Remember me
▼ Content

man made or natural



Page 2 of 8<1234>>>
10-01-2020 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.

What data?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.
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.

There is no need to be concerned about what you cannot define.
jboy751 wrote:
I think we should distinguish between pointless science and science that has not been invented yet.

Science isn't 'invented'. It is not pointless. Theories of science simply are.
jboy751 wrote:
In this subject we see both in random mixes.

Word salad.
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.


define time



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

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

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. These two phrases are utterly meaningless.

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.

From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How you are measuring the temperature of Earth? It is currently not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.

You can't define either of the either. Attempt to justify void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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/

Ice cores don't measure past temperatures. Proxies are not used in science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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..

Then define them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.

Not all light striking the Earth is absorbed. Not all light absorbed is converted into thermal energy. Argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.


There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 18:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12950)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-01-2020 22:20
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.
10-01-2020 22:42
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
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).


As I said I wanted to see where you are going with this and now it becomes much clearer.

You asked me to define global warming, which I did, and now you are critisising unreasonably about the unknown error bars. I cannot believe that you don't get that I cannot go to such level of detail in this conversation. This is just distraction tactics there is no logic to your argument.


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?


The period of time is arbitrary as I mentioned just in the previous sentence. You define the bin size depending on the problem at hand. If you want to measure the temperature trend over 1 year you don't need to take measurements every one nanosecond. The same is true for the 1000 years. This is also arbitrary. You might want to see the trend over 10,000 years or one million years. It depends on the problem you are trying to solve.


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).


I did say statistically significant trend, and that covers all your above points. You cannot be serious that I would spend one week or ten years to fully design an experimental method for measuring global warming, just to answer your question.

I am sure you are a very good scientist, but now it's time to move on. thank you for your efforts.


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?
10-01-2020 22:45
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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.



I hope you don't mind if I give you a simple non-technical answer. Ice freezes below 0º C./32º F. and melts when the temperature is higher than that.
10-01-2020 23:00
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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.


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.
10-01-2020 23:07
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
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.


Man, seriously... this line of arguments started when I said that its complicated, then you said no... all you need to know is this formula. So I challenged you to put your money where your mouth was and calculate the temperature of the two objects based only on your formula, and now you tell me that ...no its much more complicated and that I failed. 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.
11-01-2020 00:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
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?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2020 00:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1607)
IBDM and ITN,
Both of you guys complain about other people's errors but you guys make more errors than you complain about. Many times i've found you both to be wrong more often than you are right.
Edited on 11-01-2020 00:54
11-01-2020 02:33
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
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.

You don't need to talk like that. You sound like a bot.


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


I don't know where you understood that I am asking others to do the thinking for me, when I literally said that I want to start by reading the research by top experts and then make my own conclusions.


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


No you are wrong my friend. I don't have the time to analyse all scientific fields including mine. Life is too short. That's why there is science, peer review, papers, and academics. After you study what others have done and especially the most significant ones in their fields, then you can decide whether to continue studying, stop right there or whatever. That's what every one does including yourself.


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


Well if knowing the variables to a math problem would take me 200 man years of research, I might as well read 10 papers and then go for a beer. you seem to have a very warped understanding of how science works.
11-01-2020 02:43
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
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
11-01-2020 03:13
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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


Could you please speak clearly man? WTF is an angstrom? Some in here are "real" Americans. And in simple Engleske WTF does e=hf mean?
Sober minds want to know.
11-01-2020 03:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1607)
James,
You just gave away your "age", so to speak.
11-01-2020 03:25
jboy751
☆☆☆☆☆
(18)
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.


The change in weather patterns caused by global warming.


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?


Sorry there are no two points. You missed the point. It's called data binning.

Your research should give you a time scale of the problem at hand. Given that time scale you define a range that reasonably contains the scale and you define number of time bins using well established methods. There are no two points. Talking about two points its like saying, what is the significace of the two edges of an x-axis. NONE. If you don't like them, you can change them later.


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.


So let's say you have a sinusoidal curve in the time dimension. Then you add +10 to that function, so it shifts up by 10, but it's still changing around the 10 value. Where exactly is the assumption fallacy?


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

Pascal's Wager fallacy.


I can't see it. All I am saying is that if the temperature goes up by 100C we will all die. Is this a fallacy?




define time




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


this is ambiguous. Many movements can result in the same increase in entropy. Which one is time?
11-01-2020 05:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
MarcusR wrote:
TSI ...the ...(W/m2) the earth/atmosphere system gets from the sun.
So this would vary based on orbit, solar flares, and so on right? Crystal clear on the sphere causing that to be unevenly distributed per M2.

Had to look up Mr. Postma, oh my. Classic denier goof:
Climate Myth: Postma disproved the greenhouse effect

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.
Good point! I ran into this recently when the "expert" and self proclaimed "Rocket Scientist" cited by One Punch Man David Evans turned out to be an electrical engineer published in the Financial Times.

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:
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.
I am still confused about the models presented as I understood them here:
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)
And what Verner found with Mars not having much of a Greenhouse effect here:
Mars has more greenhouse gases than Earth but a much less dense atmosphere (thank you Verner)

MarcusR wrote:...The latter does not however contradict what we already know about man made emissions of GHG's.
Wouldn't it be safe to say, in simple terms, that is something was mistakenly not counted as a contributing factor(density of non GHGs) thent he influence of what remains (GHGs) is overstated?

IBdaMann wrote:...just because you don't know all the variables to a math problem?
jboy751 I invite you to refer to my sig for what a fraud all of that is. ITN/IBD have never, in the history of this board, calculated anything or accepted the calculation for anything. They are just here to try to run interference.

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
Is there anything else you can site to corroborate that? The "emissivity rate" isn't a phrase I've heard before.
"Lawrence Dawson became an autodidact in the physical sciences. His post-graduate training
was disrupted by an epistemological crisis which ended his academic career"
Yeah, I want more than just him as a source for anything.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
RE: anti-science and censorship.11-01-2020 06:47
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Here we go again! My whole Post deleted except for the reference. When are you going to learn that these so-called monitors are ignoramuses who are suppressing science. The reason given for suppressing this Post is that the censor had never heard the word "emissivity." This means he has no knowledge in the field of blackbody thermal radiation. The energy states in blackbody thermal-radiation emissions, for specific temperatures, is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. Stefan-Boltzmann is denominated in Watts per meter-squared. Since not all matter which absorbs and emits thermal radiation is a blackbody, the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation must be modified by an "Emissivity" Factor. The "emissivity" is the percentage which the material can absorb/emit thermal radiation relative to a blackbody. Emissivity is between 1 and 0. Measured thermal radiation emitting from a material is equal to emissivity times the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. Measured thermal radiation emitting from atmospheric CO2 can be divided by the Stefan-Boltzmann formula to determine the emissivity of atmospheric CO2. It is relatively easy to determine atmospheric CO2 because CO2 is sensitive only to the 15 µ wavelength. It is therefore easy to identify the CO2 thermal radiation emissions. A study done in 2006 measured thermal radiation emissions in Watts per centimeter-squared for the 15 µ wavelength. The thermal radiation emissions for all wavelengths peaked at 15 µ. 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.
Edited on 11-01-2020 06:50
11-01-2020 07:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
keepit wrote: IBDM and ITN,
Both of you guys complain about other people's errors

When have I ever complained about an error? With whom did I lodge my grievance? I'm truly curious. Have I ever pleaded with anyone to stop generically making errors?

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

I think you meant to write "about which you complain." You shouldn't end in a preposition ... but I like it!

What are the three biggest errors that I have made? ... aside from expecting you to engage in reasonable discussion?

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

Could you tell me three of those times in which I was wrong more often than I was right? It would be the warmizombie-Christian thing for you to do.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2020 12:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
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.
11-01-2020 15:12
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.
11-01-2020 19:08
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.


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,"

Well... how CO2 (and other molecules) behaves is well documented:
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1
or anyone could go to the HITRAN database:
https://hitran.org/

We have done and documented meassurements:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240
and we have also updated figures:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

Now, over to what Frank actually wrote. In the following link under chapter 2
https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models
it says that:
"The estimated extra energy from excess CO2—the annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution—is far smaller, according to Frank, at 0.036 Wm–2, or 0.01 percent of the sun's energy."

I assume that this "quote" is from the paper Patrick wrote called "Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections". In that paper it says the following:
"...than the annual average -0.035 Wm(-2) change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979."

Quite a difference..... I will send an e-mail to David and Charles about it.

Anyone using sources like this will find it difficult to be published...
11-01-2020 19:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
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,"

Well duhhh, it's obvious that greenhouse gas creates additional energy by overcoming the stupid restrictions of the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm just wondering why Marvel Comics hasn't made a superhero with this superpower.

Anyway, it won't be long before we have a series of infomercials centered around "Cooking with CO2."

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

We call that "chemistry."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2020 20:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
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.


You are NOT going to find very many people who will join you in decrying the authoritarian censorship of this board.

tmiddles will, however, join anyone in calling for authortarian censorship of this board ... for everything not glorifying his WACKY religious dogma ... or anything implying that he is just making up the chit he claims is "what we know."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2020 20:35
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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.
11-01-2020 20:55
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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.



With the Meridonal Overturning Circulation, I am expecting it be moving south as the Gulf Stream slows because of tectonic plate uplift. Most people don't understand that the volume of water that si flowing north. There is also heat coming from the seafloor in the Arctic that can influence it as well.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/anomalous-arctic-sea-ice-melting-fueled-by-geological-heat-flow-not-global-warming/
This is where the polar jet stream / vortex can shift because of it. This is something could have an affect on countries like Sweden. I think if you check you will see that Sweden is warmed by a recirculation gyre off of the Gulf Stream and the jet stream being somewhere close to above the English channel like it is today. http://www.metcheck.com/WEATHER/jetstream.asp#
North Atlantic Ocean circulation. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/North_Atlantic_Gyre.png
That's like why where I live we are having a summer thunderstorm across a few states. Warm water moved the jet stream and the wind patterns.
With power generation that burns solids/coke/wood chips, I wonder why they don't use the exhaust heat to preheat the fuel. This is where I think a better solar panel could allow for waste energy to make power plants cleaner until clean energy can support demand. Then with the exhaust being cooler, it would make it easier to filter out contaminants or capture carbon.

This is to the deep water of the Greenland Sea warming. If you notice., it took time for the heat to go from 2000m to 1200m.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%281999%29012<3297%3ATAOTNS>2.0.CO%3B2
Edited on 11-01-2020 21:32
11-01-2020 21:55
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
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.
Edited on 11-01-2020 22:21
11-01-2020 22:13
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
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.


HOW about the whole field of blackbody thermal radiation? Do I need to provide you with textbooks as references?
11-01-2020 22:15
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
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.
11-01-2020 22:40
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
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.


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:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/19/radiative-heat-transfer-by-co2-or-whats-the-quality-of-your-radiation/
11-01-2020 23:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
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:

Which field?

Which field even knows what you mean? Certainly not physics.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: Thermal Radiation not Physics?12-01-2020 00:20
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
Blackbodies and thermal radiation are not fields of physics! Let me give you some names to see if you recognize them. Max Planck, as in Planck's constant, which gives the energy in a monochrome frequency of light. Ludwig Boltzmann as in Boltzmann's constant which identifies the heat energy in a gas. Wilhelm Wien as in Wien's Displacement Law which identifies the quantum relationship which exists between the peak wavelengths and temperatures in blackbody thermal radiation curves. All of these men arrived at thier important constants by doing research using blackbody thermal-radiation data, a subject which you say doesn't exist in Physics. In reality, it obviously does not exist in your scientific education. It is not a matter of absence from physics. Rather it is a matter of ignorance.
Edited on 12-01-2020 00:29
12-01-2020 01:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7270)
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.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-01-2020 02:49
nemodawson
☆☆☆☆☆
(30)
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.


.


Have you ever considered the possibility that your education in science is deficient? Have you ever considered the possibility that your professors suppress knowledge from the past because it doesn't conform with their current theories? I have written a book called "Poisoned Science" which partially documents this.

As to the topic at hand, I believe you are suggesting that the factor "emissivity," which modifies blackbody thermal radiation, doesn't exist. This is not true. Simply Google the term to see that I am correct. Emissivity is a necessary factor to make the Stefan-Boltzmann formula accurate. Also Google Stefan-Boltzmann to look at their full formula.
12-01-2020 03:31
James___
★★★★★
(2957)
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.



The only thing I understood was that you claim that a gas is a black body. Not possible. Want me to give you the answer? It's not technical. WTH(eck). A black body absorbs all frequencies. CO2 doesn't.
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/black-body-radiation/
I just remembered something else that's better but I can't discuss it in here. Enjoy.

@Marcus, the Nature article mentioned that temperatures started rising before CO2 levels rose. Without knowing why that happened then it's influence on warming can't really be known. This is where I support physical experiments to show definitively how altering the composition of gases in our atmosphere changes its "k" value.
Basically if CO2 levels were elevated in a cylinder, would the walls of that cylinder become warmer than a cylinder that has normal outdoor levels of CO2? Both cylinders would be open on top and exposed to direct solar radiation.
And if a container is placed in each cylinder with the same amount of water, then if CO2 intensifies warming, it could help to show it.
Edited on 12-01-2020 03:42
Page 2 of 8<1234>>>





Join the debate man made or natural:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
The Only Way To End The Economic Trade War Is Avoid The "Currency Middle Man"120-01-2020 06:06
A Part of Natural Climate Variation?827-11-2019 22:29
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact