Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 4 of 6<<<23456>
13-10-2015 00:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

I think the problem here is that we're applying the equation differently. I'm using it to describe both static moments in time and how these moments change over time (perhaps I should have written it in calculus, but to be honest, I suck at calculus). Keep in mind that this is a gross over-simplification of what happens in the atmosphere, and there are many assumptions here, including:

1. All the variables fluctuate over time, but it's their long term changes which we're concerned about.

2. To be effective, the equation must be read as a single snapshot in time, but repeatedly analyzed over a period of time to be clearly understood (somewhat in the same way as a movie is made up of individual frames, but has to be played all together to understand). If you stop at any one point and assume that's all there is, then you're missing the big picture.

In addition to these assumptions, if you don't understand the importance of D in this equation and simply remove it, then you are creating a perpetual motion machine equation. That's not the equation I wrote.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 03:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
drm wrote:
Into the Night:There is no difference between the residence time of water vapor and carbon dioxide.


In fact there is. A good discussion of this is at http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

The primary reasons why water vapor cannot be a cause of climate change are its short atmospheric residence time and a basic physical limitation on the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere for any given temperature (its saturation vapor pressure).


and

Unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are long-lived greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years


Yes, I've heard this argument. I don't agree with it. Like I said, you never see a humidity of zero at sea or near coastal communities. There is always water vapor present.

The effect of water vapor intruding into dry desert areas is practically immediate (less than an hour or two). That shows it's effect is great and immediate. Rain does not have to precipitate out for this to happen.

To place some limit on water vapor simply for being what it is doesn't make sense to me because of these factors.
13-10-2015 03:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

I think the problem here is that we're applying the equation differently. I'm using it to describe both static moments in time and how these moments change over time (perhaps I should have written it in calculus, but to be honest, I suck at calculus). Keep in mind that this is a gross over-simplification of what happens in the atmosphere, and there are many assumptions here, including:

1. All the variables fluctuate over time, but it's their long term changes which we're concerned about.

2. To be effective, the equation must be read as a single snapshot in time, but repeatedly analyzed over a period of time to be clearly understood (somewhat in the same way as a movie is made up of individual frames, but has to be played all together to understand). If you stop at any one point and assume that's all there is, then you're missing the big picture.

In addition to these assumptions, if you don't understand the importance of D in this equation and simply remove it, then you are creating a perpetual motion machine equation. That's not the equation I wrote.


The importance of D is rather minimal. The reason is that although it is nonzero at all times in your model, the feedback loop I mentioned does not involve it at all. The only variables in question in the feedback loop are B and E, assuming A is always greater than zero.
13-10-2015 03:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

Remembering that:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy (B) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

E can recycle in the following ways:

1. Into other molecules in the atmosphere such as CO2, in which case it's simply in a temporary E to E loop.

2. Into the Earth's surface, in which case it sooner or later gets released as B, again.

Keep in mind two things. First, as the equation repeats each time, the vast majority of B does not go to C. Instead it makes its way into outer space, released, not trapped. Second, the CO2 releases energy relatively equally in all directions, so D and E are equal.

This is the exact same as when you pile on more clothes in the winter. The clothes neither make nor destroy heat. They simply recycle your body's radiated energy back to you more efficiently as the layers increase. Ultimately, all the energy escapes, or you'd cook like a turkey in an oven. In the case of AGW, we're just piling more layers of CO2 into the atmosphere.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 09:14
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Yes, I've heard this argument. I don't agree with it. Like I said, you never see a humidity of zero at sea or near coastal communities. There is always water vapor present.

The effect of water vapor intruding into dry desert areas is practically immediate (less than an hour or two). That shows it's effect is great and immediate. Rain does not have to precipitate out for this to happen.

To place some limit on water vapor simply for being what it is doesn't make sense to me because of these factors.


I suppose that when you're next to the ocean you're not going to get zero humidity, but I fail to see what that has to do with the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. On what basis do you think that it is the same as H2O? Have you ever seen CO2 precipitate out of the sky? I haven't, but I have seen H2O precipitate out. That alone is evidence that CO2 has longer residence time.
13-10-2015 10:30
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Into the Night

According to UCAR, the residence time of water in the atmosphere is about 9 days:

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/water-cycle

CO2 on the other hand, has a much longer residence time:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm
13-10-2015 19:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@everyone - GEOGRAPHY QUESTION OF THE DAY!

Interestingly, the lowest recorded relative humidity occurred in the deserts of Australia:

Has the relative humidity ever dropped to zero percent?

In total, Australia has about 500,000 square miles of deserts. Our GEOGRAPHY QUESTION OF THE DAY asks, "Which continent contains the largest total square miles of desert?" And the answer is (spoiler alert):

List of deserts by area *

* - Warning: do NOT click on this link if you are Wikipedia-phobic or have any known allergies to Wikipedia or its associate websites, as contact with such websites may lead to mind-numbing consequences.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

Remembering that:

A = EM radiant energy received from the sun.
B = IR radiant energy released upward by the Earth's surface.
C = IR radiant energy (B) captured by atmospheric CO2.
D = radiant energy released by CO2 back into the upper atmosphere toward outer space.
E = radiant energy released by CO2 back toward Earth (the "trapped"
component).

E can recycle in the following ways:

1. Into other molecules in the atmosphere such as CO2, in which case it's simply in a temporary E to E loop.

2. Into the Earth's surface, in which case it sooner or later gets released as B, again.

Keep in mind two things. First, as the equation repeats each time, the vast majority of B does not go to C. Instead it makes its way into outer space, released, not trapped. Second, the CO2 releases energy relatively equally in all directions, so D and E are equal.

This is the exact same as when you pile on more clothes in the winter. The clothes neither make nor destroy heat. They simply recycle your body's radiated energy back to you more efficiently as the layers increase. Ultimately, all the energy escapes, or you'd cook like a turkey in an oven. In the case of AGW, we're just piling more layers of CO2 into the atmosphere.

By capturing any amount of energy to be released back toward earth, you are raising the value of B. This must necessarily increase C, and therefore E. This in turn raises B, and so on. This is a positive feedback loop and makes the entire model inherently unstable. Any heat captured would build up until the Earth incinerated itself.

Because of the presence of an atmosphere, water vapor, and naturally occurring CO2 for as long as we drill cores to find, this should've already happened, using your model.

You are also still confusing insulation with absorption.
13-10-2015 22:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:* - Warning: do NOT click on this link if you are Wikipedia-phobic or have any known allergies to Wikipedia or its associate websites, as contact with such websites may lead to mind-numbing consequences.


Thank you for the warning. Much appreciated. I almost clicked on the link. I was able to find an actual authoritative source to check my answers:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-largest-deserts-map.html


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
13-10-2015 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
drm wrote:
Yes, I've heard this argument. I don't agree with it. Like I said, you never see a humidity of zero at sea or near coastal communities. There is always water vapor present.

The effect of water vapor intruding into dry desert areas is practically immediate (less than an hour or two). That shows it's effect is great and immediate. Rain does not have to precipitate out for this to happen.

To place some limit on water vapor simply for being what it is doesn't make sense to me because of these factors.


I suppose that when you're next to the ocean you're not going to get zero humidity, but I fail to see what that has to do with the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. On what basis do you think that it is the same as H2O? Have you ever seen CO2 precipitate out of the sky? I haven't, but I have seen H2O precipitate out. That alone is evidence that CO2 has longer residence time.

I HAVE seen CO2 precipitate out of the air. It just happens at much lower temperatures than our weather patterns.


As far as residency. Precipitation of water vapor (or CO2) doesn't remove the gaseous component. Precipitation stops in both cases when the partial pressure of the gas (or vapor) is lowered. As a result, rain, fog, or cloud does not dry the air. It is simply an indication of how wet it is.
13-10-2015 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

According to UCAR, the residence time of water in the atmosphere is about 9 days:

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/water-cycle

CO2 on the other hand, has a much longer residence time:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/016.htm

I would doubt the validity of both of these reports. The only way to track such an event is to track an individual molecule. That is not possible. It is also not relevant. That particular molecule (whatever happens to it) is only one of the aggregate out there. In the case of water vapor, removing it simply causes more to evaporate from the sea.

You should realize that I take anything the IPCC says with less weight than a grain of salt. They are not a scientific organization of any kind. They are a political one. To a slightly lesser extent, so is NASA and NOAA. These last two, at least, fund stations collecting useful data. How they interpret the data to achieve some political agenda is the problem. All three have published numbers without explaining the source, their methodology, or their relevance, other than through circular arguments. The IPCC, in particular, have been caught with simply making stuff up before. They still do.
14-10-2015 00:52
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - You stated in your reply to Climate Scientist that the only way to track such an event is to track an individual molecule. That is not possible. If you're correct, Into the Night, then what about this:

Tracking single molecules at work in living cells

If we can track single molecules in the lab, why not elsewhere?

(On second thought, what would the journal Nature Chemical Biology know? I'm sure it's run by a bunch of Marxist, anyways.)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 14-10-2015 00:53
14-10-2015 01:17
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
The IPCC only uses studies and reports by others, they don't make anything up. They have had a few typos. There is a political aspect to the IPCC in that politicians have to approve the summary. But the underlying reports are summaries of studies done elsewhere and are not approved by politicians.
14-10-2015 01:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - I agree with drm. One politician doesn't spoil the soup. They stink it up a bit, but don't necessarily spoil it.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 01:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:One politician doesn't spoil the soup. They stink it up a bit, but don't necessarily spoil it.

Not the soup, but he sure spoils the politics.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2015 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - You stated in your reply to Climate Scientist that the only way to track such an event is to track an individual molecule. That is not possible. If you're correct, Into the Night, then what about this:

Tracking single molecules at work in living cells

If we can track single molecules in the lab, why not elsewhere?

(On second thought, what would the journal Nature Chemical Biology know? I'm sure it's run by a bunch of Marxist, anyways.)

Interesting method, but it's not practical outside the confines of the lab at all. I'm not convince they are tracking an individual molecule for any length of time in the lab even with this method. This seems to be a way to observe interactions at the molecular level, but not track any individual molecule for any length of time. This could be easily a wording problem by Nature magazine journalists.
14-10-2015 02:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you mean like this:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 02:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you mean like this:


Well done. Good snag. Bonus point.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2015 02:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - You commented that This could be easily a wording problem by Nature magazine journalists. Of course it is! After all, didn't I just state that it's probably run by a bunch of Marxist (you know they can't spell very well).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
drm wrote:
The IPCC only uses studies and reports by others, they don't make anything up. They have had a few typos. There is a political aspect to the IPCC in that politicians have to approve the summary. But the underlying reports are summaries of studies done elsewhere and are not approved by politicians.

They ARE politicians. It was formed by the United Nations as a political group and is made up primarily of members of the Club of Rome.
I am not talking about typos. I am talking about total fabrication of data.
14-10-2015 02:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the night - did you mean this Club of Rome:



or this Club of Rome:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:or this Club of Rome:


*I* have an idea where to find a club of Rome.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2015 23:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - actually, a friend of mine and I were talking yesterday, and we realized that if you listed the top 3 global corporations in size based on earnings, and you defined a corporation by how it functions and not by the legal paperwork, then in order from largest down, the top 3 would be:

1. The United States Government.
2. The Vatican.
3. Exxon Mobil.


Edited on 15-10-2015 00:30
15-10-2015 02:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
climate scientist wrote:
Nope

Still waiting for you to post a link that shows that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.

You might be waiting a long time. IBdaMann happens to be right on this one. You cannot increase the energy of a system without putting energy into it. The whole greenhouse gas model (as is traditionally accepted) attempts to do exactly this.

You need to review your material on thermodynamics and how these laws were generated.
Edited on 15-10-2015 02:45
15-10-2015 03:39
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - saying the GHG effect is trying to create energy is incorrect. That would be like saying that the winter coat you wear is creating the warmth you feel when you wear it. Just like a winter coat, GHG's are only temporarily "retaining" solar energy, just like the coat temporarily retains your body's own heat instead of letting it radiate/convect rapidly away. The same thing happens in an insulated house. If the sun warms a house that has no insulation during the day, that house cools off rapidly during the night. If the sun warms a house that does have insulation during the day, that house stays warmer/hotter for longer. Ultimately, every bit of solar energy that enters the insulated house will at some point (over days, weeks, months, etc.) finally leave, or the house will burst into flames (a figurative metaphor for what might happen to Earth if M2C2 goes unchecked).

By the way, answer me this. Forget CO2 in the atmosphere for a moment. Let me know if you believe any or all of the following statements:

1. The Sun radiates EM radiation (variable = Se)

2. Some of the Se reaches Earth's surface (variable = SeE).

3. Some of the SeE is absorbed by molecules which are components of the Earth's surface (variable = SeEa).

4. Some of the SeEa is released by those same molecules back into the atmosphere (variable = SeEar).

Let's stop there for right now and see where we both stand on these 4 points.
Edited on 15-10-2015 03:40
15-10-2015 03:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - actually, a friend of mine and I were talking yesterday, and we realized that if you listed the top 3 global corporations in size based on earnings, and you defined a corporation by how it functions and not by the legal paperwork, then in order from largest down, the top 3 would be:

1. The United States Government.
2. The Vatican.
3. Exxon Mobil.

How did China not make the list? In fact all of these countries have larger revenues than the Vatican:

- United States of America 3,001,721 3,650,526 -648,805 -21.6% 2014 est.
- China 2,118,000 2,292,000 −174,000 −8.2% 2013 est.
- Japan 1,739,000 2,149,000 −410,000 −23.5% 2013 est.
- Germany 1,551,000 1,588,000 −37,000 −2.3% 2011 est.
- United Kingdom (details) 1,449,500 1,651,000 −201,500 −17.0% 2011 est.
- France (details) 1,386,000 1,535,000 −149,000 −9.7% 2011 est.
- Italy 1,065,100 1,112,000 −46,900 −3.0% 2014 est.
- Brazil 978,300 901,000 +77,300 +8.6% 2011 est.
- Canada (details) 687,800 740,800 −53,000 −7.4% 2013 est.
- Spain 545,200 672,100 −126,900 −18.9% 2011 est.
- Australia (details) 498,100 541,000 −42,900 −8.6% 2012 est.
- Russia 428,600 440,100 −11,500 −2.7% 2014 est.[3]
- Netherlands 381,300 420,400 −39,100 − 2011 est.
- India (details) 440,000 600,000 −160,000 − 2015 est.[4][5]
- South Korea 296,100 287,200 +8,900 − 2013 est.
- Norway 280,500 209,500 +71,000 25.3% 2011 est.
- Sweden 277,600 277,100 +500 − 2011 est.
- Mexico 263,200 292,200 −29,000 − 2011 est.
- Belgium 249,600 271,200 −21,600 − 2011 est.
- Saudi Arabia[6] 221,100 218,700 +2,400 − 2013 est.
- Switzerland 217,900 214,500 +3,400 − 2011 est.
- Austria 202,600 216,600 −14,000 − 2011 est.
- Thailand 200,300 187,100 +13,200 − 2011 est.
- Turkey 190,400 207,900 −17,500 − 2013 est.
- Iraq 178,200 200,200 −13,400 − 2013 est.
- Finland 136,200 137,600 −1,400 − 2011 est.
- Indonesia 134,200 144,100 −9,900 − 2011 est.
- Iran[1] 60,450 63,250 -2,800 − 2014 est.
- Greece 129,500 158,600 −29,100 − 2011 est.
- Denmark 118,300 127,500 −9,200 − 2011 est.
- Kuwait 114,000 54,000 +60,000 − 2013 est.
- United Arab Emirates 113,400 95,500 +17,900 − 2011 est.
- Portugal 110,800 120,200 −9,400 − 2011 est.
- Argentina 105,800 113,300 −7,500 − 2011 est.
- South Africa 102,800 118,300 −15,500 − 2011 est.
- Venezuela 90,700 106,100 −15,400 − 2011 est.
- Colombia 89,900 97,800 −7,900 − 2011 est.
- Poland 85,288 99,873 −14,585 −14.6% 2014 est.[7]
- Ireland 75,900 97,900 −22,000 − 2011 est.
- Republic of China 75,300 90,700 −15,400 − 2011 est.
- Hungary 74,000 68,200 +5,800 − 2011 est.
- Algeria 73,700 78,600 −4,900 − 2011 est.
- Israel 66,700 74,800 −8,100 − 2011 est.
- New Zealand 60,900 74,700 −13,800 − 2011 est.
- Qatar 59,879 57,834 +2,046 − FY13/14
- Malaysia 68,090 79,630 −11,540 −3.4% 2014 est.
- Romania 59,600 67,400 −7,800 − 2011 est.
- Chile 58,490 61,260 -2,770 − 2013 est.
- Hong Kong 55,500 47,000 +8,500 − 2011 est.
- Ukraine 53,070[8] 59,580 −6,510 − 2013 est.[9]
- Czech Republic 51,450 59,410 −7,960 − 2011 est.
- Egypt 72,700 95,700 −23,000 − 2014 est.
- Cuba 43,600 46,200 −2,600 − 2011 est.
- Angola 42,900 35,300 +7,600 − 2011 est.
- Singapore 55,030 53,410 +1,620 − 2013 est.[10]
- Kazakhstan 36,600 40,500 −3,900 − 2011 est.
- Peru 60,950 58,910 +2,040 − 2013 est.
- Vietnam 32,800 35,700 −2,900 − 2011 est.
- Slovakia 32,500 37,800 −5,300 − 2011 est.
- Philippines 31,400 36,000 −4,600 − 2011 est.
- Croatia 30,100 26,300 +3,800 − 2011 est.
- Pakistan 35,000 51,500 −16,500 −32.1% 2013 est.
- Oman 29,700 22,500 +7,200 − 2011 est.
- Morocco 25,700 31,400 −5,700 − 2011 est.
- Luxembourg 25,000 25,500 −500 − 2011 est.
- Belarus 23,300 22,300 +1,000 − 2011 est.
- Nigeria 23,100 31,100 −8,000 − 2011 est.
- Slovenia 21,300 23,500 −2,200 − 2011 est.
- Ecuador 18,600 22,300 −3,700 − 2011 est.
- Libya 18,200 32,000 −13,800 − 2011 est.
- Bulgaria 18,100 19,200 −1,100 − 2011 est.
- Lithuania 14,200 16,300 −2,100 − 2011 est.
- Sudan 10,406 10,135 +271 − 2015 est.
- Cyprus 10,400 12,000 −1,600 − 2011 est.
- Syria 11,700 17,900 −6,200 − 2011 est.
- Latvia 9,900 11,100 −1,200 − 2011 est.
- Tunisia 10,200 12,800 −1,600 −15.7% 2011 est.
- Serbia 17,600 19,600 −2,000 − 2011 est.
- Yemen 7,300 10,600 −3,300 − 2011 est.
- Estonia 8,500 8,600 −100 − 2011 est.
- Bangladesh 12,700 17,200 −4,500 − 2011 est.
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 8,400 9,000 −600 − 2011 est.
- Azerbaijan 18,500 19,500 −1,100 − 2011 est.
- Trinidad and Tobago 7,300 8,100 −800 − 2011 est.
- Uruguay 13,600 14,000 −400 − 2011 est.
- Bolivia 10,800 10,700 +100 − 2011 est.
- Uzbekistan 15,000 14,800 +200 − 2011 est.
- Dominican Republic 8,000 9,500 −1,500 − 2011 est.
- Sri Lanka 8,500 12,600 −4,100 − 2011 est.
- Iceland 5,900 6,500 −600 − 2011 est.
- Lebanon 9,300 11,700 −2,400 − 2011 est.
- Brunei 5,500 5,800 −300 − 2011 est.
- Puerto Rico 6,700 9,600 −2,900 − FY99/00
- Kenya 16,800 19,500 −2,700 − 2013 est.
- Macau 14,500 5,000 +9,500 − 2011 est.
- Panama 7,800 8,500 −700 − 2011 est.
- Jordan 5,900 9,600 −3,700 − 2011 est.
- Bahrain 7,500 8,400 −900 − 2011 est.
- Equatorial Guinea 8,800 8,500 +300 − 2011 est.
- Republic of the Congo 4,800 5,900 −1,100 − 2011 est.
- Guatemala 5,500 6,900 −1,400 − 2011 est.
- Cote d'Ivoire 4,400 6,300 −1,900 − 2011 est.
- Costa Rica 5,800 8,100 −2,300 − 2011 est.
- Georgia 5,400 10,100 −4,700 − 2011 est.
- Ethiopia 5,400 6,000 −600 − 2011 est.
- Botswana 5,600 6,200 −600 − 2011 est.
- Tanzania 4,600 6,100 −1,500 − 2011 est.
- Jamaica 3,800 4,700 −900 − 2011 est.
- Ghana 8,800 10,400 −1,600 − 2011 est.
- Cameroon 5,000 5,300 −300 − 2011 est.
- El Salvador 4,400 5,300 −900 − 2011 est.
- Zambia 3,600 4,400 −800 − 2011 est.
- Albania 3,300 3,700 −400 − 2011 est.
- Malta 4,600 3,400 +1,200 − 2011 est.
- Senegal 3,300 4,300 −1,000 − 2011 est.
- Papua New Guinea 4,200 4,200 — − 2011 est.
- Paraguay 4,500 4,400 +100 − 2011 est.
- Macedonia 3,100 3,400 −300 − 2011 est.
- North Korea 3,200 3,300 −100 − 2007 est.
- Mozambique 3,700 4,200 −500 − 2011 est.
- Uganda 2,400 3,400 −1,000 − 2011 est.
- Namibia 3,700 4,900 −1,200 − 2011 est.
- Gabon 5,500 4,400 +1,100 − 2011 est.
- Honduras 3,000 3,700[11] −700 − 2011 est.
- Armenia 2,300 2,600 −300 − 2011 est.
- Chad 2,500 3,500 −1,000 − 2011 est.
- Moldova 2,700 2,700 — − 2011 est.
- Mauritius 2,400 2,800 −400 − 2011 est.
- Burkina Faso 2,200 2,600 −400 − 2011 est.
- Mongolia 3,400 3,500 −100 − 2011 est.
- Nepal 4,380 4,350 +30 − FY 2013/14
- Madagascar 1,600 1,700 −100 − 2011 est.
- Mali 2,200 2,600 −400 − 2011 est.
- Benin 1,400 1,700 −300 − 2011 est.
- Turkmenistan 4,200 4,100 +100 − 2011 est.
- Fiji 900 1,100 −200 − 2011 est.
- Greenland 1,200 1,100 — − 2010 est.
- Tajikistan 1,800 1,800 — − 2011 est.
- Nicaragua 1,400 1,600 −200 − 2011 est.
- Cambodia 2,000 2,700 −700 − 2011 est.
- Malawi 1,800 1,800 — − 2011 est.
- Swaziland 1,000 1,500 −500 − 2011 est.
- Kosovo 1,700 2,100 −400 − 2011 est.
- West Bank[12] 2,100 3,200 -1,100 − 2011 est.
- Bahamas 1,030 1,030 — — FY04/05
- New Caledonia 996 1,072 −76 − 2001 est.
- Burma 983.6 1,775.0 −791.4 − 2008 est.
- Isle of Man 965 943 +22 − FY05/06 est.
- Rwanda 902.2 1,032.0 −129.8 − 2008 est.
- Afghanistan 890 [13] 2,700 −1,810 − 2007 est.
- French Polynesia 865.0 644.1 +220.9 − 1999
- Monaco 863.0 920.6 −57.6 − 2005 est.
- Barbados 847[14] 886 −39 − 2000 est.
- U.S. Virgin Islands 837 837 — − FY08/09
- Jersey 829 851 −22 − 2005
- Haiti 820.6 965.2 −144.6 − 2008 est.
- Laos 809.6 954.0 −144.4 − 2008 est.
- Mauritania 770 770 — − 2007 est.
- Maldives 762[15] 884 −122 − 2008 est.
- Netherlands Antilles 757.9 949.5 −191.6 − 2004
- Bermuda 738 665 +73 − FY04/05
- Timor-Leste[16] 733 309 +424 − FY06/07 est.
- Democratic Republic of the Congo 700 2,000 −1,300 − 2006 est.
- San Marino 690.6 652.9 +37.7 − 2006
- Faroe Islands 588 623 −35 − 2005
- Guernsey 563.6 530.9 +32.7 − 2005
- Togo 551.5 620.1 −68.6 − 2008 est.
- Cape Verde 525.4 585.3 −59.9 − 2008 est.
- Lesotho 523.0 479.5 +43.5 − 2008 est.
- Aruba 507.9 577.9 −70.0 − 2005 est.
- Andorra 496.9 496.8 +0.1 − 2007
- Guyana 463.7 536.0 −72.3 − 2008 est.
- Gibraltar 455.1 423.6 +31.5 − 2005 est.
- Liechtenstein 424.2 414.1 +10.1 − 1998 est.
- Cayman Islands 423.8 392.6 +31.2 − 2004
- Mayotte 420 394 +26 − 2005
- Suriname 392.6 425.9 −33.3 − 2004
- Belize 335.5 361.5 −26.0 − 2008 est.
- Niger 320[17] 320 — − 2002 est.
- Guam 319.6 427.8 −108.2 − 2002 est.
- Seychelles 318.1 324.6 −6.5 − 2008 est.
- Guinea 315.0 796.5 −481.5

Why is neither OPEC nor the European Union on your list? I think the IPCC should be on your list before any mention of the Vatican, wouldn't you agree?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-10-2015 04:33
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you're right about China, and if the EU were half as integrated as the USA, I'd definitely include them. Yep, so Exxon's off the list: take that, you greedy multi-national.

As for the Vatican, I think they stay because, given they're the only corporation that doesn't have to make financial disclosures to anyone, they probably have a bigger X budget than the Pentagon (only because they had a few hundred years head start on hiding all their money).

PS - great list!
Edited on 15-10-2015 04:33
15-10-2015 05:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:As for the Vatican, I think they stay

So you think both the IPCC and the Vatican should stay on the list because neither account for the vast amounts of money they funnel?

OK.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-10-2015 05:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - Why not. Who knows, maybe they're one and the same.

Actually, I do believe there is a lot of good science-based information in the IPCC reports, but I'll also admit that they would have been even better without the political editing.
Edited on 15-10-2015 05:34
15-10-2015 11:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - saying the GHG effect is trying to create energy is incorrect. That would be like saying that the winter coat you wear is creating the warmth you feel when you wear it. Just like a winter coat, GHG's are only temporarily "retaining" solar energy, just like the coat temporarily retains your body's own heat instead of letting it radiate/convect rapidly away. The same thing happens in an insulated house. If the sun warms a house that has no insulation during the day, that house cools off rapidly during the night. If the sun warms a house that does have insulation during the day, that house stays warmer/hotter for longer. Ultimately, every bit of solar energy that enters the insulated house will at some point (over days, weeks, months, etc.) finally leave, or the house will burst into flames (a figurative metaphor for what might happen to Earth if M2C2 goes unchecked).

By the way, answer me this. Forget CO2 in the atmosphere for a moment. Let me know if you believe any or all of the following statements:

1. The Sun radiates EM radiation (variable = Se)

2. Some of the Se reaches Earth's surface (variable = SeE).

3. Some of the SeE is absorbed by molecules which are components of the Earth's surface (variable = SeEa).

4. Some of the SeEa is released by those same molecules back into the atmosphere (variable = SeEar).

Let's stop there for right now and see where we both stand on these 4 points.

Points 1 and 2 are fine. Point 3 is fine with some points to be made. The radiation from the sun is absorbed into the molecules of the Earth's surface, and that energy is converted into thermal energy as a result. Point 4 is fine with caveats. A vibrating molecule also creates light (although usually not in the visible range, most of that energy is in the radio band) and some of that light is infrared frequencies.
15-10-2015 11:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you're right about China, and if the EU were half as integrated as the USA, I'd definitely include them. Yep, so Exxon's off the list: take that, you greedy multi-national.

As for the Vatican, I think they stay because, given they're the only corporation that doesn't have to make financial disclosures to anyone, they probably have a bigger X budget than the Pentagon (only because they had a few hundred years head start on hiding all their money).

PS - great list!

Nations (including the US) don't make financial disclosures to anyone either. We sort of do it in the US, but much is 'off the books' for one reason or another.
15-10-2015 16:21
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - if we predicate that all of the variables in my post to Into the Night (Se, SeE, SeEa, and SeEar) are in one way or another made up of some part of the EM spectrum (i.e. - visible, IR, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.), do you find agreement with points 1-4?

As for disclosure, true, no one makes 100% disclosure. But I do think the Vatican has raised the bar on non-disclosure to never before seen heights in both the financial and spiritual worlds:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
15-10-2015 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
trafn wrote:@IBdaMann - if we predicate that all of the variables in my post to Into the Night (Se, SeE, SeEa, and SeEar) are in one way or another made up of some part of the EM spectrum (i.e. - visible, IR, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.), do you find agreement with points 1-4?


Let's address:

Forget CO2 in the atmosphere for a moment

Easy. It really is never on my mind.


1. The Sun radiates EM radiation (variable = Se)

Yes. Agreed. Quite a lot of it, in fact. Quite the testament to the power of fusion.

2. Some of the Se reaches Earth's surface (variable = SeE).

Yes. Agreed.

3. Some of the SeE is absorbed by molecules which are components of the Earth's surface (variable = SeEa).

Agreed. Some is reflected away and not absorbed.

4. Some of the SeEa is released by those same molecules back into the atmosphere (variable = SeEar).

Disagreed. Se is one particular EM signature. That which radiates from the earth's surface is a distinctly different EM signature. It is not a "re-radiation" or a "re-emission" of what was absorbed.

An analogy would be you eating food and then taking a dump. You could look at the stool and say "that's what I ate" or you could wisely realize "that's not what I ate."

I recommend you rewrite your statements and variables to be quanitites of energy, just as the variables in the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Change everything to be in joules, for example, and then you won't have to worry about keeping track of energy changing form or of me springing a "gotcha!" on you for having violated the 1st LoT. Again, just a recommendation.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
15-10-2015 20:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - okay, so we agree on points 1-3 so far. If you realize that I'm not stating what kind of EM energy comprises these variables, I think you'll find we're on the same page (i.e. - I'm not saying that the EM energy in Se is the same as the EM energy in SeEar). Perhaps the confusion arises in that I've incorporated "Se" into the name of the "SeEar" variable. I did this only for chronological lineage purposes. I apologize if this implied that Se and SeEar contained the same kind of EM energy.
15-10-2015 21:51
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
They ARE politicians. It was formed by the United Nations as a political group and is made up primarily of members of the Club of Rome.
I am not talking about typos. I am talking about total fabrication of data.


Hi Into the Night

I would just like to say that this is not true at all. The IPCC report are written by scientists. Many of them, from all around the world. They volunteer their time to contribute to the reports (they are not paid). A few people are paid to help format the documents, organise meetings, etc. But only a handful of people - the science is written by scientists, and thousands of them contribute. I know, because I work in the environmental science department at a university. Many of my colleagues contributed to the last IPCC report (and the ones before).

Where the politicians come in, is at the end. The wording of the summary for policy makers document is approved at a meeting where they go through line by line and representatives from each government have to all agree on the wording of the document.

The IPCC is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. It's international nature makes it this way. The science is reviewed independently, and the reviews are available to read online.

There have been many criticisms of the IPCC process, and there have been a few mistakes in the IPCC reports, but the overall science has been found to be robust again and again. No independent investigation has ever found fault with the overall science represented in the IPCC reports. And there have been plenty of independent investigations.
15-10-2015 22:42
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I would encourage people to look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Hcu3jH8G4

Almost every speaker (apart from the narrator) is a scientist, and was a lead author on the reports. None of the lead authors were paid for their efforts, or to appear on the video. You can google pretty much all of them to find out more about their research on their personal university/institution web pages.

The video is a bit flowery with music that is too over-dramatic, but there is also some nice footage of climate scientists, oceanographers and atmospheric chemists doing fieldwork.
15-10-2015 23:47
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist: nice video. Not doctorate level dissertation material, but a great "every person's"explanation of where we are today. It's almost laughable how much resistance still remains.

I think if Robin Williams were alive today, he'd have had a field day with M2C2 deniers:

Tribute video to Robin Williams

(my hero
)
Edited on 15-10-2015 23:48
16-10-2015 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
climate scientist wrote:
They ARE politicians. It was formed by the United Nations as a political group and is made up primarily of members of the Club of Rome.
I am not talking about typos. I am talking about total fabrication of data.


Hi Into the Night

I would just like to say that this is not true at all. The IPCC report are written by scientists. Many of them, from all around the world. They volunteer their time to contribute to the reports (they are not paid). A few people are paid to help format the documents, organise meetings, etc. But only a handful of people - the science is written by scientists, and thousands of them contribute. I know, because I work in the environmental science department at a university. Many of my colleagues contributed to the last IPCC report (and the ones before).

So how come they were caught literally manufacturing data? You say you work at a university science program. What is the source of funding for producing this report or for any related research?
climate scientist wrote:
Where the politicians come in, is at the end. The wording of the summary for policy makers document is approved at a meeting where they go through line by line and representatives from each government have to all agree on the wording of the document.

At the end is enough.
climate scientist wrote:
The IPCC is policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. It's international nature makes it this way. The science is reviewed independently, and the reviews are available to read online.

Then all I can say is their peer review process sucks. The IPCC is absolutely policy prescriptive. It's international nature does not change that. They were formed specifically to report on global warming.
climate scientist wrote:
There have been many criticisms of the IPCC process, and there have been a few mistakes in the IPCC reports, but the overall science has been found to be robust again and again. No independent investigation has ever found fault with the overall science represented in the IPCC reports. And there have been plenty of independent investigations.

This is simply not true. Faults in the process, in the science, in the data, are found all the time. The real peer review process (not the one they claim is 'peer review') IS working.
16-10-2015 10:09
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
So how come they were caught literally manufacturing data?


I have never heard of this. Can you be more specific? The IPCC do not collect any data, carry out any research, or monitor any climate variables. They only report on the peer-reviewed literature.

You say you work at a university science program. What is the source of funding for producing this report or for any related research?


As I said before, scientists who contribute to the reports do so as volunteers. There is no source of funding for contributing to the reports.

Our department receives funding from various sources. Mostly from the Natural Environment Research Council, but also from a few government departments, and quite a lot from the EU. We have to apply for this funding, and there is only a 10% success rate at the moment. The funding agencies do not place constraints on what we can apply for, or what the outcomes should be. We set this ourselves.

When a grant finishes, we have to write a report on what was found. We also have to show that the money was spent appropriately (i.e. not on some other research). It is not uncommon for research grant final reports to state results that are different from the predicted results, or to state that more research is needed to determine any kind of conclusion.

This is not the case in the school of pharmacy in our university. Many of the researchers there get funded by drug companies, and they are under a lot of pressure to produce the results that the companies want. This is not the case with environmental research.

At the end is enough.


Only the summary for policy makers, and I think also the technical summaries are reviewed by governments. The actual main reports are not.

Then all I can say is their peer review process sucks. The IPCC is absolutely policy prescriptive. It's international nature does not change that. They were formed specifically to report on global warming.


No, they were formed to report on climate change, not global warming (they are different). And that is what they do. They report on the state of the climate, from peer-reviewed literature from the scientific community.

Faults in the process, in the science, in the data, are found all the time.


I only know of a couple, the biggest one being the mistake relating to glacial melt. The IPCC apologised when this was discovered and issued a correction. They are not trying to hide anything. What are these mistakes in the data and the science that you are referring to?

The reports are public for everyone to read. Almost every sentence is referenced with peer reviewed literature. All you have to do is read the citations to know whether the IPCC has been 'manipulating the data/science'.
16-10-2015 11:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you seem insistent on pointing out the "many" flaws in the IPCC report which, in your opinion, lead you to believe that the entire report is invalid and worthless.

Since you seem to place such a high standard of proof on anything you are willing to accept, can you please site a comprehensive and "error free" scientific report/study which proves that M2C2 (man-made climate change) does not exist?
Page 4 of 6<<<23456>





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
About the damage that Obama did to science.14312-12-2019 06:41
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact