1.77 W/m^2). Because the increase is in forcing is the same each year, the increase in forcing is linear.
The temperature increase due to a change in forcing is given by the formula
2) ΔT =λ x ΔF
where λ (the lower case greek letter lambda) is the climate sensitivity factor, and ΔT is the change in temperature. For the year to year increase, the relevant climates sensitivity factor would be that for the Transient Climate Response, and is approximately 0.4 oC/(W/m2). That yields a 0.0043 C per annum temperature increase from our model, or an estimated 0.7 C increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature over the interval 1850-2016. (Of course, it will not be precisely that because CO2 is not the only changing forcing.) Crucially, because temperature is linearly related to changes in forcing, a linear change in forcing will result in a linear change in temperature.
That is not some obscure result or fancy theory. It is the theory you purport to criticize; and that theory predicts that an exponential increase in CO2 concentration will result in a linear temperature increase. Despite this, you claim that the approximately linear increase in temperature given an approximately exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 disproves the theory. That is, you claim because the situation is as the theory predicts, the theory is disproven. Being generous we will attribute that attrocity of reasoning to ignorance, although it takes a lot of gall to so condemn a theory you are so patently ignorant of.
Finally, as a minor point, the correlation of CO2 concentration to GMST (BEST land/ocean) over the period 1850-2013 is 0.902. Even your claims of fact are eggregiously false.
-
jobel at 17:39 PM on 16 July 2016There's no empirical evidence
It was the third argument that was the important one: “The planet is accumulating heat” which it obviously does. If the heating of the planet was caused by human action then the smoking gun would be a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature but there is none, the number of people and emission of greenhouse gases are increasing exponentially, air and sea temperatures are increasing linearly. The effect could be lagging but then why don't we see a tendency of an exponential curve in temperature? And if the effect is lagging, why do we see such a clear onset of the rise?
-
Gingerbaker at 04:55 AM on 16 July 2016Aerosol emissions key to the surface warming ‘slowdown’, study says
What? The "slowdown" is real again? The Return of the Son of the Slowdown Which Could Not Die 2.0.
I was pretty sure that the "slowdown" was shown to be an artifact of poor polar temperature coverage.
-
ubrew12 at 03:35 AM on 16 July 2016Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
"Earth’s ecosystem is acting in a way to help mitigate our emissions by absorbing more of our annual release of heat-trapping gases" Is that true of the ocean ecosystems? It seems to me a variety of effects (warmer ocean, enhanced thermal stratification) might lead to the ocean being less effective at mitigation rather than more.
-
swampfoxh at 00:56 AM on 16 July 2016We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times
very funny, Bob Loblaw. keep it up
-
swampfoxh at 00:44 AM on 16 July 2016Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe
I don't think framing any climate science warning can bear fruit when we test against existing literature about the collapse of civilizations, e.g. "Collapse", by UCLA's Professor Jared Diamond, "The Sixth Extinction", by Elizabeth Kolbert, (etc. etc. etc.) It is clear that people opt for preachers, soothsayers, magicians, musicians, "gladiators" and other "feel goods" when faced with such difficulties as presented by: contemporary Global Warming, the Roman faminecollapse circ. 430-444 A.D., The southwestern U.S. protracted drought of 1050-1200 A.D. (etc. etc. etc). Our imminent extinction event will play out similarly to the last Five Big Ones...(the ones without humans on the planet). Containment of the upcoming cataclysm, as best as global civilation can contain such a dooms-day event, should be the focus of any government's authority. But, admittedly, there's no way anyone can predict what life will look like on the other side of this catastrophe, assuming there will be an "other side" for the human species. I suppose I should add that a governmnetal authority built on the U.S. model would be the one least able to cope with remedies... a fact that only adds to the anxiety.
-
MA Rodger at 21:31 PM on 15 July 2016It's the sun
Tom Curtis @1170,
Your characterisation of Soon et al (2015) as "a smorgasborg of cherry picks" is well founded. One "cherry pick" you could add to the charge-sheet is that Soon et al (2015) fail to address the implications of the Hoyt & Schatten TSI data prior to 1880. Their Figure 8 does plot out the various TSI reconstructions back to 1800 which, if the Hoyt & Schatten (1993) data is accepted as a proxy for NH temperature as Soon et al propose, implies the 1830s NH temperatures would have to be warmer than the 1960s. And if that is a tricky proposition to defend, it must be remembered that the H&S resconstruction is 1700-1992 (see IPCC graph here). The implication of the Soon et al (2015) proposition thus also encompasses the implication that the 1770s were as warm as the 1940s and also as warm as the early 1990s. I think even the bogus methods of Soon, Connolly & Connolly would struggle with defending such a warm 1770s.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:29 PM on 15 July 2016It's the sun
sailingfree @1169, a brief read of Soon, Connolly and Connolly (SC&C)shows it to be a smorgasborg of cherry picks. They start by cherry picking the ACRIM reconstruction of Satellite measurements of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in preference to the PMOD reconstruction, or the IRMB reconstruction. They do this despite the fact that, by their own admission that comparisons of the reconstructions to ground based data were "were slightly
better for PMOD". They then cherry pick one of eight reconstructions of TSI since 1850, choosing one with the highest variability in TSI. From what I know of the issues, neither choice is justified, but I will leave that to be argued by others.Moving on, they procede to cherry pick their own NH temperatures series using just rural stations from China, the United States, Ireland and the Arctic Circle. Last time I looked, there were more locations than that in the NH. Their resulting reconstruction is significantly different from that using the GHCN (essentially the NOAA temperature reconstruction). That is odd because Caerbannog has repeatedly shown using randomly selected rural stations chosen to maximize territorial coverage that just a few tens of stations essentially reproduces the standard records:
More troubling than the difference is the cherry pick of a NH only temperature reconstruction. The NH temperature record is considerably more variable than that of the SH:
Presumably global forcings will have global effect, so that effects seen primarilly in one hemisphere only cannot be attributed to global forcings. The choice of a NH temperature series (strictly a 3 nation plus Arctic series) invalidates the study without further analysis.
Proceding further on, SC&C test the correlation between their cherry picked reconstruction of TSI and their cherry picked reconstruction of NH temperatures. They then assume that CO2 forcing only accounts for the residual of TSI based temperature reconstruction. This pair wise comparison proceedure is not a valid statistical technique for testing the correlation of multiple factors. If it were valid, it would generate the same linear dependence between CO2 and temperature regardless of whether you tested CO2 against temperature and TSI against residuals, or the reverse. As it happens SC&C do test both and show that they do not generate the same factor. They claim this demonstrates they should use the solar first priority, whereas it actually disproves the validity of their technique.
Finally, SC&C find a variation in temperature relative to changes of TSI of 0.2112 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 28 a). Adjusting for albedo and the fact that the Earth is spherical, that becomes 1.207 C/ (W/m^2) of solar forcing. For an equivalent forcing to the doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of 4.465 C. In contrast, for CO2 they find a change in temperature relative to change in forcing of -0.1039 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 29 b). For a doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of -0.384 C.
The TCR of CO2 differs from their stated estimate, which was calculated based on CO2 concentration (Figure 29 a) rather than radiative forcing. We can default to their stated TCR value of 0.44 C for CO2. That leaves unexplained why their trend line for CO2 and for CO2 radiative forcing have opposite signs. It also leaves unexplained why they repeatedly mistate the TCR as being the "climate sensitivity". The most fundamental problem however is, why is the temperature response to changes in solar radiative forcing 10 times greater than that due to CO2 radiative forcing in their model? That is an extraordinary result that requires extraordinary explanation. The default assumption must be that reponse to radiative forcing is approximately the same across all forcings.
To summarize, even if we ignore their multiple cherry picks - the use of a NH only temperature series; and of singular sequential linear regression rather than multiple regression means the paper is scientific garbage. Unsurprisingly, it produces a garbage result (temperature responce to solar forcing ten times that due to CO2 forcing).
-
nigelj at 14:22 PM on 15 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
One Planet @ 12
No. Im not saying that. By "balanced" I simply meant that in general terms a workable economic system has to recognise balance between individual rights and the restrictions of the law in general terms, and not let it become skewed too much one way or the other. Its just a philosophical point that society works with a balance of individual and community rights, and extreme libertarian systems dont really work, just as communism doesn't work at the other extreme. I was trying to show that capitalism is perfectly compatible with a degree of government involvement in regulating market behaviour and these things complement each other.
Certainly in some cases individual behaviour that is damaging must be totally curtailed. Pollution is a case in point.
As I pointed out market behavious that are potentially damaging should be regulated by the state, or eliminated (depending on the specific behaviour, for example pollution should be eliminated, and punished, driving cars is regulated with road rules).
Even economists recognise this, even those that lean to the right politically, in the main. Its politicians and lobby groups etc that argue that governments should have strictly limited powers and corporate interests should be paramount and regulation eliminated or reduced to an extremely low level.
Western society has generally worked with the model I have outlined that balances individual freedom and state involvement, but this has come under threat since the 1980s and swung too far towards an ideology of corporate rights and deregulation etc. This has made mitigating climate change very difficult. People use scaremongering about excessive state powers or laws as an excuse to prolong their polluting behaviour.
-
chriskoz at 13:45 PM on 15 July 2016Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe
Humans are selfish beings, they care primarily about their vested interests, and that is universal rule regardless of their political opinion or "intelligence". It affects everyone from FF moguls to ordinary citizens, like farmers whose lives are destroyed by droughts, from politicians to scientista even climate scientists. Climate science denial by FF moguls' vested interest is obvious, no need to elaborate. Farmers do not deny because they know they are affected. But they do care about science not because of species extinction or because of ocean acidification. They do care because their life is ruined. Frame the issue of AGW as such to them and they would likely become deniers, because the required mitigation action means e.g. limitted use of diesel machinery and artificial fertilisers on their cropland. Even among climate scientists, most (if not all) deniers (or more politely "contrarians" in this case) have vested interests in FF, an interest they sometimes try to hide, as in case of Willie Soon.
Bottom line, to achieve the best "response" or best "understanding", you have to frame the issue specifically to target the vested or at least subjective interest of the news recipient. Examples of recipients and most successful "framing" of AGW in each case:
- Donald Trump: SLR destroys sea side golf courses, millions of env migrants from Bangladesh will swarm US this century (he has very good understanding of these problems although his action will be to just build walls at infinitum)
- Koch Bros: the FF empire will crash soon, time to start investing in renewables, or at least diversifying th eprotfolio.
- US REP politicians: your electorat will turn away from you, you won't be reelected for the next term, the party is doomed (first signs of it are already happening: the nomination of a farcical person as their presidential candidate)
- farmers: your crops will be devastated, leaving you pennyless, as said above
- tourists in AUS: there will be no GBR in couple dosen years
...and so on.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:42 PM on 15 July 2016We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times
The record setting string of 12 month averages is indeed significant.
However, it seems more significant that the 30 year averages have been increasing with every new month of data (each new month has been warmer than the same month 30 years before it), for a very long time.
In the current NASA/GISTEMP Global Land-Ocean data set the last time a month was cooler than 30 years earlier was January 2011 being 0.05 C cooler than January 1981. Before that it was November 1993 being 0.08 C cooler than November 1963.
So, based on the NASA/GISTEMP LOTI data set, since November 1993 every month has been warmer than 30 years prior except for one outlier, January 2011.
The same is probably true of the satellite data (derivations of temperatures above the surface). But those data sets only start in 1978 so there is currently only a short period of 30 year averages (8 years).
It is interesting that although the satellite data sets are now long enough to look at trends of 20 and 30 year averages some of the proponents of satellite data do not do that type of evaluation, and one of them (and all of their faithful followers) has even chosen to change their presentations from a previous practice of showing the full satellite data set since 1978 (with a strange unlabelled curvy line on the graph of monthly data that implied that temperatures were simply oscillating and that prior to 1978 things were warmer), to limiting their evaluations and presentations to the data starting in 1997 (and no more unlabelled curvy lines).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:40 PM on 15 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
nigelj,
I agree that we substantially agree.
One minor difference is that my position is that any pursuit that the constantly improved understanding of what is going on would identify as 'damaging' or 'unable to be a lasting part of a better future for all of humanity' is Not an Option.
You seem to imply that pursuits that can be understood to be damaging or can be understood to only benefit a portion of humanity (especially pursuits that can only provide a benefit for a limited duration), deserve to be allowed as part of the compromise of all interests (the Balance concept).
I disagree that people wishing to benefit from understandably damaging or unsustainable pursuits deserve to have their desires allowed to a 'balanced' degree. Those activities and pursuits need to be curtailed regardless of popular desire or profitability.
And, of course, the burning of fossil fuels is understood to be both damaging and unsustainable.
So, I also disagree regarding how well Western Society has done. The unacceptability of benefiting from burning fossil fuels has been clearly understood by Western Society leaders since the 1980s (and earlier). Western society has failed misearbly due to the popularity of leaders who encourage selfish interests (greed and intolerance) to drum up support.
And it isn't just the leaders who are to blame. Any already more fortunate person wanting to get more benefit from the burning of fossil fuels deserves to be disappointed, not rewarded. Western Society has significantly failed to do that.
But Western Society has been great at developing excuses to prolong and expand what is understood to be unacceptable. It has been great at fighting against changes to limit what can be gotten away with rather than working to limit the magnitude and rate of change of the climate.
-
nigelj at 08:36 AM on 15 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
One Planet @10
I broadly agree.
In my view capitalism is generally a good system, and is just decentralised decision making and ownership. Hayek made the argument well enough.
However capitalism has certain "market failures" that are recognised by economists, especially in environmental areas. Capitalism in its raw form generates some problems. You have essentially listed these in your post.
The normal resolution of the problems of capitalism is for the state to fill the gap or regulate certain market behaviours to ensure the public good. Unfortuntaly some people are so self centred they resent this.
Capitalism also has an internal feature that needs to be well understood. While the value of capitalism is in decentralised decision making and competition, the essential dynamic is towards monopolies, until there exists the possibility of something as big and unweildy as "communism"! The only way to stop this is an interventionist state, that stops monopolies forming, or which regulates monopolies. Its in the "enlightened self interest" of the publc to promote this, so there is no contradiction between capitalism and people promoting this, as self interest is a feature of capitalism.
The point is ultimately it becomes hard to separate the state from capitalism, as they need each other to function. This is the most important thing we have to face.
Therefore we have an argument that should not be about capitalism "versus" the state or socialism (or whatever) but which should be about how we strike the right balance and what the state should do in various regards and ultimately this has to be based on evidence and logic, not heated emotive arguments.
Obviously this applies very much to climate change. The state has an inherent right to ensure we dont destroy the planet. Because without the planet capitalism has no future anyway.
The cultural and ideological balance has possibly tilted too far towards "greed is good" and community values are bad. Any functional group of humans needs a blend of individual rights and community controls over some individual rights. Its a tough one, but I think western society has done ok, and we sometimes fight over absurdities. Obviously we also have to constantly ensure the balance is appropriate, and rules make sense.
-
sailingfree at 05:48 AM on 15 July 2016It's the sun
Can someone point to a rebuttal of Soon, Connolly & Conolly?
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf
They claim It's the Sun.
-
sailingfree at 05:40 AM on 15 July 2016We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times
A7: ops, that's Soon, Connolly & Connolly. They claim the warming tracts the Sun.
-
sailingfree at 05:34 AM on 15 July 2016We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times
Related: Can someone point me to a rebuttal of Soon, Oconnel& Oconnel,
http://globalwarmingsolved.com/data_files/SCC2015_preprint.pdf
Thanks
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:43 AM on 15 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
nigelj@8,
A proper and thorough comparison (competition) of the efficiency and impacts of truly sustainable energy systems would probably result in very limited use of biofuels. And truly sustainable means energy systems that future generations of humanity will be able to be benefit from until this amazing planet would naturally become uninhabitable due to the changes of the Sun, which would exclude more than just fossil fuel burning.It is obvious that significantly reduced resource consumption and impacts by the “choices” of the most fortunate is the primary change that is required, the quicker the better (even if that change is contrary to the desires of those who have developed perceptions of wealth, power and prosperity that cannot be justified when evaluated based on the best understanding of what is required to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all).
Clearly, the current socio/economic/political systems fail to perform that type of evaluation (competition), primarily because of the ability of deliberate misleading marketing to influence significant numbers of people into desiring personal interests that can be understood to be detrimental to others, particularly to the detriment of future generations. The 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future", particularly highlights the damaging development results of the lack of power of future generations to limit the behaviour of their predecessors.
To be clear, the Free Market or Capitalism or Communism are not the problem. The problem is the ability of people to get away with pursuits that can be understood to not be part of the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for a robust diversity of life on this planet.
-
FrankShann at 16:18 PM on 14 July 2016Models are unreliable
By far the most common global warming skeptic argument on the Skeptical Science iPhone app is the contention that the models are unreliable (www.skepticalscience.com/iphone_results.php).
It would be helpful to prominently display one or more graphs of predicitons made in advance by the models (not hindcasts) with superimposed subsequent actual changes in temperature.
On the Skeptical Science "Most Used Climate Myths" graphic, would it be helpful to rank the myths in the same order as the iPhone app results?
-
Paraquat at 12:28 PM on 14 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
Good comments and responses on this thread...I'm always glad to see that. I've got a lot more things to say, but today I have to cut it short because of a lot of volunteer work. I think I mentioned once before that I live in Taiwan (if I didn't, I may be confusing what I said on this blog with another blog). Anyway, last weekend we got hit by Super-Typhoon Nepartak, lots of damage in my town (Taitung, the worst hit in Taiwan). Go to Google images and type "Typhoon Nepartak Taitung" and you'll see what we're dealing with right now.
The interesting question is whether or not Typhoon Nepartak was enhanced by AGW? And are we going to be seeing even worse typhoons in the future thanks to AGW? I'll leave that as my thought for the day. Now, time for me to gas up the chainsaw - lots of downed trees to remove from my niece's school.
cheers,
Paraquat
-
nigelj at 09:58 AM on 14 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
paraquat @ 1 and 4.
Personally I'm not much of a fan of biofuels, because of the obvious criticisms levelled against them, which I have no need to repeat here. If we are going to combat climate change, this really needs a profound change to electric vehicles. In my view biofuels only have some merit for air travel, as this is something very hard to electrify.
However you make the point that you are not a "climate denier" then go on to say you are critical of all green technologies. This leaves me wondering.
Exactly what is it you propose to tackle climate change?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:58 AM on 14 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
Hi there Paraquat,
I did not miss EROEI. And I intentionally separated my comments.
The Need is: The termination of the creation of new/excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels (including natural gas). A reduction of burning of fossil fuels is not a solution. Therefore, EROEI is really only relevant for comparing energy systems that do not in any way involve the burning of fossil fuels. The least efficient system that does not add carbon to the recycling environment of this planet would be superior to any other system that involves any burning of fossil fuels. But the current fatally flawed socio-economic systems (including communism) fail to evaluate and promote things that way.
Carbon sequestration methods matched to the burning of fossil fuels to theoretically fully neutralize the added/excess CO2 are also not a solution. There are serious questions about the certainty that the sequestered CO2 is truly permanently locked out of the recycling environment.
Also, all indications are that carbon sequestration will be required in addition to, and for a period of time after, the termination of fossil fuel burning (admittedly only required by people who care about advancing humanity to a lasting better future - but that is the socio/political/economic aspect of the issue).
Since it is essential that humanity advance to a lasting better future for all (that is the only viable future for humanity), any evaluation for comparison of preferred ways to do things must be restricted to only those things that are certain to be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity on this, or any other, amazing planet. So it should be clear what needs to change quickly, and it isn't the climate.
-
DSL at 00:12 AM on 14 July 2016Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
jmcookie, you'll agree, of course, that assessing all evidence is essential to the process of being truly skeptical. Here (from NASA scientists): http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Lacis_la06400p.pdf
FYI: NASA scientists discuss their work publicly quite often. Look around a bit on the GISS website--all sorts of outreach, communication, and transparency.
Compare the professionalism of NASA's scientists and programs with that of Spencer and Christy (who told Congress in 2013 that no warming had occurred in 15 years, contradicting his own data and laughably contradicting the trend in atmosphere+ocean heat content).
Your choice, though. While it's only human to root for the underdog, the underdog overwhelmingly has a losing record. Those moments when the underdog actually wins are spectacular and memorable. In this case, the underdogs are not actually working together on the science. The "skeptics" have various alternative theories that are neither comprehensive nor cohesive. Arrayed against the underdogs is a collection of evidence built over 150 years and through hundreds of thousands of tests, both experimental and applied. The underdogs in this case, like so many others, are slowly being ground beneath the clinking treads of scientific understanding. Join them, if you will. Or start asking questions, engaging the ideas, and considering the evidence as objectively as you can.Moderator Response:[PS] The statement "I found that NASA is a executive government agency and the climate scientists are told to NOT discuss their views publicly (so we actually don't know how many NASA scientists are skeptics)." would seem to imply that jmcookie think there is a govm't directive to promote AGW, silencing any opposition. This nefarious operation must also extend to climate research in every other country in world. Frankly, I think jmcookie would be more at home with the conspiracy theorists at WUWT rather than here.
-
Ger at 00:07 AM on 14 July 2016Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
"This option assumes a massive scale-up of negative emissions technologies, which remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it on land, underground or in the oceans."
Most viable CO2 techniques take the CO2 out of burnable gas and store it. pump it to secondary users (for use in greenhouses: riping tomatoes takes lot of CO2). Taking out of the air is a methodology best left to trees to do and a well proven technology.
CO2 can be converted through CH4 and CH3OH (methanol) through the Sabatier reaction (Power to Gas storage method). Also a well known reaction. Both Methane and methanol are in use as feedstock for plastics. If the source is non-fossil, plastics serve as a very long storage option of carbon.
Prev 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 Next
