man made or natural

jboy751 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Not needed. Science doesn't use consensus.

That's precisely why I want to start with the most significant experts and not with an averaging of all opinions in a blog.

R = C * e * t^4. E(t+1) = E(t) + U. e(t+1) >= e(t). You have everything you need to draw your own conclusions.

Ok, let us take a water mellon and a thermos flask and place them against the sun (choose your prefered orientation and shape of the thermos. You can even assume a spherical thermos).

Then, since you state that you don't need to know anything other than the formula you presented above, can you please calculate the temperature as a function of radius from the center of each body (that would include the temperature inside and outside of the reflective thermos sphere)?

tmiddles wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
....

Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

What do you mean? Someone who is well qualified?

Check out Pat Franks argument: Link

Not exactly what you asked for. He presents a case that the conclusions being drawn are unfounded because the minute temperature changes used aren't supportable by the available data.

jboy751 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jboy751 wrote: Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous.

Not good enough. Is Climate Change supported by science or is it just WACKY religious dogma?



There needs to be an unambiguous definition of the global climate for science to be applicable. Without any such unambiguous definition, Climage Change remains mere WACKY religious dogma.

It's that simple.

There is no unambiguous definition of the global climate. That's a huge problem. In fact, it is insurmountable.

Firstly don't treat me as if I am in favour of any definition, as I begun this thread with a question about the top experts in the field related to the "subject" you don't want to name.

jboy751 wrote:
So I am an agnostic so far.

jboy751 wrote:
However since you keep bringing this up, I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

jboy751 wrote:
I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.

jboy751 wrote:
Assuming this is the case, then this rise in average temperature almost certainly will cause a change in the global chaotic climate patterns.

jboy751 wrote:
This change of pattern can be a very significant threat to life.

jboy751 wrote:
I would agree that it is very difficult to define metrics, but that is not an incentive to ignore it, but rather to be even more concerned.

jboy751 wrote:
I think we should distinguish between pointless science and science that has not been invented yet.

jboy751 wrote:
In this subject we see both in random mixes.

jboy751 wrote:
[quote]
[quote]jboy751 wrote: For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

Whatever NASA, or anyone else for that matter, has to say on the matter is utterly meaningless without an unambiguous defintion of the global climate. There is no such thing as science of the undefined.

It is pointless to try to hold a meaningful conversation about concepts that are meaningless or where differing parties utilize their own separate meanings.
.

jboy751 wrote:
The particular NASA article I read was not talking about 'climate change' but about 'warming' of the planet, which is a very specific effect that can easily be defined.

tmiddles wrote:

jboy751 wrote:...I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.

Well said but be warned:
"Define climate" is posted 215 times here
Define global warming, 121 times

It's just a BS tactic to try to derail discussion. I wouldn't waste any more time on it.

James___ wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jboy751 wrote:Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Get in line.

I would like to see a serious, unambiguous definition of the global climate that would enable a serious expert to determine whether "Climate Change" is "natural" or not.


.

Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous. And then argue on that. For example, instead of climate change, you can use global warming which is less ambiguous (?).

For example NASA claims that the solar irradiation is not enough to explain global warming. Of course there are assumptions in their analysis, since their records only go back to the late 70s.

So I was wandering whether some expert who has access to data and is sophisticated enough, has expressed the opposite conclusion. I.e. that solar irradiation does justify global warming.

This guy is an ice core researcher. His credentials are
Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
He is an expert in his field. Since we don't understand natural climate variation, we can't say how much if any warming is attributed to CO2. After all, O2 plays a role in removing heat from the atmosphere but we're not talking about it's diminished levels, are we? If you read what he has to say, there were climate ripples in the northern hemisphere during the last ice age when it warmed significantly without CO2. And today, the Arctic is the place where warming is most pronounced. I think something might be getting ready to happen but that could take a century and be quite significant. Why bread crumbs are good to follow.

He states that;
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

MarcusR wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

jboy751 wrote:...I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.

Well said but be warned:
"Define climate" is posted 215 times here
Define global warming, 121 times

It's just a BS tactic to try to derail discussion. I wouldn't waste any more time on it.

Unfortunally, You are quite correct..

MarcusR wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
(TSI) .

This is really interesting stuff but I don't understand most of it yet. Definitely seems well above basic. If there are any videos you can recommend, maybe laying the groundwork, please share them.

TSI means Total Solar Iradiance and is a nothing more tham a meassure if the effect / area unit (W/m2) the earth/atmosphere system gets from the sun. Hence, it can be categorized as one of the natural aspects of climate change.

When speaking of TSI it is important to know that the values are perpendicullar to the sun. So if you look at Gregg TSI page all values are given as a perpendicular value, and not representing how many W each m2 of the earth gets from the sun at any given point of time. And since the area of a sphere in relation to the area of a circle with the same radius is 4:1 you need to take that Into account.

While the above may seem quite simple, there are actually many People that claims that the figures for TSI and earths energy balance are off by a factor of 4. There was quite an interesting "discussion" between Joe Postma and Roy Spencer on that matter last year.

I don't however know and video about TSI. I would think NASA should have published a few on youtube though.

MarcusR wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
....

Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Changes in natural parameters, such as the ones I mentioned above has always had an effect on earths climate. We have had many changes in climate over the eons of time. The knowledge from theese changes have - among others - been important to understand why we see the changes we are seeing right now. Jeremy Shakun has among others an interesting paper on this matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

But this is not really an answer to your question. I have not seen any serious expert claiming that the current changes we see are natural. Now that does not mean that natural causes do not effect climate.

When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings. I also look at journal metrics to see how creadible the journal itself is if I dont kmow about it. That is no bullet proof argument, but being published in Nature or Lancet is in general top notch by a scientific standard. That does not mean that errors doesn't happen, just look at this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science - just as blaming increased levels of CO2 for causing Bush fires in Australia.

James___ wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
....

Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Changes in natural parameters, such as the ones I mentioned above has always had an effect on earths climate. We have had many changes in climate over the eons of time. The knowledge from theese changes have - among others - been important to understand why we see the changes we are seeing right now. Jeremy Shakun has among others an interesting paper on this matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

But this is not really an answer to your question. I have not seen any serious expert claiming that the current changes we see are natural. Now that does not mean that natural causes do not effect climate.

When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings. I also look at journal metrics to see how creadible the journal itself is if I dont kmow about it. That is no bullet proof argument, but being published in Nature or Lancet is in general top notch by a scientific standard. That does not mean that errors doesn't happen, just look at this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science - just as blaming increased levels of CO2 for causing Bush fires in Australia.

The links are to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I hope they are considered credible. They agree with the Danish ice core researcher who I referenced.

As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/

What we don't know is how much warmer. This hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Science requires that a hypothesis be tested. A computer model is not a repeatable experiment. This does not allow for peer review. Why there is a debate. I have shown 2 groups of credible scientists that say that they are doubtful that CO2 is the driver of climate change as some claim. And a computer model is a claim. It is not based on empirical evidence such as a repeatable experiment.
The focus on CO2 has actually hurt any discussion of trying to understand the things that influence the warming and cooling of our planet.

James___ wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science

The links are to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I hope they are considered credible. They agree with the Danish ice core researcher who I referenced.

As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/

What we don't know is how much warmer. This hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Science requires that a hypothesis be tested. A computer model is not a repeatable experiment. This does not allow for peer review. Why there is a debate. I have shown 2 groups of credible scientists that say that they are doubtful that CO2 is the driver of climate change as some claim. And a computer model is a claim. It is not based on empirical evidence such as a repeatable experiment.
The focus on CO2 has actually hurt any discussion of trying to understand the things that influence the warming and cooling of our planet.

Into the Night wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Define 'global warming'.

Let's see where you are going with this

(I will define smilie later)

Let us assume a set of temperature measuring devices placed in many positions in the earth atmosphere, in a homogenous distribution, in all directions (height, angular).

Unknown number of thermometers. Not possible to define margin of error. 10 thermometers spread over the Earth surface uniformly is not going to give you any meaningful temperature of the Earth. Neither are 7700 thermometers (the number that NASA claims to use).

jboy751 wrote:
Let us call T(t) the average temperature measured by these devices at any one point in time t.

Let us call To(t) the averaging of T(t) over an arbitrary long period of time (for example a century).

Why a century? Why 100 years ago and today for the two time intervals? What makes these points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time NOT significant?

jboy751 wrote:
Global warming dT(t) is defined as the statistically significant trend of the running average To(t) over any chosen time period (for example 1000 years).

Base rate fallacy. Math error. Failure to designate variance. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to provide raw data. Failure to eliminate biasing influences. Use of random numbers as data (argument from randU fallacy).

jboy751 wrote:
BTW you are wrong that NASA is not talking about global warming.

Never said they weren't.

Define 'global warming'. Why choose a 100 years ago? Why choose 1000 years ago? What makes these points in time significant?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

MarcusR wrote:
....

Thank you, this is quite informative. Although I would also like to see a serious expert claiming that the climate change is natural. Do they exist?

Changes in natural parameters, such as the ones I mentioned above has always had an effect on earths climate. We have had many changes in climate over the eons of time. The knowledge from theese changes have - among others - been important to understand why we see the changes we are seeing right now. Jeremy Shakun has among others an interesting paper on this matter:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

But this is not really an answer to your question. I have not seen any serious expert claiming that the current changes we see are natural. Now that does not mean that natural causes do not effect climate.

When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings. I also look at journal metrics to see how creadible the journal itself is if I dont kmow about it. That is no bullet proof argument, but being published in Nature or Lancet is in general top notch by a scientific standard. That does not mean that errors doesn't happen, just look at this
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science - just as blaming increased levels of CO2 for causing Bush fires in Australia.

The links are to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I hope they are considered credible. They agree with the Danish ice core researcher who I referenced.

As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/

What we don't know is how much warmer. This hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Science requires that a hypothesis be tested. A computer model is not a repeatable experiment. This does not allow for peer review. Why there is a debate. I have shown 2 groups of credible scientists that say that they are doubtful that CO2 is the driver of climate change as some claim. And a computer model is a claim. It is not based on empirical evidence such as a repeatable experiment.
The focus on CO2 has actually hurt any discussion of trying to understand the things that influence the warming and cooling of our planet.

How do you know it's warming or cooling? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

MarcusR wrote:

James___ wrote:

MarcusR wrote:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5
Or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
But do read the retraction notice to see WHY a paper has been retracted.

Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect. Unfortunally there are far to many ignoring this fact. That is the very definition of denying science

The links are to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I hope they are considered credible. They agree with the Danish ice core researcher who I referenced.

As it stands, the rapid rise of carbon dioxide during the deglaciation periods is unexplained � and not for want of trying by many geochemists. This means, in fact, that we cannot predict how the ocean will react to warming, with regard to emission of carbon dioxide from the sea to the air or a decrease in the uptake of industrial carbon dioxide. All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

Some scientists go even further. They say that carbon dioxide rose first, before the warming, and that this is proof that carbon dioxide drives the warming. A rise in carbon dioxide might indeed be the first thing to happen at the beginning of deglaciation. But perhaps the initial rise of carbon dioxide is like the initial gathering of the clouds announcing a storm. The clouds do not make the storm; they show that the process has begun and that the system is ready to change.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/

What we don't know is how much warmer. This hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Science requires that a hypothesis be tested. A computer model is not a repeatable experiment. This does not allow for peer review. Why there is a debate. I have shown 2 groups of credible scientists that say that they are doubtful that CO2 is the driver of climate change as some claim. And a computer model is a claim. It is not based on empirical evidence such as a repeatable experiment.
The focus on CO2 has actually hurt any discussion of trying to understand the things that influence the warming and cooling of our planet.

Scripps are indeed a creadible institute, and the reason I selected that retraction was to show how it should be done. Nic pointed out an error regarding incertanties, and even though that did not alter the final result of the paper in a large way, Resplandy et al did the right thing and accepted Nature's wish to retract the paper. Without knowing anyone of them, I would think they will do as they wrote in the retracrion notice. That is how a creadible scientists act. My other example was of the opposite. The Lancet reference was mainly of other reasons, think Wakefield and vaccin...

I read the webpage you refered to, and I don't know if Shakun studied at UCSD, but the content of your link and Shakun et al 2012 shows many similarities. I can recomend reading the entire Shakun paper - it is very interesting.

I don't know if the focus on CO2, CH4, N2O and other GHG's is all that bad. We know how much theese three gasses has altered earths energy balance, and thoose figures are a staggering - 2.75 W/m2
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930
And that is 2016 figures. I could also recomend Feldman et al., 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
in regards to a paper regarding meassurements.
However, that focus does not in any way make research regarding other natural aspects irrelevant. Quite the contrary. Just consider the methane hydrate mentioned in the link you provided. IF (and that is a big IF) the current warming triggers a process where the contained methane will be released in gaseous form we could be in a end permian scenario. That is one of the reasons we need to understand natural processes as well.

The latter does not however contradict what we already know about man made emissions of GHG's.

Into the Night wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Not needed. Science doesn't use consensus.

That's precisely why I want to start with the most significant experts and not with an averaging of all opinions in a blog.

R = C * e * t^4. E(t+1) = E(t) + U. e(t+1) >= e(t). You have everything you need to draw your own conclusions.

Ok, let us take a water mellon and a thermos flask and place them against the sun (choose your prefered orientation and shape of the thermos. You can even assume a spherical thermos).

Then, since you state that you don't need to know anything other than the formula you presented above, can you please calculate the temperature as a function of radius from the center of each body (that would include the temperature inside and outside of the reflective thermos sphere)?

Missing data. Math error. Failure to include all influencing factors. Failure to specify insulation factors. Heating can occur by conduction, by radiance, or by convection.

jboy751 wrote: Ok whatever. I am happy that we agreed in the end that it's complicated and that you need to take into account many factors and that's why its good to consult experts who spent their life taking the measurements and not listen to teenagers obliterating poor fellow bloggers.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]jboy751 wrote: Ok whatever. I am happy that we agreed in the end that it's complicated and that you need to take into account many factors and that's why its good to consult experts who spent their life taking the measurements and not listen to teenagers obliterating poor fellow bloggers.

Error.

Just because a math problem is complicated doesn't mean we should consult with others to do our thinking for us.

It just means that you should supply ALL of the information to do the math problem.

Why would you want others to hand you your beliefs just because you don't know all the variables to a math problem? .

nemodawson wrote:
There is only one example of establishment "CO2 catastrophism" presenting direct evidence of thermal radiation being directed back at the earth by atmospheric CO2. A review of the Evans study shows that the emissivity rate for atmospheric carbon dioxide is only a 10th of 1%. CO2 can only absorb 0.1% of the earth's thermal radiation emissions. This value used the Stefan-Boltzmann formula for the 15 µ single wavelength for which CO2 is known to be sensitive and of which the data clearly identified. This measured emissivity rate for CO2 has apparently not been incorporated into any Computer Models predicting Global Warming due to atmospheric CO2. It is hard to see how a trace atmospheric gas of 4 parts per 10,000– which can absorb only a 10th of 1% of the earth's thermal radiation– can actually be a greenhouse gas.

The paper reviewing the study can be found at:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

ON PAGE CLICK ON: 'CO2 Radiation Data disproves "Greenhouse Gas" Claim' for a PDF of paper

Into the Night wrote:

jboy751 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jboy751 wrote: Well if you see an ambiguous definition you try to make it less ambiguous.

Not good enough. Is Climate Change supported by science or is it just WACKY religious dogma?



There needs to be an unambiguous definition of the global climate for science to be applicable. Without any such unambiguous definition, Climage Change remains mere WACKY religious dogma.

It's that simple.

There is no unambiguous definition of the global climate. That's a huge problem. In fact, it is insurmountable.

Firstly don't treat me as if I am in favour of any definition, as I begun this thread with a question about the top experts in the field related to the "subject" you don't want to name.

RQAA. Already named.

jboy751 wrote:
So I am an agnostic so far.

Lie.

jboy751 wrote:
However since you keep bringing this up, I don't consider the term 'climate change' such a huge ambiguity.

Then define it.

jboy751 wrote:
I think 'global warming' is easy to define as an average rise of the temperature near the surface of the earth.

From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time not significant?

jboy751 wrote:
Assuming this is the case, then this rise in average temperature almost certainly will cause a change in the global chaotic climate patterns.

Assumption fallacy. Weather is always changing.

jboy751 wrote:
This change of pattern can be a very significant threat to life.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.

define time

Time: A dimension of movement. The direction of time is defined by increasing entropy.

MarcusR wrote:
TSI ...the ...(W/m2) the earth/atmosphere system gets from the sun.

MarcusR wrote:When you read what "experts" say, look for the source of it. And in particular, look at what scientific magazine that published their findings.

MarcusR wrote:
Then there are simple basic physical rules that we can not ignore. One of them is the green house effect, and the effect that increasing levels of greenhouse gasses has on that effect.

MarcusR wrote:...The latter does not however contradict what we already know about man made emissions of GHG's.

IBdaMann wrote:...just because you don't know all the variables to a math problem?

nemodawson wrote:
https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html ON PAGE CLICK ON: 'CO2 Radiation Data disproves "Greenhouse Gas" Claim' for a PDF of paper

keepit wrote: IBDM and ITN,
Both of you guys complain about other people's errors

keepit wrote: ... but you guys make more errors than you complain about.

keepit wrote: Many times i've found you both to be wrong more often than you are right.

nemodawson wrote:
Here we go again! My whole Post deleted except for the reference. When are you going to learn that these so-called monitors...

James___ wrote:

Do you have a link for Shakun et al 2012? I'd be interested in reading it.
This link is to the carbon neutral policy on burning trees.
The EPA in the US agrees with the European Union.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/


This might be why burning trees is not challenged by the IPCC. This actually comes from their 2013 report.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

This why anymore I don't think scientists understand what is going on. O2 in the troposphere (our atmosphere) and O2+O > O3 (lower stratosphere) removes heat from the atmosphere. The ozone layer is depleted as well as the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere.
I thought I would let you know that there might be a way to reduce CO2 emission (carbon capture) and replenish the ozone. What is being overlooked is that more CO2 and less O2 (oxygen) creates a denser atmosphere which will mean more water vapor. And water vapor is responsible for 60% of warming according to people who say that CO2 is causing the warming.

tmiddles wrote:

However I do find what Pat Franks says about not being able to get published troubling. I'd love your take on him Marcus.

MarcusR wrote:From the link:
"The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2,"

MarcusR wrote: Well... how CO2 (and other molecules) behaves is well documented:

nemodawson wrote: When the Stefan-Boltzmann formula was applied to the CO2 thermal radiation emissions coming from the night sky, an emissivity rate for atmospheric CO2 was determined to be 1/10 of 1%. This makes CO2 as a greenhouse gas highly suspect. This is the information that is being censored by this forum.

keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.

MarcusR wrote:

James___ wrote:

Do you have a link for Shakun et al 2012? I'd be interested in reading it.
This link is to the carbon neutral policy on burning trees.
The EPA in the US agrees with the European Union.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/


This might be why burning trees is not challenged by the IPCC. This actually comes from their 2013 report.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

This why anymore I don't think scientists understand what is going on. O2 in the troposphere (our atmosphere) and O2+O > O3 (lower stratosphere) removes heat from the atmosphere. The ozone layer is depleted as well as the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere.
I thought I would let you know that there might be a way to reduce CO2 emission (carbon capture) and replenish the ozone. What is being overlooked is that more CO2 and less O2 (oxygen) creates a denser atmosphere which will mean more water vapor. And water vapor is responsible for 60% of warming according to people who say that CO2 is causing the warming.

The only public link I have to a source for Shakun et al, 2012 is this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
But check Your PM

Regarding CCS I am convinced that this is something we will need, since changing our energy consumtion over a few years simply isn't posible. Where I live we have <1% fossil generation in our grid, but the last thermal plant will be converted to biofuels ahead of schedule. Even EV's are over 11,4% of new car sales and by 2030 over 80 % of new car sales will be EV's, that still wont account for more than 30 % of our total fleet. Busses are already 80% fossil free and our railroads run on electricity. Another part regarding transportation os to use biofuels, both pure bio-fuels such as HVO, RME, bio-gas - but also as mix-in for fossil sources.

Nontheless, changing generation takes time - as in decades - so we will need more plants retrofitted with CCS. There are a few running now, but the actual capture %-age is way, way, way to low. Technology gets better, but we cant really wait.

As far as loosing energy from the earth/atmopshere system there is only one way for that to happen, and that is through radiation (the losses of mass are quite unsignifficant https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html. A warmer body will emit more radiation, so as the earth warms, it will emit slightly more energy out to space. Given our temperature the emittance is only in lower frequencies, or longer wavelengths, same-same. That is why it is often reffered to as outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). We have been meassuring OLR since ~mid 70's if I dont remember incorrect. Cant think of any studies from the top of my head, but I can recomend a great book on the subject and that is Grant Petty's - A first course in atmospheric radiation. Well worth the read - if you ask me

The source of the CO2 emittance is ofcourse important given how earths carbon cycle works. Harde learnt that the "hard" way (see previous link), although he got some followers that completely ignored that he was utterly incorrect.

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.

Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.

tmiddles wrote:

nemodawson wrote:
Here we go again! My whole Post deleted except for the reference. When are you going to learn that these so-called monitors...

no your 1st post is still there. Sadly this board has no mods.

Sorry I don't personally find what you're posting interesting with out some citation.

nemodawson wrote:
It is relatively easy to determine atmospheric CO2 because CO2 is sensitive only to the 15 µ wavelength.

MarcusR wrote:

nemodawson wrote:
It is relatively easy to determine atmospheric CO2 because CO2 is sensitive only to the 15 µ wavelength.

What is Your source for that ? If You look up HITRAN for instance you will find something completely different.

The you also have this:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC
that puts everything at a simple graph for both transmittance and absorbance.

nemodawson wrote:The limited spectrum of CO2's thermal radiation sensitivity is well known in the field. An introduction to CO2 sensitivities is found at the following:

nemodawson wrote: Blackbodies and thermal radiation are not fields of physics!

nemodawson wrote:Let me give you some names to see if you recognize them.

IBdaMann wrote:

nemodawson wrote: Blackbodies and thermal radiation are not fields of physics!

Yes, those topics are certainly addressed in physics, howevr thermal radiation "thenthitivity" is not. There is no such thing.

nemodawson wrote:Let me give you some names to see if you recognize them.

That was a rather abrupt change of topic. Let's stick with physics.


.

nemodawson wrote:

James___ wrote:

keepit wrote:
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.

Gotta have some fun sometimes. He doesn't understand that the emissivity of the atmosphere is not determined by the Stefan-Boltzman constant. Heat in the atmosphere is released by gasses because of their emission spectrum. And as a gas like O2 moves higher in the atmosphere, are there sufficient gasses to absorb it's emission? If not then that electromagnetic radiation released by gases can radiate away from our atmosphere. That's basically the non-technical explanation.
And with O2, it is more reactive than either CO2 or N2 and this is what would allow O2 to remove heat from our atmosphere. Yet no one considers how much heat O2 removes from the troposphere or how much heat O3 removes from the lower to mid stratosphere.
And this is where the vacuum of the tropopause can allow for O2 to radiate heat into the lower stratosphere where O3 can move it further away from the surface of the earth. And while CO2 levels are increasing, O2 levels are decreasing.
And IMHO black body radiation and the Stefan-Boltzman might have little to do with it because as I mentioned, incoming IR becomes refracted.

If fun means answering sound Scientific knowledge with gobbledygook then you certainly are having fun. Nothing you have said here makes any sense, so let me review the fundamentals. It is alleged that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas." A greenhouse gas is one which absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and radiates them back, thus retaining the heat and supposedly warming the earth. The Earth thermal radiation emissions with which we are concerned are emissions which occur at nighttime. During the night, the earth cools by radiating the heat which it has acquired during the day while facing the sun. It is this Earth heat which is allegedly prevented from escaping into space by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. That is it is alleged the atmospheric CO2 absorbs the Earth's thermal radiation emissions and re-radiates them back. Thus it is alleged that CO2 is acting as a material semi blackbody and thus is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann formula, including its emissivity factor. The only measure of radiation from CO2 being returned from a clear Night sky is the Evans study from 2006.

https://www.quantum-dimension.com/co2-blkbdy-data.html

Click on "CO2 radiation data...." for a review of Evans study.