Energy and resource crisis in the future

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Did you bother to look up Occam's Razor or is it pointless to discuss this topic with you?

I looked it up from wiki. As much as I understood the simplest solution was preferred or smth.

Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you?


.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Did you bother to look up Occam's Razor or is it pointless to discuss this topic with you?

I looked it up from wiki. As much as I understood the simplest solution was preferred or smth.

Have YOU ever observed the earth's emissivity changing or is it pointless to even attempt to discuss this with you?


.

I have. I saw a cloud forming.

[b]The temperature of Earth is unknown.

Xadoman wrote:
...as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

James___ wrote: I have. I saw a cloud forming.

Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Xadoman wrote: White ice and snow are belived to reflect a lot of light ...

Xadoman wrote: But as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]

MarcusR wrote:

[b]The temperature of Earth is unknown.

yhttps://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
yhttps://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
yhttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
To name a few.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
...as soon as I found out that both ice and snow have a near black body emissivity I knew it does not matter much.

So up till now I had the same conclusion you had about the emissivity of snow and ice. Unfortunately we were both wrong. Emissivity as its studied in industry is only concerned with infrared.

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]

Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]

Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.

No apology necessary. Christianity is firmly in the realm of religion. Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast rule either, but a reasonable way to approach the unknown.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: [note: the answer to all three is "yes" and Occam's Razor eliminates all of them from consideration]

Clarification: Occam's Razor eliminates them from consideration from science. If one insists that additional assumptions are required for religious reasons then they are perfectly acceptable within the context of that religion. Occam's Razor simply prevents them from becoming science.

My apologies to any Christians who might have inferred that I was saying Occam's Razor simply eliminates the idea that Jesus is omnipotent or such.


.

No apology necessary. Christianity is firmly in the realm of religion. Occam's Razor is not a hard and fast rule either, but a reasonable way to approach the unknown.

That's right. If you can't disprove Jesus then he is the Son of God. Thank You.

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Well, they shouldn't. A "feedback" is shorthand for a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wrote:
You mean it reflects a lot of visible light when you are supposed to not be excluding infrared, ultraviolet, HF, and all others, right?

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...ice and snow have a near black body emissivity...

...There has never been ...exhaustive tests on materials to learn their precise, accurate absorptivities at every wavelength....

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote: Some of those global warming feedback loops sounded pretty logical to me.

Well, they shouldn't. A "feedback" is shorthand for a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Note that the explanation of how that is the case is missing here.

tmiddles wrote:
Having temperature increase, melt white ice that is replaced by dark ground/ocean, thereby increasing the emissivity of Earth, does not violate any law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
Anyone making that claim should begin by citing a reliable source.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You mean it reflects a lot of visible light when you are supposed to not be excluding infrared, ultraviolet, HF, and all others, right?

Most of the energy that comes from the sun as radiance is above the infrared range.

tmiddles wrote:
Infrared from the sun isn't excluded.

tmiddles wrote:
The infrared coming from the sun doesn't change what happens to the visible light coming from the sun.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...ice and snow have a near black body emissivity...

...There has never been ...exhaustive tests on materials to learn their precise, accurate absorptivities at every wavelength....

This is a false statement.

tmiddles wrote:
First: We know roughly what the emissivity is (see graph above) and that's good enough, as it usually is.

tmiddles wrote:
The ridiculous claim that is something isn't known to infinite precision it isn't known at all dismisses everything.

tmiddles wrote:
Second: There are thousands of studies on emissivity.

tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Not a study. Random numbers quoted by you.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
See in my sig how ITN dismissed a study on infra red emissivity on human skin. & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Not a study. Random numbers quoted by you.

I invite anyone curious about what a fraud ITN is to click through the link.

Xadoman wrote:tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth.

tmiddles wrote: I invite anyone curious about what a fraud ITN is to click through the link.

Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth. For example the ice melting releaving the dark ground under it or smth. I have seen many times that if the ice and snow have some black coloured stains from soil or oil it is starting to melt quicker at that place. For example we usually use to clean the ice from snow with shovels when we wanted to play hockey but one year I used my tractor and the small drops of oil eventually ruined the ice on a sunny day. They started to melt into the ice.

Of course the emissivity can change and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage. So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space. More "hang time" for thermal energy and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Will that cause some crazy hockey stick? I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

My thoughts on global warming in general:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal. BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post. The assertion that it's a constant is just weird and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.

Xadoman wrote:
Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
tmiddles, what are your thoughts on global warming. Do you think the emissivity of earth could change due to various naturally occuring events on earth. For example the ice melting releaving the dark ground under it or smth. I have seen many times that if the ice and snow have some black coloured stains from soil or oil it is starting to melt quicker at that place. For example we usually use to clean the ice from snow with shovels when we wanted to play hockey but one year I used my tractor and the small drops of oil eventually ruined the ice on a sunny day. They started to melt into the ice.

Of course the emissivity can change

tmiddles wrote:
and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage.
So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

tmiddles wrote:
Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

tmiddles wrote:
If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space.

tmiddles wrote:
More "hang time" for thermal energy

tmiddles wrote:
and a higher mean temp from the planet.

tmiddles wrote:
Will that cause some crazy hockey stick?

tmiddles wrote:
I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

tmiddles wrote:
My thoughts on global warming in general:

tmiddles wrote:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously

tmiddles wrote:
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.

tmiddles wrote:
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal.
BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

tmiddles wrote:
Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant

tmiddles wrote:
and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post.

tmiddles wrote:
The assertion that it's a constant is just weird

tmiddles wrote:
and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.

Xadoman wrote:

Of course the emissivity can change and one of the best strategies is to use that to our advantage. So a quick aside from your questions purpose:

Reflective/white roads and roofs can lower temperatures in cities that use a lot of energy to run AC.

If ice melts and is replaced by dark ground or water it will result in more of the suns energy being absorbed before it's returned to space. More "hang time" for thermal energy and a higher mean temp from the planet.

Will that cause some crazy hockey stick? I don't think so. I haven't heard a lot about that being the issue. But it certainly holds water as an argument.

My thoughts on global warming in general:
- The stakes are very high and it should be taken seriously
- It's clearly the flavor of the month and people are morons more than they aren't when they talk about it. So the consensus conclusions on it's reality should be dismissed as a first step before you really look at it.
- Personally, so far, I'm leaning towards it's probably no big deal. BUT that's like saying you're pretty sure there is no bullet in the chamber in a game of Russian roulette. Not a game to be playing.

Oh and the initial assertion that the emissivity of Earth is not a constant and now asking the question do you think it could change in a dangerous way is not a shifting of the goal post. The assertion that it's a constant is just weird and Xadoman and I wasted a little time dismissing it.

Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
Agreed. In conclusion - the emissivity of earth changes constantly a little bit but overall we could say that it does not matter much.

Yeah though a long term chance could matter.

tmiddles wrote:
I actually see this as an opportunity IF climate change becomes a threat.
...deleted Holy Link...

tmiddles wrote:
It IS important to know what is and is not a constant.

tmiddles wrote:
Speed of light = constant,

tmiddles wrote:
Stefan-Boltzman equation has a constant in it.

tmiddles wrote:
Emissivity of something may or may not change

tmiddles wrote:
and in the case of Earth it changes but day to day it doesn't matter.

Emissivity is a measured constant.

Xadoman wrote:
...am I not getting something?

Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.

Xadoman wrote:

Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.

Thanks. I was not aware of such drastic difference. I wonder how this big difference in reflection could reveal in nature.

Xadoman wrote:
I watched a documentary about melting glaciers and that was exactly like I thought it to be. The ice was covered with dark residue ( dust, soil etc etc) and it absorbed heat so good that the ice started to melt. That is a perfect example how emissivity of natural things could change. If those glaciers are going to be gone one day, the emissivity of earth has changed quite a bit. The temperature of earth goes up of course. I can not predict how much but according to Stephan_Boltzmann it has to go up because the emissivity increases. Simple as that. Greenhouse gases on the other hand have no effect on this, it is about emissivity.

Xadoman wrote:

Emissivity is a measured constant.

Emissivity has different values for different materials.

Xadoman wrote:
If we could build a silver lining across the atmosphere the emissivity of earth is drastically lower than it is now.

Xadoman wrote:
Why do you deny this?

Xadoman wrote:
Or am I not getting something?

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
...am I not getting something?

yeah, he's just crazy. No point in trying to find out why.

So is IBD. I tried asking them once about a shiny polished steel ball slowly rusting and how this would change the emissivity:
link

tmiddles wrote:
The goal here for them is to end discussion.

tmiddles wrote:
But they can't prevent us from talking if we don't let them.

tmiddles wrote:
Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.

Xadoman wrote:

Another thing about emissivity is we shouldn't assume 0.95 or 0.98 are basically the same, 0.95 is twice as reflective.

Thanks. I was not aware of such drastic difference. I wonder how this big difference in reflection could reveal in nature.

James___ wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
I watched a documentary about melting glaciers and that was exactly like I thought it to be. The ice was covered with dark residue ( dust, soil etc etc) and it absorbed heat so good that the ice started to melt. That is a perfect example how emissivity of natural things could change. If those glaciers are going to be gone one day, the emissivity of earth has changed quite a bit. The temperature of earth goes up of course. I can not predict how much but according to Stephan_Boltzmann it has to go up because the emissivity increases. Simple as that. Greenhouse gases on the other hand have no effect on this, it is about emissivity.

Particulates (ash on ice, snow) refract solar radiation. This can change how incoming IR interacts with atmospheric gases. If you check, atmospheric gasses have IR emissions. When IR emissions are absorbed and then emitted again, they are considered to be refracted.
And with ash/snow, it's how it refracts incoming IR. If atmospheric gases absorb it's emissions, then some of the refracted emissions can go back towards the ash. In a way you could say that particulates act as insulation like an electric blanket. And this is where burning trees or coal discharge a lot of ash into the atmosphere.

James___ wrote: This can change how incoming IR interacts with atmospheric gases.

James___ wrote: If you check, atmospheric gasses have IR emissions.

James___ wrote: When IR emissions are absorbed and then emitted again, they are considered to be refracted.

Xadoman wrote:
The price of diesel has made around 2x from the beginning of this thread. The price of natural gas has made around 10x. The price of electricity has made around 10x and is quickly rising.

The era of cheap energy is over. People will have a big trouble to simply heat their houses in coming winter. Thousands of dollars and euros will be spent in a single month to simply heat the house. People will lose all their savings.

Only solution is to up the nuclear game but again, the waste problem has never been solved. Thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste have been simply dumped into the oceans over the years but this kind of solution is like pissing in the pants- we could feel warm for a while but the future generations will have to deal with the conzequences of radiation poisoning. At some point "solution to the pollution is dilution" simply does not work anymore.

Xadoman wrote:The price of diesel has made around 2x from the beginning of this thread. The price of natural gas has made around 10x. The price of electricity has made around 10x and is quickly rising.

Xadoman wrote:The era of cheap energy is over.

Xadoman wrote:Only solution is to up the nuclear game but again, the waste problem has never been solved.

Xadoman wrote:Thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste have been simply dumped into the oceans over the years

Xadoman wrote:... we could feel warm for a while but the future generations will have to deal with the conzebraquences of radiation poisoning.

Somebody is regurgitating what he has been told to believe by people who do his thinking for him. You are spewing that Marxist pessimism that leaves you inclined to just throw all your money away on crypto-scams.