Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Comments 4351 to 4400:
-
Santalives at 13:43 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Eclectic 37. I would be interested in you coments on that site as I only stumbled across it recently. Have read a few articles which seem very plausible and written in a first person style. But there is no info on the author or I suspect multiple authors as some writing style changes mid article.
This is still fun, but it's a bit like going on a date and your mum comes along as Chaperone.
Moderator Response:[BL] We are no longer interested in hearing what you have to say.
-
Eclectic at 13:25 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @36 . . . it is a marvel how you are magnetically attracted to the Numpties, time and again.
Really, Santalives, you wish to back up the Numpty paper by Coe et al., by appealing to the authority of the even bigger Numpty at the greenhousedefect.com blogsite? (As linked at the now-deleted part of your #36. ) The same gh-defective site which states: "It is impossible to produce an ECS beyond 0.5K ."
Granted, the gh-defective author sounds like his IQ is higher than Coe's above-average IQ. But what use is intelligence if it is not used rationally? So many of these prominent denialists (even Nobel Laureates) are like insane medieval longbowmen. They have a good bow, a good arrow, and a strong arm. But their emotional bias & motivated reasoning cause them to turn their bow & arrow 20 degrees to one side of the target. That's why they score Zero in the scientific field of climate. Santalives, it is a pity you don't wish to recognize that.
[ After coffee ~ more on the greenhousedefect site . . . as I hope the Moderator will regard that as informative for readers who have never encountered that blogsite. ]
-
Santalives at 11:06 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
MA Rodger @31. Thanks for your response I thinks it the first time somone has actually refuted the science. But really name calling the authors numpties. I am an average guy reading these posts (like lots of others) trying to understand the issues, but will generally dismiss comments that start name calling. Anyway I went over to wuwt which is having a lively debate and would warn anyone there is a very wide(weird) degree of views. But one of the last posts refutes the article also but say the result is still bascially correct, the basis for tha; greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
The scope of this article is to outline how consensus assumptions violate logical restrictions and produce impossible outcomes. Whether an ECS of about 0.45K could somehow fit an extended “consensus range”, if something like it even exists, is not the question. Rather this estimate is based on the very same foundations the orthodoxy uses. The only difference is in the elimination of logical mistakes. And these mistakes are undeniable.
Moderator Response:[BL] No, it isn't. You just aren't listening. And you are not actually responding in any manner that suggests you understand or read the response in any detail.
Sections that complain about others,and refer to other blogs without actually responding to comments posted here, deleted.
-
MA Rodger at 07:51 AM on 28 February 2022It's albedo
blaisct @127,
I'm not sure this interchange is going anywhere. You are not noting the obvious errors in these numbers you are throwing around and if they were corrected I don't see any relevance to the climate change occuring, either globally or regionally.
On the errors thing, do note that your numbers from the Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart are wrong. Consider simplifying the process you are trying to represent. This is not some reversable process so all that matters is the start & end points, not the route between.
Thus if you choose to start at 25°C & RH=80%, you can add the SH from 16g/kg to 18g/kg (that is 11% increase not 22%) giving RH rising to 89.4% & Enthalpy increasing from 66kJ/kg to 71kJ/kg.
Now if you add further energy through warming with SH fixed at 18kJ/kg, the enthalpy will rise and the RH will drop with that warming.
So your Case 3 with an endpoint of 72.3kJ/kg gives a temperature increased from +25°C to +26.2°C & RH drops to 83.6%.
Your Case 1 with an endpoint of 74kJ/kg gives a temperature increase to +28°C & RH dropping to 75.5%.
And your Case 2 with reduced albedo giving additional warming to +9.7kJ/kg from the same start conditions yields an endpoint of +29.3°C & RH dropping to 69.7%.But these are just numbers. I don't see them relating to what we see of the real world climate change.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
MAR @31, thanks for going to that effort. It's interesing and your comments generally look right to me. The paper looks suspicious straight away because we have already had considerably more warming than their calculations suggest we should have had. However could you (or anyone else) perhaps explain in simpler laypersons terms why the n factor is flawed. If you have a spare moment.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:56 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
I thought that n factor looked funny.
I also thought that the publication looked suspicious. This is not a paper that I would ever had paid attention to, regardless of what it said.
Explanation: After following this so-called debate for 20 years, digging in the "skeptics" (a qualificative they truly don't deserve) arguments and examining what is actually in the science litterature to the best extent of my abilities, I reached the conclusion that the weight of the scientific evidence points, without contest, to CO2 caused anthropogenic warming.
However, that does not exonerate me from being critical toward any piece of information. If something as dubious, as low quality, poorly thought out as Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb came along in a publication with all the hallmarks of a pseudo-journal, but with a conclusion reinforcing the one I already reached, I would dismiss it as junk because, well, it is.
That is what being skeptical consists of.
I'm having serious doubts that Santalives is putting forth a sincere effort to evaluate information.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:07 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
In my comment @32, there is an unstated, but undeniable, link to understanding the harm of rapid climate changes due to human activity.
Structures are designed to safely resist expected climate conditions. If those climate conditions (such as wind speed, snow load, rain accumulation on roofs) change rapidly before the end of use of what has been built they can harmfully change the performance requirements, increasing the chance of a harmful outcome of items that were developed without consideration of the changed performance requirements.
And developments that would be affected by sea level rise are also a concern 'from a Civil Engineer's perspective' of things like roads and sewers and surface run-off management, and concern a structural engineer if the higher water levels compromise the performance of the foundation.
However, a more significant concern for harm done is likely the changes of climate conditions affecting developed regional agricultural practices. There are no guarantees that developed agriculture can adapt to climate changes. And growing conditions shifted to new regions can be very harmful to regional developed societies.
And that leads to understanding the additional concerns for the harm of unsustainable industrial agricultural practices like heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, or reduced genetic diversity in agriculture. And deforestation and heavy use of fossil fuels in industrial agriculture development has the added harm of climate change impacts.
And there is so much more 'developed activity' that is harmful and unsustainable, all excused by misleading marketing that promotes the popularity of harmful unsustainable pursuits of benefit in the short-term.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives,
It is possible that you have become one of the many unwitting victims of harmful misleading marketers. The following may help.
I am an engineer. I learned to have the fundamental ethic of "pursuing increased awareness and improved understanding and applying what I learn to limit harm done and help develop lasting improvements for Others". But I have also learned that my work as a Civil Engineer, particularly my Structural Engineering work, divisively sets me apart from other Appliers of Science, especially the appliers of marketing science. My work powerfully motivates me to have that fundamental ethic govern over pursuit of popularity or profit. If I do not govern what I do that way "People will be far more likely to Die".
I also have an MBA. So I understand the powerful motivation Others can develop. They will be powerfully tempted to allow pursuit of personal benefit (like popularity or profit) to govern over 'concerns to limit harm done or develop lasting improvements for Others'.
As a Structural Engineer if I learn that an existing development is harmful or unsafe I am ethically obliged to push to have the use of the existing development be stopped until it can be made to be safe. Others who benefit from the risky harmful developments will resist the required corrections, because they do not want to suffer the loss of personal benefit that is associated with being governed to have safer, less harmful, developments.
Many developed societies, especially the western capitalist ones (but certainly not exclusively western capitalist ones), can be understood to harmfully allow misleading marketing in pursuit of popularity or profit to govern over concerns for limiting harm done or compromise the understanding of what is required to limit harm done and develop lasting improvements.
Misleading marketing is a powerful "Applied Science". And it is likely that you have, like so many others, developed your thinking, learned, while immersed in the influence of misleading marketing. I even notice other engineers who have been motivated away from governing their thoughts and actions base on limiting harm done and developing lasting improvements. The temptation to acquire more personal status relative to others is very powerful. And misleading marketers prey on that human vulnerability by producing and disseminating harmful misunderstandings that will be very tempting.
Becoming aware of the temptation to be harmfully misled is an important first step. The next step is to learn to change your mind for Good Reason (to be less harmful and more helpful) so that you are less likely to be tempted to be harmfully misled by messages that appeal to your 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs'. If I, or any other structural engineer, were to design structures based on 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs' the results would likely be disastrous.
I hope helps you appreciate the ways that others here have been trying to help you.
-
MA Rodger at 22:43 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @28,
You now present a third pile of nonsense here at SkS. At least you show a level of consistency. Coe et al (2021) 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' is as ridiculous as the other two you presented.Coe et al (2012) claims that it addresses the issue of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which, as is well known, has not been well-nailed-down by science for four decades now. So it would be quite a feat if there was even a smidgeon of promise in this paper to some contribution to the asssessment of ECS.
I could set out why this is an entirely non-scientific paper that well deserves its place in the trash can but in your ignorance you would likely see this as "one side" being disrespectful to "the other side".So instead let me address what these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing that is so badly wrong.
The crux of the ignorance presented within Coe et al (2012) begins to congeal in their Section 1.4. Here they derive entirely on their own** a value called “n” the “energy retention factor” given "a" the "atmospheric absorptivity" (or the proportion of surface radiation gets to space through a clear atmosphere. By using HITRAN to derive "a" (the calculated percentage of surface radiation that reaches space through that clear atmosphere), they derive "n" by balancing "a" against the radiation that has to reach space to balance the incoming solar warming.
The process they use runs as follows.
(**Note the one citation presented by the numpties for this grand work, Wilson & Gea-Banacloche [2012], is a total misrepresentation.)If a black body of 288K (representing the surface temperature) was in equilibrium with today's absorbed solar energy which equates to a 255K black body, they calculate that the energy out into space would be just 61.5% of the 288K black body radiation.
Thus, they derive for today's atmosphere (with a=a0) n.a0 = 38.5% of the surface radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere. However, they also calculate using the grown-up HITRAN database, that the transmission through today's clear atmosphere of such 288K black body radiation would be a0 = 73.0% allowing them to derive in their Section 2.7 a value for "n"; n = 52.7%.
And this incredibly simplistic method allows all the sceintific effort over the last four decades attempting to derive accurate ECS values to be sidestepped. Even the complex impact of clouds on this finding is sweetly side-stepped because, as they tell us in their Section 5.1, clouds are already accounted for in the derivation of "n".And all this is their own work. No supporting evidence. What clever numpties are these Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb.
Of course, there are feedback mechanisms to be negotiated and the numpties calculate (using simplistic assumptins) feedback values for water vapour (+18%) and the wavelength change in the radiation from a warmer world (-5%) with a net result feedback of (1.18 x 0.95 =) +12%.
They then calculate the impact of differing levels of CO2 GHGs on the absorption of surface radiation through a clear atmosphere to calculate direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (400ppm to 800ppm) of +0.45ºC (when the science is irrefutably sure the value is +1.0ºC) and thus with a feedback of +12%, they can derive ECS = +0.5ºC (when the science says +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC).Of course, the GH-effect doesn't work in anything like the manner assumed by Coe et al (2012) so all these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing is advertising their own stupidity.
-
BaerbelW at 21:07 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #28
What in this caveat don't you (want to) understand?
"Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt."
Bottom line: The likelihood that the paper is correct is fairly small and it's fair game to point that out, lest some gullible people might fall for it. Some papers might warrant a proper response, others not so much if indicators like those listed point to it not being up to standards.
-
Eclectic at 19:15 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Thanks, BaerbelW @28 , for those "identifiers".
Amusing how Santalives wants a full-genome DNA analysis of "his" paper, even when the average guy (like me) can look at the paper and say :- If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . and lays a great big duck egg . . . then it is a duck. No DNA test needed. ;-)
-
Santalives at 18:49 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Baerbelw @ 27. Thanks for that response as you confirmed my hypothesis that rather there be any attempt at serious rebuttal @19 comments will be to trash the authors, the publication or dismiss it on the grounds its settled science
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that in one of your earliest comments here, you mentioned a paper with "backscatter" in its title, and commented "The experiment is a fairly straight forward test of the physical properties of c02 to produce back scatter radiation.".
To anyone with even a minor undergraduate-level understanding of the physics of CO2 and climate change, the use of the phrase "back-scatter" in this context shows an abysmal knowledge of how the greenhouse effect works in the atmosphere.
In a comment on a climate science blog. it shows a level of ignorance that can be remedied by learning.
On an undergraduate test, it would result a grade of zero on that question.
In a "scientific" publication, it gives an immediate indication that the authors, reviewers (if there really were any) and editor are completely unqualified to to be writing about or publishing anything on CO2 and climate.
Yes, in some cases it is easy to know that a "paper" is rubbish.
-
BaerbelW at 18:10 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #19
We had received an email about the paper you mentioned and sent back the below as an initial reply. It contains some quick hints of what to check when encountering a paper to quickly judge it's credibility (or lack thereof):
Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt.
- Science Publishing Group, which publishes the "journal", is on Beall's list which is a collection of potentially predatory journals
- The "journal" doesn't have/show an impact factor
- less than 200 papers have thus far been published in it
- judging by the time line - Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021 - not much (if any) proper peer review happened
- non of the authors seems to have a background in climate science, two of them are retired from companies
- questionable authors like William Happer and Herman Harde are listed in the references
In addition, the authors appear to have made a common (or perhaps even deliberate?) error in evaluating the total greenhouse effect (which we know is much larger than the observed changes) instead of the change to the greenhouse effect (which is what matters in discussions of climate change).
Hope this helps to put this publication into perspective!
-
Eclectic at 16:47 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @25 , I note that you still haven't played any valid card.
As for the energetic Rud Istvan, you are mistaken. He appears in many threads, often more than once, at WUWT. He doen't need to explain everything, every time over, to you. He often has something sensible to say (in contradistinction to perhaps 85% of the run-of-the-mill WUWT commenters).
True, he's not a scientist nor a climate scientist. He's more the case of an intelligent guy who's allowed himself to be torpedoed by his own emotions that are producing a bunch of motivated reasonings. Sad. But he's always worth reading, because he can come out with some useful information or some contrarian points worthy of consideration (if only briefly ! )
# Yes, Santalives, WUWT is not quite a complete wasteland of cranks, conspiracist nutters, and luny political extremists. It is possible to learn a bit at WUWT ~ but you have to start with a solid knowledge of science, so you can immediately spot the all the garbage and faulty logic and self-delusion which so many WUWT regulars keep recycling day after day and year after year. So, Santalives, it wouldn't be genuinely useful to you in the slightest. Sorry. The WUWT site is a disorganized mess, and a hopeless case for educating the novice.
For myself reading WUWT , I have a quick skim through the Leading Articles (which are mostly a lot of sour grapes, designed to generate clicks). Anything looking like it might be a bit scientific [though mostly these ones are recycled trash] . . . then I skim through the comments columns ~ trying not to read all the nauseating rubbish comments, and I look for the tiny number of regulars' names who might just be worth a consideration. So scanning through is usually only taking a brief time !
Santalives, if you want to educate yourself above the know-nothing level, then you'll need to do the bulk of the heavy lifting yourself. Start at your zero level (where you seem incapable of judging good from bad) and take one step at a time. You cannot expect me or Rud Istvan to spend umpteen hours spoonfeeding you. Especially when you are giving out a strong vibe that you are reluctant to learn . . . and reluctant to accept that anyone (scientist or denialist) knows more than you.
Good luck in improving yourself !
-
Santalives at 14:51 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Eclectic @24. I'm glad Rud Istvan is energetic but maybe he shouldn't being making statements like those quoted above and where he cannot explain himself other than point to other scientists who, he thinks because they are labelled deniers makes his rebuttal valid.
I thought the whole point of sks was to to provide rebuttal to evidence presented not play he said, she said. Simply you said the paper is rubbish, based on what? Are any of the equations wrong?
Moderator Response:[BL] This comment will will be left intact, as others have responded, but note that is violates several aspects of the comments policy, and would have been deleted entirely. Santalives is simply repeating his nonsense over and over again, without responding directly to any previous criticisms.
-
Eclectic at 14:23 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @23 . . . very droll of you, again. The SkS comments column not being in a logical dated order, is something worthy of the Stephen Colbert show. (Does Stephen have a successor lined up yet?)
And yes, Santalives, you should get a handle and jump right into the tepid . . . er, water . . . at the comments columns of WUWT . You can then tell Rud Istvan (whose level of energy I respect) that he should completely ignore all published papers older than 12 months. Tough about Einstein and all that crew . . . but really, they were so yesterday's fashions. Thumbs up !
Santalives, for a long time here, you have been asked to play a sensible card. So far, all you've played are two Jokers [Koutsoyiannis paper and Coe paper]. I would like to think that's that for now, and you are going to get serious. But I am worried by the multi-deck sized bulge up your left sleeve. ( Is it possible to buy a deck which is all Jokers? ~Probably only at the WUWT shop.)
-
Santalives at 12:54 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Eclectic, @22
If you read what I wrote it was it would be useful if comments could be sorted by date. That way you could read the latest comments rather than start with stuff from a decade ago. But glad you thought that's funny.
Not sure about Rud, his very first statement is:
Figure 13 is wrong, casting all that follows in doubt
When asked why, his answer is
I dunno why or how figure 13 is wrong.
Then goes off quoting some other paper from 12 years ago.
Anyway as Philipe Chantreau said here's hoping something with some knowledge on the subject will enlighten us all.
Moderator Response:[BL] Please buy a clue. You can read the most recent comments on a thread by starting at the end. Your expectation that someone else work to sort the material into a convenient order for your taste is a strong indication of you wlilingness to do any work yourself.
...and 12 years ago is recent, in a scientific discipline that goes back to the 1800s. The current science is built on a solid foundation, and if you fail to consider that foundation when examining the current science, you end up believing all sorts of clap-trap.
As stated previously, you have huge amounts of learning to do. You have provided zero indication that you have read, and understood, any of the material you claim to have knowledge of.
-
Eclectic at 11:47 AM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @19 , it is always a fine day for me when I come across two good jokes in a day. (A) The first is that you say you've read "nearly every one of the [over 200] Climate Myth and many of the comments." And how you felt that the comments were not arranged by date. Thank you for your personal revelations in these matters. Difficult to top.
(B) The second joke: was the David Coe et al., paper which you linked to @ WattsUpWithThat blogsite. Hilarious. Even your paper by the good professor Koutsoyiannis looks half-way sane in comparison.
Santalives, sit down and put your thinking cap on. As Philippe Chantreau [above] says, the Coe paper is wildly . . . wildly . . . inconsistent with everything that's within arm-reach of conventional climate science. IIRC, only the good Lord Monckton has ever come out with a similar figure to Coe's ultra-low 0.5K figure for total climate sensitivity to CO2. And Monckton seems to produce new & wildly high/low ECS figures annually (but with a strong bias toward Zero).
Now, I've looked through the WUWT assessment of the Coe paper. Not encouraging, at all. As usual, a number of commenters there deny that CO2 absorbs radiation and/or deny that there is any GreenHouse Effect whatsoever. At my own time of writing [>80 comments] no expert scientist has appeared to make comment at WUWT . Especially no climate scientist. Yes, that is the usual lofty standard of scientific analysis at WUWT .
# However, Santalives, if you scroll down to a couple of comments by Rud Istvan [an intelligent & well-informed guy, if you make allowance for his bad case of motivated reasoning on climate] . . . you will find he shows that some semi-respectable "contrarian" scientists such as Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen give a climate sensitivity of 1.1 - 1.2 for CO2 alone [without the large additional feedback from H2O ].
'Nuff said. The Coe paper you mentioned is simply garbage. Santalives, please remember the acronym GIGO ~ where sometimes you see the Garbage going In . . . and sometimes (e.g. with Coe et al., ) you see the Garbage coming Out.
# Oh, Santalives, I did come across a joke yesterday :
"My math teacher really hated negative numbers. Hated them. He would stop at nothing to avoid them."
-
Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
"the content at WUWT seems to be better researched."
That is the funniest thing I have read in a while. People like me who have been following this non-debate for a long time know better.
WUWT is the site where the superbly absurd idea that excess CO2 fell back on Antarctica as carbonic snow was presented, and bitterly defended by the peanut gallery, even after multiple posts showing the phase diagram of CO2 and emphasizing the importance of partial pressure. Finally, someone could beat some sense into Anthony Watts' head, and made him realize that he had better take this off the site if he wanted any appearance of credibility. It is still accessible through the wayback machine, I believe.
The very premise of WUWT existence was the following: there is no warming, it is all an artefact of poorly designed temperature reporting stations, and the whole thing might even be intentional (insert ominous music).
This theory was successfully challenged on multiple occasions: first by a John V, who did a quick analysis of the high quality stations showing no significant difference with the major other datasets. Then, there was the BEST project, led by Richard Muller, who somehow lent credence to the concerns of some so-called "skeptics." At the time this effort was launched, Watts solemnly swore that he woud accept the conclusions. That enthusiasm evaporated (another feedback perhaps?) when the conclusions were released, confirming what the other datasets were already showing. Then, some NOAA researchers published a paper reaching, again, the same conclusions. Then, after much, much time, Watts himself participated in a research paper that essentially redid what the NOAA researchers had done, and reached the same conclusions again, but he pulled a "Spencer" by still making some vacuous argument that, in some way, he could still be right.
Over time, of course, the continued warming forced it to go silent about the very hypothesis that caused its existence in the first place, but there was never any shortage of new spots where other goal posts could be moved. It has now evolved and received help from people who managed to give it a better appearance. Nonetheless, it is still the same motivated reasoning machine that it always was.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:37 AM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
The "article in point" claims this: "In fact, the
climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to
800ppm is calculated to be 0.45 Kelvin."However, there has already been over 1 degree of temperature increase compared to pre-industrial, with the concentration going from 290 ppm to 400 ppm and we are nowhere near equilibrium for 400, which would take some time.
I did not see in the paper a competing explanation for the measured increase. I also did not see why exactly they believe that all the rest of the litterature that concludes the equilibrium sensitivity for a doubling of pre-industrial concentration is around 3 degrees is wrong.
The argument against feedbacks is not very detailed and amounts to little more than hand-waving. It flies in the face of an extensive body of research into the glacial/interglacial transitions associated with Milankovitch cycles.
At first glance, I am not very impressed. Hopefully, more qualified commenters will look into it. I am also not sure about the publication where this piece appeared.
-
Santalives at 08:53 AM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@electic. 18. I don't have a handle over ar wuwt. This is the only CC site I have ever signed up too. I was hoping it would provide a robust discussion of CC especially around the more controversial issues. I have read nearly everyone of the Climate Myth and many of the comments. They are less than convincing, not sure if it's the age of articles or the comments you read which start 15 years ago. ( useful feature would be able to sort comments by date).
For an article in point www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12. Which is discussed on today's wuwt, this is the sort I thing I thought sks would provide the alternative view on. But I suspect the comments will be to trash the authors, the publication or dismiss it on the grounds its settled science. It's the latter is probably the most frustrating. I watched the Rogan interviews with Nonien and the Dressler. Worth a watch and will let you decide who is more credible.
Moderator Response:[BL] Of course, the comments are sorted by date - from oldest to newest. That is the sequence in which the conversations take place. If this is a difficult concept for you to follow, then it is no surprise that you have such difficulty in following the science.
As for you claim that you have read nearly every one of the Climate Myths - that claim requires evidence, and you have provided none. Suitable evidence would be to add a comment on one of the articles you question - i.e., on a place where it is on topic.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:57 AM on 27 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
nigel, Ian and Bob:
My comments were meant in the context of the content of the video series. They are additional ways of exposing the lack of good reason in the Oregon Petition (referred to in the videos as the "Global Warming Petition Project"), and the potential harmful reasoning behind its creation.
The points you present are valid. However, they are not likely to be effective at spoiling the misleading marketing attempt of something like the Oregon Petition. Focusing on the lack of good reason in the claim is likely a better way to inoculate a person from being fooled in the future. It is also better than saying a version of "Believe me when I say that the Oregon Petition is incorrect".
I added the ethical angle of challenging a claim on purpose. It applies to this case. But, more importantly, the ethical perspective can effectively refute economic evaluations that conclude that significantly more than 1.5 C warming is Fair and Justified. The ethical perspective makes it easier to point out the ways that the economic evaluations fail to properly evaluate the case, and have the added bonus of raising questions about the motivations of the people who do the evaluations in those ways. They are attempting to excuse understandably harmful actions.
There have been many economic evaluations performed to compare the 'perceived impacts today if climate change harm is limited' vs. 'perceived future impacts of not limiting climate change harm'. There are many ethical faults in those evaluations, even in the one done by Stern that showed the benefits of aggressive action to limit climate change impacts. They discount the cost of harm done in the future. And they fail to fully evaluate the future harm that is discounted because the total harm is uncertain at this time. The Ethical Engineering approach to uncertainties about potential harm is to amplify what is able to be evaluated to account for the uncertainty. None of the economic evaluations did that, because they need to try to excuse known harm being done.
A more powerful critique of those evaluations is not the Stern approach of using a 'lower discount rate'. It is the fundamentals of Ethics which clearly indicate it is unacceptable to "Compare the Benefit some people obtain with the Harm done to Others and claim things to be OK as long as the situation is a Net-Zero". And the ethical evaluation goes further than that. The ethical evaluation does not allow the people hoping to benefit form compromising or participating in the evaluation of the acceptability of their beliefs and actions.
It can be very powerful to focus on the fundamental understanding that it is best for all actions to be governed by "Do no harm - Help develop lasting improvements for Others". That statement, that is the core of Ethical Engineering and the Sustainable Development Goals, can be very hard to argue against (but some people will still try, usually by attempting to make it appear that such thinking is Ivory Tower Elitist or Incredibly Naive or a fancy way of hiding the true intent of Authoritarian take-over. It isn't any of those things. But those appear to be the only paths of attack available).
I will close by saying that my perspective is clearly 'not the norm', not even among engineers or professors of ethics. But I will add that things are likely to only get worse, while misleadingly appearing to be improving, until the ethical focus becomes the norm among Leaders who are no longer harmfully compromised by the potential popularity or profitability of harmful misunderstandings.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:46 AM on 27 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
Note that the Oregon petition is on the SkS list of most-used climate myths.
https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
Whenever such petitions are discussed, I also like to point out the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve. (Disclaimer: one of the Steves is there because I told him about it.)
-
Ian Forrester at 12:52 PM on 26 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
The Oregon Petition was accompanied by 2 pieces of AGW denier malfeasance. Firstly was the cover letter from Frederick Seitz signed as past president of the National Academy of Sciences and secondly an AGW denier paper with Baliunas and Soon as co-authors formatted to make it look as if it was published in PNAS.
-
nigelj at 08:30 AM on 26 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
Regarding the "Global Warming Petition Project". I believe it is also called the Oregon Petition. It has no credibility. For example many of the signatories are social scentists, and some are dead people and others fictitious people and very few are climate scientists. The wikipedia entry documents investigative studies on the so called petition.
And the petition statement: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [ghgs] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating ..." Is just a strawman because scientists have not claimed such a thing could happen. So its a meangless statement. They have found the consequences of global warming will be very serious for humanity, due to increased severity of heatwaves and floods, other changes to weather extremes, sea level rise, and reduced agricultural output etc, etc.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:24 AM on 26 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
There is also an ethical angle for critically evaluating the "Global Warming Petition Project"
My understanding (open to improvement) is that ethics is about evaluating and governing things based on "Do no harm - Help develop lasting improvements for Others". The petiton includes statements that are clearly irrational and inconsistent from that ethical perspective.
The premise that "... proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment." is clearly ethically incorrect. In addition to the harm done to the existing environment by the global warming produced by human actions increasing the ghgs, the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels causes many other types of harm to people and the environment.
And, after that incorrect application of the concern for 'harm', the petition jumps to "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [ghgs] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating ...". Suddenly 'convincing evidence' (a matter of personal interpretation) is required and the harm has to be 'catastrophic' and has to occur in the 'foreseeable future'. None of those criteria were part of the earlier flawed position.
Anyone who accepts such an ethically compromised presentation probably has developed a powerful preference for ethically compromising many matters, including compromising the term 'ethics'. That reinforces the concern about signatories of the petition who have jobs related to 'public safety'.
-
Evan at 23:34 PM on 25 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
OPOF, agree with your comments. EV's are not the answer, just one tool. I do not push people to prematurely switch to EV's, especially if they are already driving small cars and not driving them that far. In our case we switched from driving a truck 25,000 miles/year to a Tesla. I figure we save 10 tons of CO2/year. Yes, the root cause is driving 25,000 miles/yr. We live in an area where driving is dangerous (lots of deer and trucks on 2-lane roads) and our choice was for more sheet metal to stay safe. Now I feel that we have a better option with Tesla's top safety ratings and 100 mpge.
One thing I love about owning an EV, any EV, is that it presents opportunities to talk about alternative transportation and renewables. I agree with you OPOF that EV's do not make sense everywhere, but we do need to keep pushing in the direction of hybrids/plug-in hybrids/EV's as hard and fast as we can.
And simply reducing the amount we drive is a winner as well, no matter what we drive!
-
Eclectic at 16:48 PM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @17 : <" I joined this site to ask some questions and learn something."> [unquote]
Okay . . . that's why most people come to SkS. Reading through the [Home Page] sections : Newcomers Start Here and The Big Picture gets you off to a good start. And if you have some particular points of interest, then there's a huge list of Most Used Climate Myths with all sorts of good stuff (even too, in their comments columns ~ though often lengthy). [ by the way, the WattsUpWithThat blogsite is disorganized & useless for anyone wishing to learn . . . at any level ! ]
And you can enter into many comments columns [as you have] for more questions/discussions. But, Santalives, a Home Truth is that you yourself have been (repeatedly) doing the Hurt Innocence and Playing Tonto act. It fools nobody.
What card do you want me to play? ~Anything that is to do with climate science, which you seem to think is somehow faulty. I have asked you many times to play a card.
<" [I] don't have any knock out evidence about anything but I have learnt that neither side does, which is why we seem to have the never ending debate. "> [unquote]
~ In other words, Santalives, you don't know anything about the climate subject, and you are absolutely sure that nobody else does either. Bravo, amigo mio. Bravo. Sounds like you would fit in well at WUWT. Plenty of folks to see there ~ angry folks, who don't know and don't want to learn. [ WUWT is basically a site for venting anger, and sour grapes, and for stoking outrage. That sort of stuff keeps the click rate high ! ]
btw, Santalives, I am often observing at WUWT. Let me know what handle you have there, and I can pay closer attention. And keep an eye out for an old friend of mine there. Surname six letters, starting with Z. Usually he is just angry . . . but occasionally he states that he was abused & expelled from SkS. Unsurprisingly, that's a complete "porkie".
Best of luck, Santalives.
Moderator Response:[BL] Santalives will be subject to more aggressive moderation from here on in, and I would encourage the others to wait a bit and hold off on responding to him.
I will leave this post intact for now, but I would tell Santalives to follow the links suggested by Eclectic, as Santalives really, really needs to show evidence that he can read, understand, and learn from the material available here if he wants to continue to comment here.
-
Santalives at 15:01 PM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Eclectic 10. I joined this site to try ask some questions and learn something. But can't say many responses are helpful or nice that for matter. Not sure what the story is with the moderator but fairly sure if I said 1/2 the things that have been directed at me I would get punted.
what card do you want me to play. don't have any knock out evidence about anything but I have learnt that neither side does, which is why we seem to have the never ending debate. But it's not actually a debate any more but each side (and there are more than 2) simply accuses the other of disinformation. I have to admit the content over at wuwt seems to better researched and presented then here. So if this is a propaganda war they seem to winning.
Moderator Response:[BL] Moderation complaints snipped.
You can start by reading the Comments Policy. In particular, you can look at what it says about moderation complaints:
All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
Your general behavior here is been confrontational and unproductive. Many of your earlier claims, such as "the science isn't settled", are so common that this site has a list of such claims and why they do not hold water. The top 10 are listed on the upper left of every page you read here, and the entire list is linked under the "View All Arguments" text.
You have claimed you don't need "fact checkers" because you can decide for yourself. Nearly every post that you have made here provides lots of evidence that you do not have the skills to tell the difference between crap and actual climate science.
You have shown no evidence that you have actually read and understood any material provided on this site, and you have repeatedly failed to engage on actual science discussions that others have attempted to provide.
The fact that you look at this as starting with "two sides" shows that you come into this with baggage that perverts your ability to judge the science.
First, you need to un-learn much of what you think you know about "climate science", and then start learning again.
The simple fact is that none of your posts here have presented any new information or argument. The regulars here have seen it all before, and seeing it all again just gets tiresome.
-
Santalives at 14:09 PM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
Is there a plan B? Given the geopolitical crises and the fact Russia and China generally ignore then IPCC, it is more then probable that the rate of emissions may increase in spite of climate change policies elsewhere. So what is the solution?
Moderator Response:[BL] Your rhetorical posturing by Just Asking Questions has worn thin. Unless you actually provide substantive commentary on the blog posts you are responding to, expect to see such questions deleted in their entirety.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:20 PM on 25 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Here is a recent CBC News item that presents the current day reality of relocating homes out of potential climate change impacted areas and areas already impacted by climate change.
"Cities are abandoning homes that will be destroyed by climate change"
Note that something similar happened in Calgary after the 2013 flood. The option for people to move out of flood risk zones and have the property remain undeveloped was the course of action. And because there was so much development at risk the offer was only available to a few properties 'most at risk'. And property owners who chose to rebuild rather than be bought out had to renovate to have no basement developments at risk of flood damage and main floors raised above established flood risk levels.
So, many developed areas in wealthy nations are already paying the price of the impacts due to previous generations refusing to give up on benefiting from harmful ways of living.
-
blaisct at 09:33 AM on 25 February 2022It's albedo
I don't know what went wrong but I tested these; Online psychrometric chart and Tutorial
Please except my assumption and online calculator results in the summary of the three conditions, they are only examples.
Doing some further research on the clouds I found this site Cloud Ceiling Calc that had a correlation used by airplane pilots to predict cloud celling.Cloud ceiling (m) = (ground temp. – ground dew point)/2.6 *1000*0.3084
The base case is virgin land with lots of trees and vegetation, and is simulated by adding water to the online psychrometric chart calculator. The water added (22% of total water) is typical of data for rain forest type land.
I have added the cloud ceiling calculation to the summary to show that the LHAC cases increase the cloud ceiling no matter what the albedo is. The high albedo case is 20% higher albedo than the base case and much greater than your chart on W/m^2 vs time. The emphasis of the LHAC theory is that cities and cropland do not put as much water into the atmosphere as the orginal virgin land and this lack of water can reduce the cloud cover.
Summary of these cases:
Base case: 29.2’C and 70% RH with 23.3 dew point calculating 701 m ceiling
Low albedo: 33.4’C and 47% RH with 21.4 dew point calculating 1543 m ceiling
High albedo: 31.5’C and 55.5% RH with 21.4 dew point calculating 1171 m ceiling
Cloud ceiling and cloud cover should have a correlation. -
One Planet Only Forever at 09:00 AM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Philippe @15,
I encounter a similar problem regarding the use of the term Ethical.
Seems that these days some people consider Ethical to mean "complying with 'their' interpretations of a set of rules, with or without a version of the word 'ethical' in the title of the rules".
People also claim that if something cannot be proven "conclusively to their satisaction" to have been done or harmful then it wasn't done or harmful. And when they are presented (confronted from their perspective) with evidence of harm done that they want to excuse, they will argue that their perception of the benefits obtained outweights 'their perception of the harm done'. That is the classic flawed utilitarian argument that the Greater Good is being achieved "as they see it". And everybody's perception is an equally valid alternative perception will be claimed if necessary. ANd the need to compromise understanding to suit everyone's perception becomes the 'pragmatic centrist' thing to do.
That leads to needing "alternative facts", or whatever else needs to be claimed to maintain the harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful actions they have developed a liking for.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:23 AM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
I noticed something else misleading and concerning about the "Global Warming Petition Project" that should raise doubts and concerns about it and its signatories and its developers and promoters.
The Petition wording is very questionable. It states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [ghgs] is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating ...". The term "catastrophic" is misleading and open to interpretation. And the term "human release" could be interpreted as only being human breath, burps and farts. And what exactly is the "foreseeable future"?
The Petition also states that "... proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment." Anyone claiming to seriously believe that point has more questionable mental capability than the point that they lack direct climate science experience.
Post-secondary education is not required to see how questionable the posed Petition is. People should really be concerned about the potential that the people who signed such a misleading vague and incorrect claim as if it was a legitimate understanding could have responsible 'public safety related' roles in society. Perhaps the signatories should not be doing the jobs they are doing.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:58 AM on 25 February 2022Video series: The science of Cranky Uncle
This set of 3 videos is a great presentation of the problem of misinformation and effective solutions.
When dealing with a person claiming that 'global warming isn't happening because it is cold' I like to try to further than pointing out the fallacy of believing that since it is cold somewhere at some time during the year global warming is not occurring. I like to ask them if they are aware of how much 'average global surface temperature warming' has been measured in the past century (today vs the 1910s). The answer is that the warming has been about 1 degree C through the past 100 years. That leads to the question "Would 1 degree C warmer be expected to mean there would be no more cold days anywhere?"
The SkS Temperature Trend Calculator is very helpful if the person questions, or is unsure of, this point. It shows that:
from 1910 to 1920 the global data sets indicate an average of about -0.4C with variations ranging from -0.1C to -0.5C.
from 2010 to 2020 the global data sets indicate an average of about +0.75C with variations ranging from +1.1C to +0.6C.If they let me show them the SkS Temperature Trends, I also point out that the trend of temperatures during 1910 to 1920 is a significantly slower increase than 2010 to 2020. Which is consistent with the knowledge that human activity was causing global warming impacts at a slower rate 100 years ago. And the atmospheric CO2 levels support that understanding. And if they are willing to learn more I show them the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory website CO2 Animation ... and that can lead to more learning about ghgs.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 25 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
When I see "alternative facts," the reasoning of the one using the concept immediately falls under suspicion. How did that even become a concept? There are facts. Some are important, others not. They can be relevant, or not, are part of a context, but how can they be alternative? The bullshit wars have taken a toll...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:58 AM on 25 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Evan (and Eclectic),
Everyone's situation will result in different sensible actions they can take to reduce how harmful their way of living and earning a living is.
Their transportation choices are an example. Choosing the method of transportation that is the least harmful involves far more consideration than the amount of CO2 produced by the energy it requires. But a more significant consideration is the choice of where they live to reduce how much energy they need for their transportation requirements.
Like you and Eclectic I evaluated the variety of personal vehicle options. I settled on a hybrid sedan, and not a plug-in. My evaluation concluded that the regional electricity generation in Alberta would produce more harm than burning gasoline to power my hybrid. So a plug-in was worse that an efficient hybrid (not all hybrids are the same). A more important decision was choosing to live in the city close to regularly visited amenities and to public transit. That maximized my walking, biking and public transit use.
The recent discovery of how much 'fugitive methane emissions' are associated with natural gas operations makes the use of electricity in Alberta even worse. That also made me feel better about having already upgraded the windows, furnace and water heater of my 35 year old home. Another action I had taken was to buy a smaller home than I could afford but to pay more to buy a reasonably well built one (6 inch thick insulated exterior walls and thick attic insulation).
Another thing I learned when investigating my vehicle options was that having Renewable electricity generation capacity does not mean it will be used. Alberta has lots of wind generation capacity. But the Alberta grid does not maximize the generation and use of wind power. It maximizes the use of the base load coal power generation. And the conversion of that coal power generation to natural gas generation is not much of an improvement, especially considering the fugitive methane reality.
In closing, I agree with the value of focusing on the Keeling Curve. Increased CO2 is the most significant human ghg impact. But it is important to point out that the other ghgs of concern, identified and presented in the IPCC reports, are additional harmful results of human economic competition. That insatiable pursuit of More Impressions of Superiority, with the related need to create and disseminate More Misleading Marketing to increase the popularity of harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful pursuits of More, is the root 'systemic problem' that needs to be Governed by the persistent pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding applied to limit harm done and help sustainably improve the future for all of humanity.
The developed popularity and profit based 'competitions for perceptions of superiority relative to Others' is tragically harmful in many more ways than the powerful misleading resistance to giving up the 'climate change impacting' developed ways of benefiting that SkS strives to correct.
-
Evan at 21:13 PM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
I see the feedback message as simply informing the power company that they can increase their renewable power generation up one notch. It's no secret that we need to match storage with renewable energy generation. Even thought we may need to rebuild the grid to do this effectively, we still need that market signal from consumers to power providers to get things rolling.
Plug-in hybrids are fine. My preference against them is not because of carbon emissions during manufacturing, but simply because of upkeep and repairs. EV's are conceptually much simpler than hybrids and sshould be cheaper and simpler to repair. But I understand the attraction of plug-in hybrids as the "best" of both worlds.
For us the V2H capability is much more emotionally attractive. We lose power about 4 times/year. I can only imagine that getting worse, not better. Again, it's a perfect match between the size of EV batteries and typical home power requirements. Most US houses use about 30 kWh/day, and EV's typical have batters in the 40-100 kWh range.
But for now we are still firing up a gas burner when the power goes out. :-(
-
MA Rodger at 21:08 PM on 24 February 2022It's albedo
blaisct @125,
Your URLs don't work but...
I assume when you say @123 that "the psychometric chart in @106 shows the math" you mean that this Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart for HVAC engineers does the aritmentic. The "math" is your own. And I would suggest it includes questionable assumptions as well as error and is incomplete. Certainly the contradiction I posed @122 (that Costa et al [2007] showed increasing albedo rather than the required decreasing albedo yet still showed warming temperatures) remains unexplained.
-
Eclectic at 11:21 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Fair enough, Evan. (+ I'm sorry to be intruding on your thread so often)
My local electricity retailers do offer a guaranteed renewable [unquote] package, but I've never taken them up on it. I figure it was a zero-sum game, and what I used would simply be deducted from someone else.
It's a tricky one. Perhaps in Minnesota, it sends a signal to the power generators that customers are interested in an increase in renewable power (and a signal to politicians that voters are interested, too). But on the other hand, it could all blow back if the power companies & politicians see that only a tiny percentage of customers go that way. The best, perhaps, is if the small number of customers is showing a steady upward trend?
As you say, a car battery with V2H capability is emotionally attractive, for people do worry about power outages . . . and do like to feel they have some sort of control. Even if it doesn't actually amount to much, in real terms (on an hours per year basis). And for myself, I would love to have a car with 1000-1500 watt AC output ~ when I go camping out in the sticks. Can see myself "glamping" it up, with micro-wave oven & a coffee-maker. Decadent.
A further point on plug-in hybrids : although they are in a sense doubly complex, does this make any major difference to their carbon input for manufacture? Note that some of these plug-ins have no mechanical transmission (and that's another saving on carbon input). And with a V2H plug-in hybrid in your garage, you can run it and keep topping up the fuel tank during really prolonged outages of electricity supply.
-
Evan at 10:40 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic@97 When we bought our Tesla the local power company had a deal where they guaranteed that the power we use to charge our car comes from wind power, basically using credits for that. I have no illusion that my buying a Tesla will save the world, but we drive about 25,000 miles/year. My wife worked at a rollerrink that was a 50 mile roundtrip. We could have taken the philosophy of her quiting her job was better than driving any car that far of a commute, but she was working with children, the leaders of the next age. I figured she was doing good for society working with kids, so it alleviated my guilt to know we were driving a EV powered by wind.
Yes, it will take much much more than EV's. But it;s a start.
We also have a 20-year old truck that we will use for hauling. It gets driven maybe 200 miles/year. Obviously there is no sense trading it in for a "greener" vehicle, because we would never work off the carbon used to make it.
I prefer to bypass plug-in hybrids because you have all the complexity of gas engines plus all the electric components. The Tesla is a great car and I'm confident the Fords will be as well. The only thing I'm frustrated with on the Tesla is no vehicle-to-home capability. It is a bummer to have that big battery that cannot be tapped. Ford definitely did good by providing power outlets and the ability to plug it into the house out of the box.
But the bottom line is that EV's are simply great cars to drive: stable, no transmission, quiet, and the best of all in Minnesota, they start every day, no matter how cold it is outside. :-)
-
blaisct at 07:35 AM on 24 February 2022It's albedo
Rodger @122
To show that albedo differences are not that significant, let’s do three examples on the psychometric chart. 1) the land the UHI/cropland was on before. 2) the UHI/cropland with decrease albedo 3) the UHI/land with increased albedo. In event 1 of the LHAC theory we have two things going on: one, the pure albedo effect that is about 0.08W/m^2 for a 0.05 albedo change (not very much), and two the total heat from the sun (about 177 W/m^2) is generating hot low RH air. We will use the psychometric chart to calculate the difference in the “cloud killing” capability of this air in the three cases. You chart at @124 is clearer than mine at @106 but does not show that the yellow lines (wet bulb lines) are constant enthalpy lines (on a dry air basis), constant flux (W/m^2) or the albedo over time transferred to the air (W-hr/m^3 or kJ/kg(dry air)). (if you were an air-conditioner installer this would be related to the HP or tons of your unit, in our case it is the sun’s energy.) We need to get to these units to calculate how much cloud cover this hot low RH air can destroy or prevent, then we can go back to W/m^2.
I will be honest with you; I use a free online calculator for these charts at Online Interactive Psychrometric ChartThe site Tutorial is a good tutorial.
The following is from the interactive site;
1) For virgin land let’s pick 25’C and 80% relative humidity a little after the sun rises on a clear day, that will put us on the constant specific humidity, SH, line of about 16 g/kg(dry air), the web site call this “Humid.Ratio”. To simulate an sensible heat rise over the course of the day, move right on the constant 16g/kg(dry air) SH line for this example we will stop at 52% RH and 32.5’C (this would be the conditions with no water added) (The 52% RH will match the 8.0 kJ/kg(da)(differences between starting conditions and end of day enthalpy conditions needed to match most cities temp vs RH line, I am sorry this is a trial and error procedure). We will also assume that vegetation and other water sources add water to 18 g/kg(dry air)(22% increase in SH, this is equivalent to one example I found- not much data out there on this) results in an adiabatic cooling (follow yellow line back to right) to 29.2’C and 70% RH on the 18g/kg line.
2) For decrease in albedo, we will assume 20% higher energy than case 1, or 9.7kJ/kg(da) (this was in range of city data I found), and we will start at the same RH of 80% and 25’C. The trial-and-error calculation yields 33.4’C and 47% RH.
3) For increase in albedo, we will assume 20% lower energy than case 1, or 6.4kJ/kg(da). The trial-and-error calculation yields 55.5% RH and 31.5’C.
Note: the temp vs RH for most cities I plotted match the no water added lines in the psychrometric chart.
Summary of these cases: all cases start at 25'C and 80% RH.
Base case: 29.2’C and 70% RH water added
Low albedo: 33.4’C and 47% RH
High albedo: 31.5’C and 55.5% RH
The base case is just into the cloud killing/prevention range of 80% and the other two cases are well into the cloud killing/prevention area. This is only an example not a conclusion.
The next question is how much of the hot low RH air is produced and how much makes it to cloud destruction/prevention. We know from the plume described in Figure 3 of @121 that it is 2-4 X the area of the UHI/cropland. This calculation would require more expertise than I have. I have looked at some very rough numbers (without mixing and pressure change) and get a significant percentage (4%-45%) of the atmosphere that could be affected not counting the probability of getting a chance at cloud destruction/prevention.
The IPCC has very good mixing and thermo models that should be able to do this. -
Eclectic at 05:12 AM on 24 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Your next article will be most welcome, Evan.
The Keeling Curve will be stuck in its upslope for decades to come. We are blowing straight past 1.5 degreesC, and reaching 2.5 C looks a more likely peaking point. On the plus side ~ by that stage, the voters (and shareholders) will be clamoring for stricter measures . . . and most of the hard-core denialists will have died off.
But to cheer you up ~ my local story is different from yours. No tar sands here. Natural gas combined-cycle turbines provide the bedrock foundation of electrical power. We are not up to Denmark's standard yet . . . but domestic rooftop solar panels are sprouting everywhere in the suburbs, and in the country the wind turbines are claiming more and more hilltops.
My computer has a permanent tab open, showing the local electrical power generation. The picture shows gas/renewables at 50/50 at midnight (those windfarms do quite well on average). During the day, it shows 70-90% renewables, depending on wind and cloud. And so I try to limit my domestic heating/airconditioning to the peak-renewables times.
Tesla is a rare bird here ~ envied, but not copied much. Yes, everyone wants SUV's. For myself, I follow the "sunk cost" theory, and drive a 20-year-old diesel, and plan to run it into the ground. Not sure if that is the best policy, but I can make a good case for it (at present).
For Minnesota, a plug-in hybrid, surely !
Green electricity is fine, but at this stage, massive hydrocarbon fuels are needed ~ and we need a green source for those, too.
-
Evan at 21:49 PM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Eclectic@93 Thanks for your comments and glad you liked the article.
We are making "progress", and I, like you, am impressed with the Ford Lightning. We bought one of those "trendy" Teslas, not because we could afford it, but because it is hard for me to live with the knowledge I have about the Climate Crisis and not do anything. Five years ago Tesla was the only serious game in town. If it was today, likely I would buy a Ford. Also, in Minnesota about 90% of the gas we burn comes from tar-sands oil. I was having a difficult time living with that knowledge as well. So we bought a Tesla instead of waiting. The cost of the car hurt, but it eased my mind.
However, in my articles I draw people back again and again to the Keeling Curve. The reason is that people get excited about this bit of news or that, but nothing we've done, absolutely nothing has had any effect on the Keeling Curve's upward acceleration. Even though we have enough carbon in the atmosphere to take us to 1.7C, we're told there are plans to hold the warming at 1.5C. IF this miracle is to happen, it must happen so soon and with such effect that we should see the effect in the Keeling Curve within a few years. I have posts coming up on this with my thoughts, so I won't belabor it here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:59 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
This is the UN webpage for the series of Conferences that started with the 1972 Stockholm Conference (50th anniversary this year) that I mention in my comment @92.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:51 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
My apologies for using 'his' in reference to Santalives in the opening statement of my comment @92. I should have used 'their'.
-
Eclectic at 07:49 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
Historical note for future readers of this thread :
the good Santalives has simpy transferred his circular and repetitive non-arguments to other threads.
- - - - - - -
Evan , allow me to repeat: your Lead Article is perceptive, and the analogy you draw is apt. The sociological impediments are large indeed, and yet progress is being made.
One example, IMO , is the new model Ford pickup truck, the Ford "F150 Lightning Electric". Not yet "on the streets" in numbers ~ but the advance orders are huge, and the Ford company is struggling to ramp up its production facilities. It is a large and impressive vehicle ( not a trendie greenie pricey Tesla sedan car ) , with impressively brisk acceleration, with extensive AC power outlets for tradesman's tools, and with substantial Vehicle-2-Home capability (which is a strong emotional point in its favor).
This is an electric vehicle which will powerfully impress the friends & neighbours of its new American owners. And will help break down the extensive grass-roots opposition (in the USA) to "all that darn new-fangled stuff". Now who would have thought, 10 years ago , that a humongous Pickup would be a leader for change in social attitude?
Renewable electricity generation still lags disappointingly ~ and faces huge problems in ramping up the supply.
And there is no escaping the point: the world still has not gotten the greatly-needed supply of "renewable" liquid hydrocarbon fuel. A fuel which is usable everywhere, in large quantities ~ as we see every day, as we look around. That technological advance would win hearts-and-minds !
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:48 AM on 23 February 2022SkS Analogy 1 - Speed Kills: How fast can we slow down?
In response to Santalives’ questionable insistence on asking questionable questions, especially his demand for a comprehensive response to a cherry-picked questionable paper, Evan@89 has concisely and correctly asked Santalives a valid question.
I await Santalives’ thoughtfully considered comprehensive response.
However, Santalives’ responses to all other efforts to help them learn to be less harmfully misled, and every other commenter has tried to help, has prompted me to share more thoughts.
Santalives has rather conclusively proven that they are powerfully motivated to persist in harmfully misunderstanding matters that matter to the future of humanity, like many of the fans of sites like WUWT.
When I first read this item, when there were no comments, it prompted me to consider the matter and consider how I could thoughtfully respond. When I returned with some thoughts I was thrilled to see that there were already many other comments ... then I read the comments to see if they would modify my thinking. Reading the comments motivated me to make the comment I made @23. Santalives clearly did not pick-up on the hint.
My comment @48 was motivated by what continued to happen. Santalives responded @49 in a questionable way that was rapidly and effectively responded to by Evan (no need for me to respond). Santalives’ lack of a meaningful response to Evan @50 (I did not see the comment that disappeared. But I can infer from the remaining comments that Santalives’ response was more misunderstanding, adding proof of my point about them being a unique individual who shares the “anti-commonsense” “Hard of Learning – Selective Learning” characteristic (a play on “hard of hearing – selective hearing”) of fans of WUWT.
Santalives questionably asked about Newton vs. Einstein. “The Big Picture” by Sean Carroll (highly recommended reading for everyone, not just Santalives) explains that science has developed different ways of talking about similar things. Einstein’s way of talking about physics does not contradict Newton’s way of understanding what would happen to an apple when you let it go. And as a structural engineer I prefer to apply Newton’s way of describing things, even though it does not work for everything that Einstein's way does. And newer ways of describing physics are developed for newer things that Einstein was unaware of. And those newer ways of describing things are very unlikely to ‘overturn’ the fundamental understandings of Einstein. And it is highly unlikely that more in-depth pursuit of awareness and understanding regarding climate science will overturn the consensus understanding that human impacts are rapidly causing climate changes that harm the development of a sustainable improving future for humanity.
Returning to Santalives questionably asking about the motivation of people commenting on WUWT. They would each have their own motivations, beliefs and biases which have to be inferred from the patterns of their behaviour (Many situations require the development of understanding of what is going on to be inferred from observation, with the understanding that any interaction may affect the observed result. This is covered effectively by Sean Carroll in “The Big Picture”, but is more relevant to socioeconomic-political matters). Further details regarding the context for my response can be found in my comments on the three recent versions of “Analogy 1”: this one, the previous one, and the one before that.
The important question is: Is a person interested in, or willing to, learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. Everyone undeniably always has the ability to learn. People who can be seen to 'Resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others' are harmfully motivated to harmfully misunderstand things. And competition for perceptions of superiority relative to others can produce very harmful motivations, with related harmful misunderstandings, and harmful resistance to learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. And competition for popularity and profit can develop harmful demands for the freedom to believe whatever excuses doing something understandably harmful that a person may hope to benefit from.
The Sustainable Development Goals are a very comprehensive presentation of the constantly improving understanding of how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. They are the result of the efforts of thousands (perhaps millions) of people who became officially globally coordinated to collaborate by the 1972 Stockholm Conference.
Global warming related climate change (btw, As an engineer I would define “climate” as the regional climate norms - like temperature, wind, rain, snow, freezing rain - and their expected variations) is a significant impediment to Sustainable Development. The diversity of rapid climate change impacts harmfully distracts attention by forcing the pursuit of ‘adaptation attempts’ rather than the pursuit of ‘sustainable improvements’ (like the ways that a war or recovery from a natural disaster can ‘appear to improve economic performance measures like GDP’). And changes of atmospheric CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuel is a significant, but not exclusive, cause of the problems faced by global humanity into the future.
Admittedly from a ‘Sustainable Development to improve the future for humanity’ perspective there are many other harmful unsustainable ‘developed popular and profitable activities’ that are excused by harmful misunderstanding. However, this site is focused on the subset of harmful misunderstanding that relates to climate science (btw, the other human caused ghgs of concern are examples, so indeed it isn’t just CO2).
The following items are offered as further evidence of the harm being done by the popularity and profitability of harmful misunderstandings that sites like WUWT fail (potentially deliberately) to help fight against:
Sea Level Rise related to the previous versions of SkS Analogy 1.
Broader impacts of rapid human caused climate change
Regional specific impact of human caused climate change that has already happened.
-
BaerbelW at 04:17 AM on 23 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #11
As you are commenting on one of my blog posts, I'll chime in. Skeptical Science is in the business of fact checking, hence our big list of rebuttals of often heard misinformation related to climate change. We also publish resources to give facts a fighting chance against misinformation and repost interesting articles about critical thinking from the website Thinking is Power. Give them a read, if only to avoid the pitfalls of doing your own research which you've been rather prone to thus far based on many of your comments!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:37 AM on 23 February 2022Study: Climate-changed rainfall dampens economic growth
Santalives,
I am a professional engineer, so I have learned to pursue constant learning to limit harm done. And I have an MBA, so I am aware of the motivation of pursuit of profit and the potential for harm to be done, especially through misleading marketing. So maybe my perspective and understanding will help you better understand this matter.
Economists have no laboratory study style way to investigate their theories. They can only infer things from the observations of incredibly complex integrated systems by observing sub-sets of the incredibly complex integration of All Life on This Planet.
This study did a rigorous review of regional economic detailed data paired with regional weather data and identified statistically significant correlations. Attempting to determine the exact mechanism of the correlation is like the attempts to explain why smoking correlates to increased risk of cancer - interesting but not really relevant to the understanding of the importance of limiting smoking.
And the desires of people to benefit from understandably harmful activities, like selling people tobacco, leads some people to seek out and promote nonsense that appears to excuse the understandably harmful pursuit of benefit.
Please try to learn to stop attempting to find harmful misunderstandings that excuse the harmful dead-end pursuits of benefit from burning non-renewable buried ancient hydrocarbons. The activity is harmful in many more ways than the climate change harm that is being caused by the excess CO2 it forces into the environment rather than keeping that carbon locked away.
