Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Next
Comments 3001 to 3050:
-
nigelj at 10:12 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Bob Loblow @64,
"Shouting "my free speech was censored/suppressed/violated" if a web service refuses to allow it is not my idea of "free speech"."
I agree with you if you mean the website is refusing to allow people to post any comments at all, or refusing to allow abusive, or off topic comments. Websites are as you say privately owned and totally entitled to do that, and it doesnt suppress opinion which is the essence of what matters.
But what about the website refusing to allow comments or opinions that they just dont like, for example climate denialist comments, warmist comments, comments that promote creationism or that criticise evolution, or that express hatred, or are are factually innacurate, (eg the world is flat or covid has only killed 20,000 people globally) ? They are entitled to do that if they want, but to me that is suppressing free speech. Its intruding a long way into what opinions are allowed, and is censorship that goes right against the liberal world view. Although I might make an exception for the covid claim on grounds that blatant lies like that can fool some gullable people and end up killing lots of people.
I'm trying to get some sense of where you think the line in the sand should be drawn on moderation of what people post. I confess I'm having some trouble deciding just how far websites should go with that form of moderation, although I did try to express what I think above thread and it leans towards minimal moderation. Yes its their business if they are privately owned, but to me that is not the point.
"Shouting "my free speech was censored/suppressed/violated" when someone else says something against what you said is also not my idea of "free speech"."
Agree totally. See this all the time, unfortunately. I constantly challenge these people and point out they are confusing things and their claim is illogical.
-
Doug Cannon at 09:39 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
https://www.tma.earth/2021/06/18/how-we-calculate-carbon-sequestration-rates/
Moderator Response:[RH] Note there's a policy against link only posts.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:05 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
nigelj @ 63.
...but web sites are not "public spaces". Web sites are more like publications, such as newspapers. Publicly visible for reading, but not necessarily publicly accessible for writing.
Newspapers usually invite Letters to the Editor, but very few are actually published. They may accept unsolicited opinion pieces, but few of those will make it into print. Newspapers with online material may or may not allow comments, and these may or may not be moderated. It's up to them.
"Free speech" means that someone can set up their own web page. It does not mean that any web page needs to allow any material from anyone. "Free speech" does not mean that anyone has to listen to you or pay attention to you.
Shouting "my free speech was censored/suppressed/violated" if a web service refuses to allow it is not my idea of "free speech".
Shouting "my free speech was censored/suppressed/violated" when someone else says something against what you said is also not my idea of "free speech".
Far too often, it seems that the people shouting "my free speech was censored/suppressed/violated" are really wanting to speak unopposed - they want their "free speech", but they don't want others to have the same right (whatever that "right" is). Do as I say, not as I do.
You can argue whether Twitter is a service that must accept all and everything - I raised the issue of a "common carrier" in comment #11. Web services need to be careful with what they allow and support, as they may become legally liable for material they publish. I'm not sure Alex Jones is the "free speech" model we want to follow.
-
Bob Loblaw at 08:42 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug @ 363:
If we accept the original premise above,
It's not a premise. It's based on measurements.
the earth is a net absorber of 17 Gigatons annually. The land having 11 Gigatons of net absorption.
So far, so good.
So more land vegetation should provide more net absorption.
In a very general sense, yes, but it depends entirely on what this "new vegetation" is replacing. Are you thinking of planting something on land that has no current vegetation, and no current soil carbon? Exactly where is this "new vegetation" supposed to appear?
The .5% is the proportion (200 million acres) of total land required to absorb the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels.
This is where you lose me. As you stated in comment 356, you determine that 15.64Gt is 3.5% of the total land uptake (450 Gt/yr in figure 1 of the OP). Your total land required still appears to be based on your 77.5 tons/acres value you provided in comment 358.
The entire land ecosystem as it stands is only capable of an additional 11 Gt/yr uptake (over and above the 439 Gt/yr it is releasing). If we created a duplicate land system covering the same area that all our current vegetation covers, it will both absorb and release CO2 just like the existing one. What is it about this new land cover that you are proposing that is different from the current one, that makes you think that we only need a much smaller area than the current vegetation covers?
New vegetation on bare soil does not have carbon uptake rates anywhere near the numbers you seem to think it does. (You have not yet provided the source of your 77.5 tons/acre number in comment 358.)
-
Doug Cannon at 08:06 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
refer my 362.
$17/Mwhr, not $1700.
-
Doug Cannon at 08:00 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
RE: Rob Honeycutt 360
Here's my reference for known fossil fuel reserves
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/years-of-fossil-fuel-reserves-left
Estimates on lithium range from 20 years to 200 years. Would be interestedto know if you have some more definitive information.
Re: Rob Honeycutt 359
If we accept the original premise above, the earth is a net absorber of 17 Gigatons annually. The land having 11 Gigatons of net absorption. So more land vegetation should provide more net absorption. The .5% is the proportion (200 million acres) of total land required to absorb the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. I would be interested in a better analysis of this if you have one. That was the original question I presented.
Regarding your staement "it will cost less to transition to renewables than it would be to continue using FF's." That may be true for developing countries who have growing needs for power and no access to natural gas. But you shouldn't misunderstand staements that say renewables are cheaper than FF.
In the U.S. for example there is little need for added electrical power.
It would take little or no up front capital investment to continue with FF. Theoretically to totally replace The terrawatts of U.S. energy with solar and battery backup would require a $1.7trillion investment. That is no doubt not the way to proceed, but it's the cheapest renewable route.
Here's a link to eia 2020 cost of electric utilities.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2020.pdf
For large wind turbines: base cost $1265/kw plus 35.14/kw each year
For solar PV : base cost $1313/kw plus $15.25/kw each year
For combined cycle gas: base cost $958 plus $12.20/kw each year Plus $1700/Mwhr (my estimate).
It gets complicated when you have to take into account if solar and wind have a capcity factor of 25% and 35%. So as long as we continue to use renewables with fossil backup you can just amortize the cost of renewables over 30 years and compare to FF it replaces when they're operating. If you want to completely eliminate the FF backup you have to multiply the costs of renewables by 3 or 4 and add cost of battery backup.
I don't think we should argue the economics to justify renewables. We need to argue for the benefits.
I
-
nigelj at 07:49 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Eclectic @60, I largely agree with you, but my comment was restricted to peppers views on censoring of free speech, and he clearly does accept some limits. So its not black and white for him.
I've expalined my views on free speech in my previous comment, and that limits should be fairly minimal in public doman places like websites. Would be interested in your feedback on that even if you violently disagree. If you have a spare moment. I'm wrestling a bit with the issue because free speech is important, but the internet has turbo charged the spread of misinformation and this is very bad news. Reconciling the two is not looking easy.
Bob Loblaw @61
Yes. Like I said his views are rather opaque!
-
Charlie_Brown at 07:45 AM on 27 December 2022From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations
Scruffy @29
Bob’s example illustrates the concept of a diminishing effect of increasing CO2, but as I challenged in @1 and Bob agreed in @2, it is insufficient to fully explain the complexity of the saturation effect. I prefer using the figure that Bob @7 reproduced from SpectralCalc.com for me to explain the saturation effect not as cylinders or cells in series, but as absorption lines (absorptance = 1 – transmittance) in parallel where strong lines reach an absorptance of 1.0 at low CO2 concentrations while weak absorption lines contribute to increasing absorptance with increasing concentration.It is much better to interpret the Beer-Lambert Law by looking down at the atmosphere from space than it is to look up from the surface. The common view of Beer’s Law considers attenuation of the energy emitted from a surface. For example, measure the energy emitted from a source, travels through gas such as CO2, and reaches the end of a cell. The NIST spectrum provides the results for the specified set of conditions using this approach. However, the energy that reaches the end of the cell from the original source does not include re-radiated energy. That is because IR absorbed by CO2 in the cell is re-radiated in all directions, mostly to the cell walls where it is absorbed by the cell walls. The geometry of the measurement cell, unlike the open atmosphere, precludes re-radiated energy.
You say “NO energy will be radiated into space in the CO2 absorption spectra - that atmosphere is completely opaque at those frequencies.” This should be clarified to say that none of the original source energy (photons) from the surface will be radiated into space because it will be absorbed and re-radiated along the path length toward space. However, all molecules above absolute zero vibrate and radiate energy. CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere will radiate energy. At the uppermost atmospheric layer containing sufficient CO2 molecules, energy radiated by CO2 will radiate to space in the CO2 absorption band, precisely because absorption lines have a value great than 0. Kirchhoff’s Law provides that absorptance = emittance (with the caveat of being at thermal equilibrium, which allows for energy transfer between molecules by collision or conduction in addition to radiation.)
Bob’s experiment in the original post demonstrates why it is better to view the effect of Beer’s Law on radiant energy escape to space by looking down from space. The atmosphere in the tropopause at an altitude of about 10-20 km is thin and cold. There is a lot of distance between CO2 molecules. The key is that there is a very long path length available, sufficient to bring many of the absorptance lines in the CO2 band to 1.0. With increasing CO2 concentration, even the absorptance of very weak lines becomes significant.
Your description of the overall global heat balance is incorrect. Increasing CO2 will cause more heat to be absorbed closer to the surface, and this will lower the temperature of the tropopause. This is part of a special and complicated signature of global warming by CO2. It actually reduces emittance to space, aggravating the greenhouse effect rather than offsetting it. The greenhouse effect is driven by the temperature profile of the upper atmosphere. What happens in the troposphere below the tropopause, including convection, conduction evaporation, and condensation, just moves heat around within the troposphere. You mention the effect of water vapor, which also exacerbates global warming as a positive feedback effect. The role of clouds is complicated. High, cold cirrus clouds can increase warming while low, warm, thick clouds can reflect solar energy. All of this is discussed in detail elsewhere, and is beyond the scope of a single rebuttal. But if you have any more specific questions that are stumbling blocks for your understanding, I will try to address them as succinctly as possible.
-
nigelj at 07:32 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Clarification to my commet @59. By "public domain" I meant the street and also websites, twitter, facebook and the like as opposed to peoples private homes. I'm just using the popular definition of "public domain" here, as opposed to the technical definition. Obviously websites are privately owned.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:22 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
nigelj:
The problem with reading between the lines in Peppers posts is that you can find bits that show him sort of agreeing with those reasonable controls, but then he posts additional stuff that sounds like it comes from a point of "everything is fair game" viewpoint. Add in a few bits that look like "everyone's opinion is as good as any other, and there is no right answer" and it looks like an apologist's perspective on defending the behaviour you think he (Peppers) agrees is wrong.
There is a tremendous inconsistency in Peppers' stated positions. He uses "free speech", "censorship", "woke movement", "cancel culture", and similar terms in exactly the sort of pejorative dog-whistle style that is toxic for reasonable discussion. I am willing to entertain the possibility that he does not realize he is doing this - but he really needs to sit back and think about his position(s) and how to choose to communicate them.
-
Eclectic at 07:20 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Nigelj , please look back through Peppers's earlier comments. Yes, there is a lot of muddled thinking ~ but he is simply not producing an intellectual argument, he is producing an emotional argument. # Absolutes. No gradations. Nuffing Wot Affects Me & Mine. Culture wars. Identity politics. Perfection is impossible, so don't even try for Good. Because Wokism. Because Whatever.
Nigelj, he just hasn't thought it through, and does not wish to.
-
Bob Loblaw at 07:11 AM on 27 December 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Prof Nazar:
Are you trying to claim that there is no experimental evidence that CO2 will absorb IR radiation at certain wavelengths?
Are you trying to claim that the amount of absorption does not vary with CO2 concentration?
If so, then why is it that I can buy commercial off-the-shelf technology that measures CO2 concentrations in air using those principles?
Are you arguing that the absorption of IR radiation by CO2 does not increase the energy level of that CO2 molecule? And thus the average temperature of the air?
If so, you are taking a position that does not respect the conservation of energy.
If you are just saying "I haven't seen anything that convinces me", then you are probably making an Argument from Incredulity.
You are long on assertions, and really, really short on presenting any actual evidence for your assertion.
-
Prof. Fred Nazar at 06:44 AM on 27 December 2022Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
There hasn't been a single experiment comparing temperatures of infrared transparent airtight capsules with different CO2 concentrations, including on with current-atmosphere concentration... also, comparing with different infrared filters in the "crystal" and heights, so where's the real falsifiable science? It's all based on assumptions without being able to discriminate confounding variables!
-
nigelj at 06:33 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Guys, I agree with you on most things, but you might be misinterpreting what Peppers is saying on free speech. The trouble is his stuff is a bit opaque. Just have a closer read and read between the lines.
I believe hes saying he is strongly in favour of free speech in the public domain but he does accept some limitations / censoring, such as laws against inciting criminal activity, defamation law, and moderation policy forbidding name calling, off topic and spamming. He is pretty obviously saying keep limitations very minimal, and dont censor peoples opinions even if they are crazy or a bit unpleasant. I dont want to have to speak for others like this, but it needs something to stop things going off the rails. Although all individual comments are interesting to me.
I'm inclined to agree Peppers on the free speech issue (but not much else). Free speech seems very fundamental and having too many limitations on free speech is a big problem. Facebook and Twitter have tried to eliminate misinformation and so called hate speech, and they mean well but it needs an army of people and could easily be abused to delete content they simply disagree with. George Orwells novel 1984 sums up the problem perfectly.
Its better to have the nonsense largely out in the public domain where it can be debunked. Maybe with a few exceptions that are life threatening (promoting that "covid is harmless"). I can accept censoring that sort of thing if experts are saying it and so could be taken seriously.
And nobody has to host sub groups like 8chan devoted to obvious and blatant denigration of minority groups that is bordering on inciting violence. A bit of commonsense does come into it.
This websites moderation policy seems pretty good and sophisticated, and its limits on speech are fairly minimal and appropriate. People are also given plenty of warnings.
Quite willing to change my view if anyone can convince me with sensible reasoning.
-
Eclectic at 06:19 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug @358 , please show the general outline of your back-of-envelope calculations. There are numerous important factors applicable to your scheme.
For instance ~ and I know you did not mean it that way ~ your 240 years of coal/oil , multiplied by your 0.5% of total land mass . . . comes to 120% of total land area. Interesting !
But seriously, Doug, when you look at Canadian/Siberian tundra, and at semi-deserts (etc) . . . there is almost zero scope for major forest development (being land which is incompatible with high-carbon plants i.e. trees). And afforestation elsewhere, would mean replacement of crops which do ultimately produce human food. Not to mention 8 billion citizens revolting in the streets as you attempt to enforce a vegetarian lifestyle.
Yes, you should buy lithium-mining company shares at present. But battery technology is advancing very rapidly ~ and there is no shortage of sodium, aluminum, etcetera.
## Please show your workings, Doug. Including the effective average number of years for a forest to reach maturation/stasis (regarding carbon uptake).
Doug, your heart is in the right place. But there is an H.L. Mencken quote to the effect of: For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:12 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug Cannon @ 358:
Where do you get your 77 tons per acre number from? Is that tons of carbon, or tons of CO2 equivalent? And since you are using acres, is that an imperial ton, rather than metric?
I am fairly familiar with forest carbon cycles in the boreal forest, and 77 tons per acres is close to 200 metric tonnes per hectare, which is a reasonable number for entire ecosystem carbon in the boreal forest. But this includes tree biomass, root biomass, leaf litter, dead branches, and soil carbon. And soil carbon (in the boreal forest) is often as much or more than the tree biomass. And this ecosystem carbon does not accumulate in a day, or a year, or even a decade - we're talking centuries-old ecosystems.
Please explain your calculations, and give us a rate of carbon uptake per year. Then you can compare it to annual fossil fuel emission rates. Then you can calculate how much area is needed to offset current emissions - and then how much area (and time) is needed to suck out the CO2 we've already added over the past century..
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:48 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 51: "Online is out in the street."
To begin, this is clearly wrong on several fronts.
- The Internet is not publicly-operated. People pay their ISP to get access, or get it for "free" from commercial establishments that build the cost into the products they sell.
- Most web sites, social media platforms, etc. are not publicly-operated. Each business or private entity that chooses to place information or a discussion forum on-line gets to choose what sort of open discussion they are willing to allow. They may choose to not allow any public commenting at all. They may choose varying moderation policies, such as "all comments will be moderated before being made visible". People may or may not have to register. SkS chooses a system where users must register, comments go live immediately, but are subject to moderation after the fact, as outlined in the Comments Policy.
- No "online" resource is forced to allow anyone to say anything they want, whenever they want. It's closer to "freedom of the press" - a freedom granted to anyone that has the money to own a press. Try walking into your local paper with your manifesto and demanding that they print it for you in tomorrow's paper. Please take a video of them laughing their heads off and post it to Youtube where we can all get a laugh.
Even if "online" was like "out on the street", nobody has the freedom to walk around saying anything they like to anyone they like wherever they like. I"ve previously mentioned libel and slander laws. I will now mention "public nuisance" laws. If your behaviour (even just spoken word) significantly affects the enjoyment of public spaces by others, you will be subject to legal restrictions.
I live in Canada. The relevant statue is in the Criminal Code, Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc. Quoting in part:
Every one who
- (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
- (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
- (ii) by being drunk, or
- (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
- (b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
- (c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
- (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
If Peppers truly believes that "free speech" gives people absolute freedom to speak, how would he react if he and his family went to a public park to have a picnic, and someone came up with a megaphone, started hurling insults and obscene taunts at him and his family, drowning out their attempts to have a nice family conversation, then followed them to the parking area as they tried to leave, followed them home, continued to hurl insults at them from public space in the street. etc?
To try to get back on-topic, the original post is about SkS considering its options with respect to participating in Twitter or not. Elon Musk paid $44B so that he could get to make the rules for his on-line social media site. Elon Musk has made claims about wanting a forum where "free speech" is allowed. What things has Elon done to make this so?
- Banning journalists for questionable reasons, and then imposing conditions for their return.
- Threatening to ban links to other social media sites.
It certainly sounds like Elon wants "free speech" for some, but not "free speech" for all. Well, it's his company, his rules. But Apple is not infringing on Elon's "free speech" rights if they decide they do not want to do business with him.
And it is perfectly reasonable for SkS to question whether they want to be part of Twitter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
In addition, you state, "We'll run out of lithium before fossil fuels." I question that assertion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:53 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug @358, 356...
It's my understanding that vegetation is both an absorber and emitter of CO2. So, just increasing vegetation by a small fraction isn't going to do much to change the overall balance. There certain is some sequestation, so it's a good thing to do, but it would take far more than a 0.5% change to offset all human emissions. And, in fact, we are currently operating in the opposite direction with deforestation in important places like the Amazon. So, we'd need to first reverse that, and then reforest from there.
Regarding, "[a] lot of money dependent on renewables and EV's," it's not exactly clear what you mean by this. Wind and solar are now cheaper than all fossil fuel sources, so it's actually cheaper to replace retiring FF energy with clean energy free of carbon emissions. Ostensibly, these means it will cost less to transition to renewables than it would be to continue using FF's.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:42 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @53... "Maybe there isnt as broad a right to speak anymore."
The right to speak hasn't changed. You are still fully in your right to say anything you like, but likewise, people are free to criticize what you say. And if you say something people find offensive or damaging on their property or in their online forums, they are free to have you removed.
The only thing that has changed in recent times is that people using hateful language and conveying gross misinformation believe they should be immune from criticism. And that's just not how it works.
-
Doug Cannon at 02:31 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Eclectic @357
I find it hard to believe that the earth is at its maximum capability of supporting vegetation and couldn't increase it by 3.5%. Since 1960 we've improved land use to a level equivalent of over 3 Gigatons of CO2 annually.
I had done some estimates. Based on an average absorption of 77.5Tons per acre we would need an additional 200 million more acres. That's a little over .5% of total land mass. Not an easy task but certainly a reasonable target.
Even if we couldn't totally balance existing fossil fuel emissions we could make a pretty good dent. Maybe even enough to forego the need for battery back-up on a scale necessary for electric power generation. Hopefully we could get a capacity factor of close to 60% with a combination of wind and solar and only need 40% of existing fossil for electricity. (Then incentives for non plug-in hybrids could delay the downside of all-electric vehicles, which would otherwise delay the decommissioning of coal fired electricity.....but that's an issue for another day.)
I realize there's lot of money dependent on renewables and EVs which would make any such strategy unpopular with much of the investment and media community. But we're not getting far with the current approach of big meetings every few years to lie about goals with no plans.
Not to worry about running out of fossil fuels. We have over 240 years of known reserves at current useage (coal-139, oil-54, natural gas-49). We'll run out of lithium before fossil fuels.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:10 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @51... "You can't go out in the street and tell them what to say or not. Online is out in the street."
No one is doing that. What seems to be the issue for those complaining of "woke" and "cancel" culture is that people are criticizing your opinions. Thus, what I'm saying is, this isn't about free speech, per se. It's that some people want the "freedom" to say awful things without criticism. And that's not how free speech works.
Free speech is a double edged sword. If you want the freedom to speak how you wish, you have to accept others speaking as they wish in response.
-
EddieEvans at 22:37 PM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Here's a footnote for the problem of unrestrained "communication." Trolling now consumes much time with the outright repeating of the same untruths. Trolls are spamming the Internet, and it makes communicating to learn difficult, time-consuming.
-
Vissermc at 21:42 PM on 26 December 2022Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
This page could use an update. Christy claims all the climate models are overestimating when tested against the data. Paper link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL097420.
YouTube video where he claims models are off by factor of 2: https://youtu.be/qJv1IPNZQao
-
Eclectic at 12:41 PM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
@53 Peppers ~ you are under a severe misapprehension.
There has never been a human society with a broad "right to speak" (in the sense you mean: of unrestricted broad freedom). You are imagining a Golden Age which never actually existed.
Not even in the micro-society of your own household is there an unrestricted freedom to be abusive/ insulting/ threatening/ demeaning, etcetera. Or if your household does indulge in such behavior, then I confidently predict an early demise of the household.
No "broad right" in the time of Socrates or Cyrus, or in any century before or since. Not even in the time of Jefferson or Lincoln, Eisenhower or Bush snr. Every functioning society has restrictions ~ restrictions applied through good laws and/or bad repressive laws, through politeness or customary etiquette, or through plain old common sense and decency.
Peppers, you are out of touch with human reality. Please come down to Earth, and have a major re-think of your opinions.
Twitter and free-speech/censorship are very much the topic of this thread. The Original Post said it well, though narrowly. IMO it is the right decision for Twitterati to stay on Twitter and continue to fight the good fight . . . preferably without investing a debilitating amount of effort. Conceivably, the pendulum will eventually swing in a healthier direction sometime in the future. [Post-Musk!] Mastodon deserves to thrive, but may not be able to achieve the more universal usefulness of Twitter.
-
Eclectic at 12:05 PM on 26 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug Cannon @356 ,
Before pursuing that idea of CO2 control by increasing mass of vegetation, it would be worth doing some back-of-envelope estimations. Potential increased tonnage of woody plants (and carbon content) per square km, as well as carbon in soil microbes/fungi . . . and where these requisite vast areas would go. And the ongoing supply of phosphates & other nutrients. And the continued increase needed. And the cycle of rotting. You might be unpleasantly surprised at the impracticalities involved.
Seaweed/algal stimulation by distributing iron salts over the pelagic ocean has been suggested . . . but failed to show practicality.
Simpler quicker & cheaper to use wind /solar /nuclear solutions ~ which we will have to do anyway, as fossil fuels run out.
-
Doug Cannon at 07:33 AM on 26 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I realize the article is out of date but I believe my logic would hold for 2022 as well as 2007.
The increase in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere by 2 ppm each year is pretty constant. That amounts to an additional 15.64 Gigatons per year. That's in the ballpark of the 60/40 split for absorption.
Ignoring the ocean absorption, that 15.64 Gigatons is 3.5% of the absorption over land. I'm wondering whether increasing vegetation/forest/etc. by 3.5% would hold atmospheric CO2 ppm constant. Then stretch that to 10% and we can forget about CO2 absorption plants. It seems more elegant than diverting trillions of dollars to renewables and batteries.
-
peppers at 06:53 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
BaerbelW
That was not the angle of the topic. In your sense, yes you can. There was a prior post about harm and retraining folks not agreeing, etc.
The only thing I would add would be about being welcoming to new posters. Its frustrating to hear the same ole, over again. But generally newly in's will bring those. And it will feel like work to repeat it all, but you may convert more. This is a small point.
And I have just said its best to close. There is a lot of disagreement around free speech Im surprised to find. Maybe there isnt as broad a right to speak anymore.
We recently heard about some peoples calling something foreign disinformation, censoring it and falsely advancing their group. I thought that was cheating and they were acting badly. They quelled free speech. Maybe this is just ok now and thats the new baseline. I hope to always hear the truth here.
Merry Christmas, D
-
BaerbelW at 04:41 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers
What you fail to understand is, that we can make rules for what can be posted as comments on our website, it's called the comments policy and when you and others registered you agreed to abide by it. One of the rules states:
No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted.
So, we expect commenters to make sure that they are not simply repeating already and long-debunked myths about human-caused global warming before posting a comment. If they still do and we delete the comment, it's not censoring by any stretch of the imagination and it's also not an infringement on the commenter's right to free speech as others have already pointed out. Our website, our rules. Nobody is forcing you to post comments here after all.
As a general aside: We also have a rule for "All comments must be on topic." and I'm not really sure how many of the comments posted in this thread are actually on topic as far as our Twitter & Mastodon involvement go. How about calling it quits instead of running - or posting - in circles?
-
peppers at 04:16 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI Rob,
Yes, you can tell folks to leave or stay at your home or business. You can't go out in the street and tell them what to say or not. Online is out in the street. Thats the tolerance part. I thought we were stasis on this. Thx D
-
peppers at 04:13 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Free speech is important here as it is how you can deliver your message. Labeling an opposing message to your own thought as 'harmful misunderstanding' removes the usefulness of this site and your mission.
I'd think you would want to welcome them in, hear once again the same issues all newcomers bring and try and convince them. Not silence them. Here is the list of narrow exceptions to free speech:
Rights, against
To incite imminent lawless action. ( child porn?)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. (or maybe here)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).The point that is really my business, is that free speech does not include labeling something something else on the delete list so you can cancel it.
I know I have worn this topic out! This is my opinion, Thx all, D
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @40...
I don't know how more clearly to state this. "Free speech" only means that Congress cannot enact laws that limit what you say. Everyone else is fully in their individual rights to limit what you say with respect to their own properties and businesses.
If someone is asking you to leave their home or business because what you're saying, that is not a limit on your right to free speech. It merely means they're telling you you've stepped past the bounds of what they are willing to listen to. You are free to find another venue for what you want to say.
What you're asking for, as far as I can summize, is the "right" to say awful things and not be criticized for it. And that's not how it works. Congress cannot enact laws that prevent you from saying awful things, but your fellow citizens are fully within their right to ostricize you when you do.
What you're complaining about with "woke" and "cancel" culture is merely politically motivated labeling. It's linguistic framing designed to literally do what you're complaining about others doing.
You want free speech but don't want to allow others the freedom to exercise their right to free speech in their criticisms of what you say.
-
peppers at 03:35 AM on 26 December 20221.5 Degree Climate Target: Dead or Alive?!
HI, This was suppose to be somewhere else. Thx D
-
peppers at 02:50 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
eclectic,
Merry Chrstmas
you are using free speech to denounce free speech. You would miss it if gone.
the comparisons to physical harm to protect against speech does not equate. Someone promoting child harm would not fare well. Not a likely example either but you are trying to make a point, albeit extreme for a fast gain. You are using free speech.Bob yes you could call those labels. They were identifiers I thought and not as global as 'harm', but I may end up labeling too. I must have been implying negative to cite them and then my premise would have me ask, mwas I qualified to label cancel culture as a negative culture? And I was a I'm saying to not let people say their piece is a mistake. Goose and gander applies.
in addition to this site and this article, there are matches in opposition to equal it.
this Is historic. The second time in history a global issue has come to us. But this is worse. atom bombing involved deterring and withholding. This has been done and it is about containing. Even dreams of reversing. Every mock, every poke, every diminishment of one another makes me feel further from home, as Tom Hanks said in Private Ryan. Every attempt to force or bluster this through is not working and I don't know how to convey it except to display and convince and hopefully convert. The forum is free speech For that. minimizing What you don't want to hear has one minimizing what you came to get. New ones to your message.
got to get the kid in the car here. I'll add to this. Best. D -
Bob Loblaw at 01:01 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 45.
Once again, you are stating "And I maintain that labeling as harmful is a method to diminish the other, under the presumption that your opinion and/or conclusions are tantamount."
Yet you use labels such as "woke movement", "cancel culture", etc.
Are you familiar with the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? Take a look at definition # 2.
2. If something is good for one person, it should be equally as good for another person; someone who treats another in a certain way should not complain if the same is done to them.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:37 AM on 26 December 2022From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations
Scruffy:
As the article makes no mention of CO2, nor the length of the cylinders, when discussing the 1% per cylinder, 37% for 100 cylinders example in figure 4 and related text, your criticism of those numbers is a straw man argument. The example shows the exponential nature of the absorption relationship, and you are reading more into it than it says.
You do not explain what "NIST data" you are referring to. NIST is not mentioned in the blog post.
As for the rest of your comment, you have missed an extremely important factor. You speak of CO2 molecules absorbing IR radiation and transferring energy to other molecules. You seem to be completely unaware that the same process of molecular collision will add energy to CO2 molecules and allow them to continually emit IR radiation at the same wavelengths that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. Your conclusion that "no energy will be radiated into space in the CO2 absorption spectra" is simply wrong. For it to be true, CO2 molecules would need to drop to a temperature of 0K, which won't happen as long as they can collide with other molecules (of other gases) and maintain a tempesrature above 0K. In fact, they'll be at a temperature equal to those other molecules.
The bogosity of your argument is also made clear by your claim that other greenhouse gases can emit IR radiation "in their own spectral lines", and pass energy up through the atmosphere - energy that they received by collision with CO2 that absorbed IR radiation. This magical thinking requires that other gases follow different physics from CO2 - they can emit IR radiation, but CO2 can't. Standard physics does not claim that CO2 is the only gas that matters - it just accepts that all greenhouse gases can both absorb and emit IR radiation in the spectral lines that match their internal energy state levels. And that collisions are constantly transferring energy from one molecule to the next - in both directions (not just one, as your hypothesis requires).
You clearly do not understand how greenhouse gases play a role in atmospheric energy transfers.
-
Scruffy Scirocco at 23:24 PM on 25 December 2022From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations
Useful article, but the example doesn't accurately reflect CO2 absorption. The example states that if you lost 1% of your energy through absorption in each cylinder, you would still have 37% of your ebergy after 100 cylinders. This is correct. But CO2 absorbs energy far more efficiently than that. Using the NIST data, the transmittance is only 30% through a 10cm path at 200mmHg. It's losing 70% of its energy, not 1%.
Granted, 200mmHg is far more CO2 than the atmospheric .300 mmHG of CO2 we're dealing with, but this means that an equivalent "cell" of absorption at 1 atmosphere with 400ppm CO2 would be 65.8m. After only 5 such "cells" you would have lost 99.76% of your energy to absorption.
We can discount re-radiation passing energy forward, as that's accounted for in the NIST measurements. The lost energy will be converted to heat, which will then conductively transfer to the other 99.96% of the gasses in the atmosphere, which will pass the energy upwards in their own spectral lines.
NO energy will be radiated into space in the CO2 absorption spectra - that atmosphereis completely opaque at those frequencies. Adding more CO2 won't change that. The idea that adding CO2 will change the characteristics of the re-radiation as it goes up the atmospheric column assumes that CO2 is the only gas, and that other gasses won't be conductively robbing the CO2 of the heat it's absorbed.
What WILL happen as CO2 levels increase is that the heat absorption will occur closer to the surface, causing an apparent increase in temperature, but this is offset by cooler temperatures at altitude, not accounting for convection and increased oceanic evaporation, which, while increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere (Major greenhouse gas) will also increase cloud cover and thus surface albedo, lowering the surface temperature of the ocean. -
Eclectic at 14:21 PM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @44 ,
Your argument fails. Intellectually and morally.
The rhetorical quote you give, about the man: "advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing" ~ is an example of a fine rhetorical piece which, at first encounter, seems nobly liberal & almost Voltaire-like.
But further thought shows the piece to be absurd. And absurd, because in a civilized society there must be limitations & restrictions of extremes.
Peppers, I am confident that both you and I are strongly opposed to the abduction of children for organ-harvesting and/or torture. Yet if the shouting man were advocating such immoral activities ~ would you be nobly prepared to defend his free speech "rights"? (A rhetorical question, of course!)
And assuming you do not favor severe child-abuse ~ what happens if the shouting man were not actually advocating such crimes . . . but were merely advocating de-criminalization of these activities? Where do you draw the line, Peppers? Your argument so far has been that you strongly disapprove of drawing any line anywhere which could limit "free speech".
In short, your "free speech" position is absurd. So absurd, that I rather suspect you have been filling an idle hour or two with disingenuous nonsense. But no need for that, my friend ~ there is already enough and to spare, of nonsense on the internet. Why would you wish to add more?
-
peppers at 11:17 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI Charlie Brwon,
I dont think folks grappling or struggling with info, new to them, constitutes harmful information. Asking questions and trying to understand should not. And I maintain that labeling as harmful is a method to diminish the other, under the presumption that your opinion and/or conclusions are tantamount. You are challenged with that tack, to presume you have the last word as you also know new information may still arrive and could matter.
I am not trying to affect anyone else, but trying to figure this out a bit myself.
For something specific, I have not seen much detail in to the increase in human population from 1B in 1900 to 8B this year, yet it has an identical graph line for our Co2 increase. Not the 'humans breathe within the cycle' response. But the increase of consumption and giant leaps in fuel uses. 90.72% of this 8B have cell phones bankmycell.com. So where do these people in the somalian desert charge their phones? Because apparently almost everyone has one. Each and everyone of them also wants a car, because they are like you and I. As tech becomes more efficient, more can access one, more on the road and no gains are made. This could be very relevant as current GW reports are that no gains are being made.
My point is not about cell phones or breathing Co2 being net, but that defining the reason the increase has happened will dictate where to aim the guns. Oil gas and coal are just fulfilling demands. Our rocketing from 1 to 8 billion consumers is not talked about.
I am thinking about this, and other concerns. In what way am I being harmful to you?
Thx D
-
peppers at 10:41 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Nigelj,
I was certain we were close on our understandings. What differences remain are what will be mine as an individual.
Id like to repeat a partial of what I inserted before, from movie American President and can be utubed.
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
Merry Christmas, D
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @40
"The definition of what is a harmful misunderstanding from one people, one culture, one gender, class standing, etc., to another cannot be defined to concluded that all should be and think and do only as you do. "
I disagree. Harmful misunderstandings are defined where there is good scientific evidence and consensus. Science is also a universal language that cuts across cultures.However I do think people should still be allowed to challenge all consensus scientific positions, and other views, in the public realm like websites and in the scientific literature.
Censorship of opinion and information worries me, (with very limited exceptions like inciting violence, defamation law, etc, etc) because a well intended process can so easily be abused and go terribly wrong, and you would need a huge army of people trying to enforce it. People should read George Orwells 1984.
-
Charlie_Brown at 06:39 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @4, @25, @28
@25 you say “Dont label me (or someone) as 'harmful', simply in your limited view ( lacking other input), and assail my rights to influence my world too.”
It is an old and tiresome defense to hide behind “freedom of speech.” The first amendment right, indeed all rights, comes with responsibility to not abuse that right. The age-old example is that you do not have the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre. It is akin to being morally wrong to spread disinformation that global warming and climate change are not real and cause no harm. @25 you ask “what determines this disinformation?” The answer is fundamental facts of science that explain global warming, which include conservation of energy, radiant energy transfer, and atmospheric physics.
@28 you imply that science is changeable and can be revised “if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.” True, but the key word is “new.” Deniers often repeat the same old arguments. For example, on another comment thread (Skeptical Science New Research Week for 50 2022 @49), you say “I am still struggling with our involvement with Co2 at .04 of 1% and water vapor is the main ghg factor at a hundred times more the effect at up to 4% of the total volume.” Bob Loblaw replied that these concerns are addressed in the standard myths, which does an excellent job of explaining the science at Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.
Regarding being harmful, climate change will result in death and destruction, not in my limited view lacking input from others, but based on volumes of scientific research, some of which is referenced on this SkS website. Do a little homework. There is no excuse for spreading wrong information. -
Bob Loblaw at 06:28 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 40:
Seriously, dude? You think it is a Bad Thing for someone to use labels such as "misunderstanding", "harmful", etc. - but at the same time you use labels such as "woke movement", "cancel culture", etc? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
As for "physical harm" - that ignores all the other sorts of harm associated with speech. Have you ever head of "slander"? Or "libel" (the printed version)? I expect there are very few civilized societies that do not have laws against those forms of speech, and mechanisms where people can recover the damages (loss of reputation, loss of business, extreme emotional harm). And damage can and will occur long before it reaches a point where someone will take the time and effort to sue in court.
-
peppers at 05:58 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Rob,
I responded to a statement in 23, and this was attributed to you mistakenly.
"The serious problem is people who believe they are Right to persist in believing and sharing harmful misunderstandings rather than responsibly considerately learning and self-governing to be less harmful and more helpful 'To Others'."
They penned this in response rather, to an entry of Robs prior. But to respond I think you can decide who comes in your home and oversee what they do and say, as well as how you raise your children and where you worship. The statement above relates to woke cancel culture, labeling and otherwise infringing on the rights of others, to have opinions of their own back in their worlds. Which may be next door.
Retraining, canceling or otherwise silencing other humans means one is considering your opinion is more right than theirs. That they should all think as you and their opinion is now classified as harmful misunderstandings and the offender should be retrained, whatever that entails.
The key is understanding that what you think is right for you does not equal what someone else may think is right in their home. You will thank me to acknowledge that they also cannot tell you how to think in your home.
This is free speech and it includes the public space between all these homes, from all angles. Im reminded of being in line at the beach for something and overhearing a bicyclist loudly lamenting and lambasting all these strollers and roller bladers and runners mucking up the brand new bike path the City just put in. Another bystander, a City worker, heard enough and promptly corrected the speaker that the mission statement for the path included walking, running, skate boarders, strollers and more, as well as bikes.
What can be a clear distinction is real physical harm intended or being done to another. Thats definable.
The definition of what is a harmful misunderstanding from one people, one culture, one gender, class standing, etc., to another cannot be defined to concluded that all should be and think and do only as you do.
I have not found a perameter yet that would permit this. Whole nations have thought the wrong thing and later said, what were we thinking? There is no support in numbers for instance, to make what you think global, or so valid you should want to force it on or silence others. You can sell them something though...
This website promotes discourse. It goes back many years and years of productive discourse. It is biased, but it is no different than going in to a revival tent. They invite you to come in and intend on converting you. This is a respectful use of the free speech arena.
Labeling others thoughts as harmful 'in your opinion' to conduct acts of silencing or vilifying them will ultimately diminish your experience as well (the golden rule).
In my opinion. Thanks all.
Nigelj, some of this may respond to you as well,. On the definition of woke, it has changed several times. It started referring to black justice and some areas now equate it to thinking much like detailed above, canceling as valid woke activity, etc. Best D
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:09 PM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers @36... You seem to be suggesting I said, "Opposing views of anyone, anyone else are harmful misunderstandings, and the person needs to be inculcated and re-oriented to be less harmful/more helpful."
Again, this is gibberish, and it's most certainly nothing that I said.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:18 PM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers makes the following interesting claim at the end of their post @10: “Separating physical acts from thoughts and perspective would allow a thought pool.”
It seems that the claim is 'only actions are harmful', with a clarification by peppers that 'only death threats’ are also harmful. Except for 'death threats' the claim is that 'thoughts' cannot be harmful because everyone’s opinion of what is a harmful thought would be different.
That appears to be the basis for peppers’ thoughts. Thoughts are not harmful. Only actions are harmful. What about the potential for the sharing of thoughts that are misunderstandings to result in harmful actions?
Follow my ‘thoughts about that’ (credit is owed to the originators of this post and those who have commented, but I will not be making specific references).
I will use climate science as the example. And I will focus on social media sharing of 'thoughts'.
The primary harmful actions from the perspective of 'climate science understanding of climate change harm being done' are the actions that increase the global average surface temperature (primarily the increase of ghgs, primarily CO2 from fossil fuel use).
Each person’s impacts may be small. But they all add up. The harmful human climate change impacts are the collective total of the activities of each human.
The important evaluation is the amount of harmfulness attributable to each person – not the comparison of national totals. A related understanding is that perceptions of prosperity or status that developed based on, and reliant upon, the harm of fossil fuel use are 'unsustainable developed illusions'. Attempts to maintain those developed perceptions are also harmful, even if a person wants to believe that it is harmful to limit their ability to maintain their harmfully obtained perceptions of prosperity and status.
The above is clearly about harmful physical acts. But creating and sharing beliefs/thoughts is also an ‘action’. That ‘action’ is understandably harmful if it delays the raising of awareness and understanding of the need for everyone to limit the harm done by physical actions.
Therefore, it is harmful for 'thoughts to be shared through social media' that would delay the learning of the need to rapidly end fossil fuel use. And the creation, initial presentation, of such 'delay provoking' misunderstandings is more harmful than sharing or liking them.
Therefore, and this is clearly supported by the evidence, there are cases where it is harmful to have 'no restrictions on sharing of thoughts' (btw, credible science does not allow debunked thoughts to continue to be repeated). Also, Harmful Thought Production Pools do exist (groups like the Heartland Institute).
Harmful thinkers will always be part of humanity. In order to develop sustainable improvements for humanity the influence of the harmful thinkers needs to be limited. The more limited the influence of harmful thoughts, the faster the development of sustainable corrections and improvements will be.
In conclusion, demands for 'freedom of expression of thoughts' should have to include an evidence-based rational system that will effectively limit the influence of harmful thoughts, with an agreement that freedom of expression would be justifiably limited if the 'system fails to limit harm done'. The marketplace of popularity and profit has proven to fail to limit harm done (on many matters, not just climate change impacts). In fact, the evidence indicates that 'freedom to believe and share misunderstandings' will develop more harmful actions and make it harder for thoughtful considerate people to limit the harm done (climate change impacts are not the only example of this).
People who demand 'freedom of expression in social media' need to prove how it will limit the production of harmful actions (and those harmful actions include expressing, liking and sharing misunderstandings).
Note: I have excluded the obvious harm of unjustified targeting of people through expressions of harmful misunderstanding in social media. Those are actions. And they are harmful actions because there is ample evidence that creating and sharing those misunderstandings prompts people to physically act harmfully towards the targeted person or identifiable group. And each participant promoting the misunderstanding shares responsibility for the harmful actions produced no matter how insignificant or misunderstood they claim their impacts were – Everybody’s actions add up.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:51 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 36:
You have placed a statement in quotes that has not been stated by anyone here other than yourself. You made it in comment #20. OPOF quoted you in comment #23 (and explained how he thought it was a misrepresentation of what he said). You have twice attributed this "quote" to Rob, who has said no such thing.
Please make an effort to actually read what people are saying, and respond to them properly. If you are going to be this sloppy about referencing what others have said to you, any discussion is going to be very difficult.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:31 AM on 24 December 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Bobhisey @441:
In addition to explaining the graphic that Eclectic has pointed you to in comment 442, you may wish to read the "CO2 is saturated" thread, where much more information is available. Your argument about transmissivity falls into that category.
And - like so many climate science "critics" that have made this argument - it looks like your "transmissivity" position (as presented here) completely fails to account for the simple fact that CO2 that absorbs radiation in the 14-16um range will also emit radiation in the 14-16um range. What is seen from space (in any wavelength) is the total of what is emitted from the surface and transmitted through the atmosphere (however small that may be) plus what is emitted at every other height in the atmosphere (including the stratosphere) and transmitted.
All radiation of any specific wavelength is the same. You can't tell where a 14um photon was emitted, or at what temperature the emitting object was. It could have been emitted near the surface at near 288K, or it might have been emitted in the stratosphere at a much colder temperature - and with a much shorter path length (and smaller probability of being absorbed) to space.
Satellite measurements see it all. To assess where ti comes from, you need to do some detailed modelling. Modelling that shows that adding CO2 does have an effect.
-
peppers at 10:39 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Jnigel,
Getting caught up in Christmas and a 3 year old. Sorry and Ill be back! Ill be back and you and I agree on much. We will probably continue to not agree on the original premise we started with from Rob. People who do not agree with his self need to be: "Opposing views of anyone, anyone else are harmful misunderstandings, and the person needs to be inculcated and re-oriented to be less harmful/more helpful." Supercilious folly. Thx Nigelj, D
-
Eclectic at 09:52 AM on 24 December 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Bobhisey @441 , you really need to explain your statement:
"zero energy escapes the earth in the 16-14 micron wavelength range"
~ is this a massive typographical error by you?
Please look at the graph in post #430 [above] which shows the satellite-measured radiation leaving the Earth i.e. "escaping the earth". Clearly, the energy escaping the planet at 16-14 micron range is (roughly) half the intensity at 12 or 18 microns for example. Enormously higher than "zero".
Or were you meaning to convey something entirely different? But what?
