by Judith Curry
Andy Revkin poses a good question . . .
Over at dotearth, in the context of the U.S. presidential debates, Andy Revkin poses the following question:
While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear. What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
This is a very good question to ponder, its at the heart of the climate policy debate. How would you answer this question? For the moment, accept that there is ‘some’ warming that is attributable to CO2 (i.e. lets not debate the fundamental science here, but uncertainty assessments are ok). Please keep your responses on topic.
Judith,
The planet is ALWAYS changing…
You’re right, Joe. Earth’s heat source – the Sun – is also ALWAYS changing but it left behind these records of its past behavior:
1. D- and L-amino acids were separated in meteorites ~5 Gyr ago probably by circular polarized light from a pulsar, before life began:
http://144.206.159.178/ft/402/10643/204793.pdf
2. The earliest molecules of life ~3.8 Gyr ago were likely transparent to visible light, like RNA or DNA, but absorbed UV light (~200-300 nm) http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/JMP20112600007_31445079.pdf
Best question to debate is posted on Andy’s (NY Times) blog:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/?comments#permid=75
Short version: Does AGW advance the goals of a tyrannical one-world government by ignoring the force that extends from the powerful solar pulsar core out another 100 AU (astronomical unit = Earth to Sun distance) beyond our beautiful, water-covered, life-sustaining planet ? [“Voyager’s long good-bye – NASA probes find surprises at the edge of the Solar System,” Nature 489, 20-21 (2012)]
http://www.nature.com/news/voyager-s-long-goodbye-1.11348
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
The key question for policy is, “To what extent should we sacrifice economic growth now, hoping to improve the future?”
We can be almost perfectly certain that draconian policies forcing a rapid shift from fossil fuels to anything else will severely retard economic growth, worldwide.
We can be equally certain that severely retarding worldwide economic growth will cause tremendous suffering, especially to the poorest people in the least-developed countries.
Are we so certain that shifting quickly will avert future climatic catastrophe — as distinct from future inconvenience and future expense — that it is a Good Idea to force those people to suffer that much now?
Keep on Truckin’.
===========
Judy, I gave Andy all the answers back in 2008 when his site was known to the bitter as DotKim.
==============
What is the empirical estimate for the climate sensitivity?
Knowing its true value will make me very happy.
Girma,
There is no answer to that question.
Every point on the planet has a different value at the same time and averaging to guestimate is a huge error.
The Precautionary Principle says we should take no action until we are sure it will do no harm. Should we spend billions of dollars now potentially mitigating a hypothetical threat – and cause real harm to the poor, the old and the sick, OR should we apply the Precautionary Principle and wait until we know enough to balance tomorrow’s risks against today’s real harm?
Who is to say that you cause more harm when ignorance can generate a response that REALLY could damage our currently comfortable climate.
This is the kind of statement that renders skepticism, about basically any subject, essentially meaningless. It sets an impossible standard, and so becomes meaningless. It makes concerns about uncertainty meaningless.
We can’t be sure that any action, of any type, to address any problem, won’t cause harm. The only purpose for such a statement is to confirm a bias.
A similarly problematic statement, which renders “concern” about uncertainty meaningless.
Skeptics need to start taking out the “skeptical” garbage.
Joshua, the PP deserves such a response. It is a rhetorical device. Humans have mechanisms in place already to address risk. As implemented, it is the UN version of risk management (PP) that needs to be ditched. It is used for personal or societial motivated reasoning, and causes conflagation of the real issues with potential climate change. Besides, it is institutional bias in apllication and in limits.
The Precautionary Principle is a Paean to Ignorance.
======================
John –
The PP is easily polemicized by people on both sides of the debate to argue in favor of per-determined conclusions. In essence, it is a statement that caution in the face of potential risks is appropriate.
More specifically, I see nothing wrong with the following as a general principle:
The statement becomes complicated when we wade into the waters of uncertainty. That is to be expected.
Demagogues on both sides seek to apply a binary mentality to interpret the PP – they seek to exploit complications rather than to deal with them. That isn’t a fault with the basic PP concept, but with how motivated reasoning undermines rational analysis. That fault plays out in many, many aspects of the debate, the PP being just one.
John,
The Precautionary Principle is something I’m interested in:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/precautionaryprinciple
It might soon be retagged
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/precautionarytales
Please note Martin Perterson’s Nature article. It might very well be the best you could argue against the PP.
Thanks Willard. That is a good write -up by Peterson.
Joshua, the problem is that serious and irreversible, as well as sustainability have not been defined concretely. As Peterson points out, the meaning differs as or according to the individual. In this case, that persons are using motivated reasoning, such a construct would be expected to give worse results, since each gets to argue or define as they wish. Peterson found some utility for it. However, as it was promulgated, or rather since it was promulgated, it does not pass the consistancy test and needs to be ditched, or rendered to “advisement” category. The difference is that an advisement is usable, the PP as stated is worse than useless in uncertainty. It is just wrongly inconsistant with rules of decision making and with risk management practices which Joe Plodinec illustrates by pointing to how it can be inconsistant.
@joshua
‘Threat’ is a lovely word for alarmists. It means nothing at all. Like being ‘in danger’. Neither mean anything without qualification, so – on your PP – could be used to justify any action at all that wanted to take.
Weasel words indeed……
“lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”
Lack of scientific knowledge is more than sufficient reason to not do something that will most likely turn out to be something really stupid.
When you clearly don’t forecast anything correct for fifteen years, shut up and sit down and gather more data.
Latimer –
I agree that the details behind “threat” or “dangerous” are the meat of the discussion. Qualification is the nut to crack. But as a general statement, the use of PP as I quoted seems just fine. John Plodnick’s usage of the PP above is certainly less valid.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250201
Reflexive demagoging any aspect of the debate, the PP included, will get us all nowhere fast.
John –
I agree.
In this case, that persons are using motivated reasoning, such a construct would be expected to give worse results, since each gets to argue or define as they wish.
So what it boils down to is the intent of the discussant. If someone wants to demagogue the use of the PP, they will do so – just as we see with any aspect of what anyone says in the debate.
I don’t think it’s particularly useful without clarification – but I don’t think that it is worse than useless until people demagogue it. I see it as a fine principle to use as a basic starting point – and from there it becomes more meaningful as qualification is added. But we can’t even start down that road when people are motivated to throw obstacles in the path by demagoging basic cautionary principles.
I haven’t read the link – but it seems to me that as a general statement, of course it can be inconsistent. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Holding a general statement hostage to uniform consistency is pointless. The point is to burrow down to explore the concept of consistency in specific context. How do we do that if people are so focused on rejecting basic cautionary principles. Again, I will refer back to this post:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250201
Please read again my response to that post. With the attitude John Plodinec expresses, no one can get anywhere.
Joshua you say “but it seems to me that as a general statement, of course it can be inconsistent. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Holding a general statement hostage to uniform consistency is pointless” There appears to be a logical or procedural error here. Without concrete definitions, motivated reasons will surface and comprise most if not all the discussion. With the human tendency to engage in such reasoning, it is as I claim worse than useless. It will waste time, first fighting over what the definitions are and how the definitions are related within a mental construct, that then has to be argued as well. With the construct dependent on the underlying weak defintional relationship, the construct will soon be demolished by the participants as they use parsing to re-entrench their position. The merits of any consideration will be then subsumed by this fight to retrench. In fact this was linked by Willard, IIRC, over at Keith’s in an article discussing sustainability and how even those who wanted to support the concept had problems first communicating, then secondly coming to concrete decisions because of the lack of definition.
John –
I see your point. It has merit. The article Willard linked (http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v8/n4/full/7400947.html) is also quite interesting.
The PP in and of itself does not create motivated reasoning, wasteful re-parsing, etc. Those phenomena are ubiquitous. Time-wasting is ubiquitous. The PP is just one arena where they surface. And so I object to anyone focusing on the PP as causal w/r/t creating problems. This is not entirely unlike previous discussions you and I have had about locating causation.
I think that the PP can be useful as a starting point. Sure, a problem occurs if someone uses it as an end-point, as a reason to dismiss cost/benefit analysis (as described in the linked article). And on the other side, if someone seeks to use the PP as a way to dismiss earnest attempts to make caution appropriately contextualized, a problem occurs.
John –
I should clarify:
By that I mean that if someone uses attacks on PP as a way to dismiss attempts to make caution appropriately contextualized (for which I think using the PP can be an appropriate starting point), a problem occurs.
JOshua, I agreee with your comments in general. In specific, I point out as Bart indicated it works unless someone games the system. My point is and has been the UN and through the IPCC are gaming the system. The UN with Rio Declaration and its version of PP that removes tools used in risk management; and the IPCC with its institutionalized biaas that precluded that climate change is real and a threat. By stating threat as they did, one cannot use conservation of capital or status quo, as a legitimate reason to avoid potential costs in an uncertain result. As stated it is either contridictory or it is biased. Neither is correct.
“precluded” is the wrong word substitute “predetermined.”
‘pre-concluded’.
==========
Hansen said this himself in several of his Science papers. Do the things that it makes sense to do any way.
Things like cutting down on emissions black soot from dirty coal help air pollution, reduce respiratory disease, and will not leave soot to absorb energy in the atmosphere or on snow/ice.
Are you kidding? That makes too much sense.
Didn’t dirty coal power plants in China paused the global warming?
Joshua, I have a house in France, actually it’s two houses, one built sometime in the 18th Century and the other earlier, but of unknown provenance. Mrs. Geronimo saw some dust that could have been wood on the kitchen table. Should I:
1. Spend a couple of thousand Euros getting house treated for termites and woodworm immediately?
2. Spend a couple of hundred Euros treat only the room we’ve seen the “wood” dust in?
3. Wait to see if there are any other persistent signs of wood infestation?
The world has warmed by approximatel 0.8C over the last 150 – 200 years, there are no signs at all that this has been detrimental, all the “signs” have transpired not to be true, like the 50 millions climate change refugees by 2010 on the UNEP site. ( Now eradicated).
So I guess the question should be:
“How much are you prepared to pay for mitigation of CAGW if the theory turns out to be wrong?”
The prevailing Alarmist Precautionary Principle is that unless we can be sure there isn’t CAGW, we should pour $billions into it and massively expand the state.
Funny, I don’t recall Joshua, Web or any of the other alarmist crackpots on this site ever complaining about it.
John Plodinec is correct. From an expert on the Precautionary Principle:
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
Pooh,
Thank you for the OP-ed.
Sunstein only attacks what he calls the stronger version . His reductio ad absurdum are limited to the stronger versions of the PP:
> The most limited versions of the principle suggest, quite sensibly, that a lack of decisive evidence of harm should not be grounds for refusing to respond. Controls might be justified even if we cannot establish a definite connection between, for example, low-level exposures to humanly-introduced carcinogens and adverse effects on human health. Thus the 1992 Rio Declaration, setting out principles for sustainable development, states, “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind/?page=full
As an aside, the byline only states that Cass Sunstein is a law professor, so the article alone does not provide evidence that he’s an expert on the PP.
Willard. “…so the article alone does not provide evidence that he’s an expert on the PP. These might help:
Sunstein, Cass. “21st-Century Regulation—An Update on the President’s Regulatory Reforms – WSJ.com.” Opinion. Wall Street Journal Online, May 25, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345230492613772.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Sunstein, Cass R., and Timur Kuran. “Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation.” Research. Social Science Research Network, October 7, 2007. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/364.pdf
Sunstein, Cass R. Beyond The Precautionary Principle. Working Paper #38. Public Law and Legal Theory. University of Chicago, January 2003. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/38.crs_.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf
———. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005
Sunstein, Cass R., and Eric A. Posner. “Global Warming and Social Justice.” Regulation (Spring 2008): 14 – 20. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n1/v31n1-3.pdf
Sunstein, Cass R. “The Paralyzing Principle.” Regulation 25, no. 4 (2002): 32–37. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf
———. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
Sunstein, Cass R., and David Weisbach. Climate Change and Discounting the Future: A Guide for the Perplexed. Working Paper. Reg-Markets Center, AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies, August 2008. http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phpEK.pdf
Willard. The last link does not work anymore. Try this one; the paper can be downloaded from here:
Weisbach, David A. and Sunstein, Cass R., Climate Change and Discounting the Future: A Guide for the Perplexed (August 12, 2008). Reg-Markets Center Working Paper No. 08-19; Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-20; Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-12. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1223448 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1223448
Pooh,
Thank you for these references from WSJ, Cato, AEI, and his book collating his lectures on the topic.
Pooh,
Thanks to your links, I believe I could provide some food for thought to John Pittman over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253146
Sustein looks like a remarkable character.
Many thanks!
Willard sustainable is not well defined and as Peak oil SIF’s point out nothing is sustainable forever. Physcists point out the sun.
“The Precautionary Principle says we should take no action until we are sure it will do no harm.”
Does that include not pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere until we are sure it will do no harm?
Louise,
Got any evidence anyone’s been hurt by it yet, since it’s been happening for some time?
Andrew
Are you SURE it has done no harm and can you be SURE it will do no harm in the future?
If so, please demonstrate.
“Are you SURE it has done no harm and can you be SURE it will do no harm in the future?”
Yes, I am. The demonstration has already occurred. You acknowledge as much in your initial claim. Gigatons of C02 and no harm.
Andrew
This is a rather typical example of how demagogues exploit complications in the concept of the PP to serve a partisan goal.
Even assuming that it can’t be “proven” that anyone has been “hurt by it” yet (which, btw, is absurd anyway – given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment), the PP in the context of the climate debate refers specifically to the potential of future impact on the climate.
If you want to argue about whether there are threats, knock yourself out, but that is a different issue. Polemicists on one side want to use the PP to argue that climate change policy is a must, and polemicists on the other side want to use the PP to argue that climate change policy is completely unfounded. Neither group is actually arguing on the basis of the PP, but merely from their own biases.
BTW – Louise – just to be clear, my reference to demagogues was to BA.
Have a Peter Principle Party. Take precautions.
=================
@joshua
‘given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment’
I don’t think that we ‘all know’ this at all.
On what basis? What evidence would you cite? What ‘negative impacts’ are there?
Sorry, Latimer. I see no reason to answer those questions. That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change (and I’ll even throw in geo-political negative externalities as an exclusion for the sake of argument),is completely obvious are obvious to anyone who is serious about this issue and is even remotely interested in a good faith discussion. (Please note, someone not stuck in a binary mentality can see that the existence of negative impacts is not mutually exclusive with the existence of positive benefits).
That you would even ask those questions serves my purpose sufficiently to point out the difference between “skepticism” and skepticism.
Louise defines rather clearly the frontiers of her analytical skills with this line of reasoning.
Peter principle, kim? Are you insinuating that climate science has risen above the level of its own competence? If so, I’ll agree. They did so 30 years ago.
The unfortunate logic of a “skeptic.”
You take a general principle and selectively apply it to those you disagree with.
A skeptic avoids something that so obviously could be merely confirmation bias.
@joshua
I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
Let’s remind ourselves of your ‘obvious’ proposition:
‘That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change is completely obvious’
It may be obvious to you, but not to me. Indeed it is a claim I haven’t really seen before. I ask you to document the harmful impact you cite. You refuse – with some form of lecture about my supposed motivations/intellect.
It was a simple question. You did not answer it.
Nuff said.
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
Start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
@willard
Any particular piece of the large and dull tome you would wish to draw to my attention vis a vis the topic under discussion – the ‘obviousness’ of bad effects of ACO2 other than climate change.
Or should I just put you in the same category as those many religious nuts whose answer to every question is ‘read the bible’ (or Koran or Talmud or whatever)? And who like to utter vacuous gnomic riddles?
Since the supposed answer is ‘obvious’ you must surely be able to guide me at least to the chapter and paragraph that discusses it………
Joshua | October 8, 2012 at 11:16 am |
Latimer: “On what basis? What evidence would you cite? What ‘negative impacts’ are there?”
Joshua: “Sorry, Latimer. I see no reason to answer those questions.”
ROFLMA – anonymous coward Joshua CAN’T answer it. The harm is imagined to be many decades in the future. Too funny. I see no reason… HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAGHAHAAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!1111111
willard (@nevaudit) | October 8, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
Start here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
—————————————————————–
Creepy Willard lamely tries the literature bluff, Latimer bitch slaps him for his trougle, and creepy Willard falls flat on his creepy face. Pass the popcorn.
David Springer,
Once we establish the physical basis of what CO2 does, we could follow up by looking at its biogeochemistry, one of the chapter Latimer Adler might have glimpsed, if only because his alleged background in chemistry:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html
Online bitch-slapping does not hurt much. In fact, I see no reason for you to motivate me to drop citation after citation of documents you’re supposed to have read. Quotes will soon follow.
Meanwhile, please don’t choke on your Thanksgiving popcorn.
@willard
Chapter 7 of IPCC WG1 discusses very few linkages between ACO2 and bad things other than climate.
Here is the executive summary
‘Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and of reactive gases such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, which lead to the formation of secondary pollutants including aerosol particles and tropospheric ozone, have increased substantially in response to human activities. As a result, biogeochemical cycles have been perturbed significantly’
You will note that CO2 is lumped in there with every other unpleasant gas they can think of. I think (for example) that CO2 has almost no influence on tropospheric ozone.
So – once again – where please are the ‘obvious’ parts of Joshua’s proposition?
‘That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change is completely obvious’
Latimer Adler,
There is no hurry to try to satisfy your request, if all you have is bitch-slapping. In fact, I see no reason to believe you ever were satisfied.
From the introduction:
> An important aspect of climate research is to identify potential feedbacks and assess if such feedbacks could produce large and undesired responses to perturbations resulting from human activities. Studies of past climate evolution on different time scales can elucidate mechanisms that could trigger nonlinear responses to external forcing. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the major biogeochemical feedbacks of significance to the climate system, and to assess current knowledge of their magnitudes and trends. Specifically, this chapter will examine the relationships between the physical climate system and the land surface, the carbon cycle, chemically reactive atmospheric gases and aerosol particles. It also presents the current state of knowledge on budgets of important trace gases.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-1.html
I hope you do not find the emphasized sentence too gnomic.
Louise,
The burden of proof is on those claiming some harm. Otherwise mankind would be unable to ever make any change or introduce anything new.
Latimer
you asked about impacts.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html
So, if your question is about the citations for the scientific basis for the effect C02 has that would be WG1 ( and skip chapter 7 there isnt much of interest there) If your question is about impacts, then WG2.
Joshua:
Concerning your posts: Personal denigration is not discussion.
Thanks Steven
But the actual point I was trying to establish was whether Joshua could substantiate his assertion that
CO2 has so many bad effects – in addition to climate change – that they are obvious (paraphrase).
It was not a discussion about climate change. It was not a discussion about radiatve physics. It was a discussion about the effects *In addition* to these things. And the *obviousness* or otherwise thereof.
Somewhere along the way various participants seemed to have lost track of the point of the discussion and wandered off into academic wordgames, philosophy, epistemiology and insults.
It was a very simple, straightforward and reasonable question that could have been answered in a minute or two. But it seems to have caused much angst with a number of participants.
En passant I wonder how many other environments there are where a participant/participants is/are so discumnockerated by being asked to justify an assertion that such events ensue.
Is this an academe only thing? A climatology only thing? A US thing? Because in my experience in commerce is that it is entirely normal practice. Most discussions/presentations/meetings I have ever attended thrived on lively debate and discussion….One would be extremely ill-advised to make such an assertion without having the facts to back it up to hand. One can almost guarantee that somebody will want to examine it in public.
I’ve never had direct dealings in the Far East, where seniority and ‘face’ are far more important than they are in Western culture. But as far as I can tell Joshua is not from an Eastern culture.
So it is all very very mysterious,……
Thanks for the link anyway.
Compare and contrast:
1. Latimer Adler’s paraphrase:
> CO2 has so many bad effects – in addition to climate change – that they are obvious.
2. Joshua’s first claim:
> Even assuming that it can’t be “proven” that anyone has been “hurt by it” yet (which, btw, is absurd anyway – given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment), the PP in the context of the climate debate refers specifically to the potential of future impact on the climate.
To better understand the “variety of sources” Joshua had in mind he suggested this:
http://bit.ly/R0zt0q
3. Latimer Adler’s total unresponsiveness for this suggestion, reiterated many times now.
4. Latimer Adler’s response to Moshpit:
> Thanks for the link anyway.
Mysterious indeed.
CO2 makes green things grow better using less water. Pump as much as you can if you do want to feed billions of people and animals. Manmade CO2 is one molecule in ten thousand molecules of everything else. That tiny trace does likely have a trace effect.
+1*10^6
Lousie,
It’s a principle, don’t abuse it.
@ Louise | October 8, 2012 at 10:11 am |
“If so, please demonstrate.”
Australia, 2008:
“IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html
Australia, 2012:
It’s official: Australia no longer in drought
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/its-official-australia-no-longer-in-drought-20120427-1xpsp.html#ixzz1uE1VLOxL
CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide.html
Louise. You may be unaware of the action you appear to endorse. Seventy percent of our energy sources (all industry) are supplied by fossil fuels. Zero percent is supplied by Solyndra, Abound Solar , et. al. Another 20% (nuclear) is highly regulated.
Do you really want to put 90% of our energy under bureaucratic diktat?
Associated Press. “EPA Moving Unilaterally to Limit Greenhouse Gases.” Text.Article. FOXNews.com, December 24, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/24/epa-moving-unilaterally-limit-greenhouse-gases/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Carlin, Alan. “How EPA Seeks to Unilaterally Impose GHG Emission Regulations Using UN ‘Science’ Whether Anyone Likes It or Not.” Scientific Blog. Carlin Economics and Science, January 24, 2010. http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/629
Garrett, Major, and AP. “Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions.” News. FOXNews.com, December 9, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/
Louise: It is a complicated situation. The following may clarify.
Sunstein, Cass R. “The Paralyzing Principle.” Regulation 25, no. 4 (2002): 32–37. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-9.pdf
Page 2: Paralysis
“The most serious problem with the Precautionary Principle is that it offers no guidance – not that it is wrong, but that it forbids all courses of action, including inaction.”
Page 3: “If the burden of proof is on the proponent of the activity or processes in question, the Precautionary Principle would seem to impose a burden of proof that cannot be met.”
Page 6: Conclusion
“If the burden of proof is on the proponent of the activity or processes in question, the Precautionary Principle would seem to impose a burden of proof that cannot be met.”
Bottom line:
Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
“Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
Drat! Page 6 Conclusion text duplicated quote from page 3. Page 6 text should have been:
“We have seen that both regulation and nonregulation seem to be forbidden in cases involving nuclear power, arsenic, global warming, and genetic modification of food. The Precautionary Principle seems to offer guidance only because people blind themselves to certain aspects of the risk situation, focusing on a mere subset of the hazards that are at stake.”
Cass Sunstein is perhaps unmatched among Harvard lawyers; he’d have you not only eagerly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but going out to look fanatically for babies to toss without wasting that troublesome middle bath step.
The Precautionary Principle is always a tool of last resort; otherwise you end up caught on the horns of Sunstein’s many seeming dilemmas over and over again. Have sufficient knowledge to act? Then the Precautionary Principle doesn’t apply. Have sufficient knowledge to decide acting is less risky than inaction? Then the precautionary principle leading to inaction does not apply.
Sunstein is wise to closely examine the principle and point up inappropriate applications of it case by case. We are unwise if we draw from Sunstein’s work that the principle (over a dozen distinct precautionary principles are extant, dependent on situation) is wrong, just because it can sometimes lead to wrong outcomes in situations where there is no good way to predict what action to take.
Absent the precautionary principle, after all, we’d have a situation where every action, however ludicrous, should not just be allowed but pursued, and not just by individuals who choose to but by government enforcing actions by command and control, regardless of the reluctance of individuals.
BartR: You make an excellent case for preferring individual Adaptation over command-and-control Mitigation.
Pooh, Dixie | October 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
You should see my case for privatization, and letting the democracy of the Market solve the problems caused by government interference.
BartR October 14, 2012 at 4:00pm: “over a dozen distinct precautionary principles are extant, dependent on situation”
Let me suggest that one in particular guides the UN.
UN. “Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Annex I)”. General Assembly, August 12, 1992. (RIO Declaration On Environment And Development)
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
Selected Principles
Principle 1
Principle 15
Reading the cite, check out the mentions of “sustainable development”. You might note that “Global Warming” (aka “Climate Change”) has been subsumed within “Sustainability”.
It seems that perhaps the only thing that the Precautionary Principle is good at is deflecting discussion from legimate topics. The exception proving the rule: the very act of deflecting topics does promote discussion of the utility and limitation of the Precautionary Principle. Well, it should anyway.
That is contingent on the intent of the discussants. It seems a failure of personal responsibility to “blame” the PP for how people choose to demagogue a rather simple and important concept.
When people have such intent, there is nothing that can’t be demagogued. And when people fail to hold demagogues to account, nothing will change.
Same ol same ol.
“That is contingent on the intent of the discussants. ”
How about ‘That is A RESULT OF the intentS of the discussants’ ?
It is in part because of that aspect applies to discussants of all stripes and colors that the Precautionary Principle is potentially useless. You can not remove the people from the process. To me one can not use any tools, e.g., the PP, without trying to come to grips with it limitations in decision-making.
“When people have such intent, there is nothing that can’t be demagogued (sic). And when people fail to hold demagogues to account, nothing will change. ”
Concur with that.
Could I ask, which PP are specifically referring to?
I’m acquainted with over a dozen distinct precautionary principles.
You seem aware only of part of one.
Are you sure you’re familiar enough with the topic to make such sweeping statements with such simulated authority?
See:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/02/week-in-review-3212/#comment-180983 et seq.
See above (RIO): http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-254802
My personal opinion is that any discussion where the PP is brought into play is one of people who suffer from another form of PP – peeing in their panties.
You guys ever hear of any of the following phrases?
Carpe Diem
Who dares wins.
Victory goes to the bold.
Kick ass and take names, TMG56.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kick%20ass%20and%20take%20names
I don’t know. At Edson’s Ridge, of the two, who was the bolder; who took the bigger dare, the Japanese or the USMC?
Was trumped by another saying – “Adapt, Improvise, Overcome.”
timg56 | October 8, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
Carpe Diem
Who dares wins.
Victory goes to the bold.
All variations of the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle is a situational mathematical construct of Game Theory, applied to circumstances where a player seeks an optimal strategy in the absence of some information.
Nothing in this thread so far has developed the theme of what information is missing, compared to decision needs, though Latimer and Joshua danced around the topic of ignorance and whether we can call information absent just because some choose to dodge it.
I contend we have all the information we need to make many informed decisions about climate policy, so the Precautionary Principle does not apply except in a few detailed cases.
We understand that the carbon cycle is exhibiting scarcity, that it is rivalrous, that we can exclude lucrative uses of it from the Market; for Capitalism that is all we need know to demand its privatization, as a merely technical economic question. Once we know this, failure to privatize is theft from the many by the few condoned by an ineffective government.
We understand that there are Risks no one sought or consented to being imposed on the many by the few; while there may be some benefits — largely overblown used-car salesmanishly — that again no one sought or defined as benefits for themselves, we can never argue the benefits against the costs as there is no consent. A farmer who dumps a load of manure in the town well so he can sell water from his own well at a steep price does not get to argue how much greener the town square may be next year for the application of all that fertilizer. A load of poisonous BS remains a load of poisonous BS.
Where might one or more of the various Precautionary Principles apply? Certainly we’d want to apply the Precautionary Principle against overuse of Cap & Trade or of increasing government revenues through new taxes or of expanding the command and control regulatory powers of the state.
We expect Cap & Trade systems to be more easily exploited the more general their application, the wider they cast their nets: although there are some cases where Cap & Trade might be the most effective and efficient instrument of privatizing the carbon cycle in some industries, these are certainly the minority of the entire economy: when faced with the choice of Fee & Dividend vs. Cap & Trade, the Precautionary Principle thereby indicates we ought favor Fee & Dividend as it is likely the lesser drag on the Market.
We expect, given the finding that Retail taxes produce less of a drag on the economy than Income taxes that if a government decides it must raise new taxes (perish the thought), then it ought by the Precautionary Principle do so by reducing the Income Tax rate so low as possible and raising the Retail Tax rate to meet the needs of the state — for instance to pay off debt accumulated by fighting foreign wars.
Likewise, since we know committees and bureaus of experts tinkering with any large and complex enough system of exchanges lack enough good information and the response time to react to changing conditions when compared to the democracy of individual exchanges in an efficient and fair Market, the Precautionary Principle tells us to beware of creating command and control committees and bureaucracies when a Market mechanism can instead achieve the same results.
The Precautionary Principle is the heart of the Capitalist system. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Bart R stated correctly for a general construct, “The Precautionary Principle is a situational mathematical construct of Game Theory, applied to circumstances where a player seeks an optimal strategy in the absence of some information.” However, the PP as promulgated by the UN, chose an optimal solution for THEIR desires. That is the PP’s, in all its forms, weakness. Different persons, organizations bring different theories as to what should be optimized, different ideas as to how much to risk, not only when information is available, but especially when information is not available. Even the ratio of known to unknown will effect others differently. The problem with PP is that it allows “players” to try to change the rules for actualization. To actualize, one needs the capabilities, and the oppurtunity to do so. The PP tries to limit the capability when the oppurtunity is avavilable. The reason it fails is that is claiming an ability it does not have wrt knowledge and uncertainty. If one has knowledge, the solution is straightforward. If one has uncertainty, risk management has been the solution in the past. Now persons want to use the PP with conditions of uncertainty to trump the capability of a possible good outcome that they consider “risky” or preclude the use of capital conservation in an uncertain situation. But note the contradiction the UN PP has Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” How can one in the face of actual uncertainty propose cost-effective measures? There will be intrinsic and extrinsic assumptions to be made that differ to the point that they appear 180 degrees opposite of each other; and yet each can claim to meet the PP within the set of assumptions made. The assumption of whether CO2 will be a net benefit or net loss and at what point it MIGHT reverse from one to the other.
willard continues to impress and surprise.
Sen and Nussbaum is certainly a step up in the discourse, and could be six or seven topics for Dr. Curry’s salon, given the number of people who persist in making assertions about development economics and the lesser developed world, generally without foundation.
Ampliative logic, likewise, and the other non-classic systems, don’t generally get much time from me in discussion, given that most people have trouble with simple predicate logic as it is, despite the delight I take in them. Sure, so long as you preface your logic with a notation indicating your logical system (though technically, it’s a form of reasoning, not of logic, to my way of thinking), I’m all for entertaining exchanges along those line.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m frequently ampliative myself.
See:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/02/week-in-review-3212/#comment-180983 et seq.
For a more complete analysis, links, quotes and citations, see:
Precaution, Post Normal Science & Possible Cooling
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1948&page=1
johnfpittman | October 9, 2012 at 9:25 am |
“..as promulgated by the UN..” That’s just plain hooey.
John Plodinec | October 8, 2012 at 9:03 am | isn’t the UN. It’s his application of the PP we’re discussing, not the UN’s.
Could you show me a cite for the UN where it details its rationale for its specific application of the Precautionary Principle? It’s entirely possible the UN is as ignorant of how to apply this principle as anyone in this thread; but I think it more likely you’re makin’ stuff up.
There is nothing in the construction of the principle that conforms to what you say about it.
“However, the PP as promulgated by the UN, chose an optimal solution for THEIR desires.”
If this is what the UN did, then it’s not the Precautionary Principle; reasoning from the conclusion to the premise is always an error of Logic, and the PP is a tool of Logic.
“That is the PP’s, in all its forms, weakness. Different persons, organizations bring different theories as to what should be optimized, different ideas as to how much to risk, not only when information is available, but especially when information is not available.”
Different parties bring different considerations to the table when they construct the situation they apply the Precautionary Principle to. This is true.
“How much to risk,” has nothing to do with the Precautionary Principle, however. The principle is invariant to amount risked.
Also, you simply can’t apply the Precautionary Principle when information sufficient to a decision is available; it’s a contradiction in terms.
“Even the ratio of known to unknown will effect[sic] others differently.”
Which is why there are Precautionary Principles – general precepts to mathematically determine correct decisions for given situations of knowns and unknowns. It would be the absence of an agreed on principle that would allow some to be affected differently than others.
“The problem with PP is that it allows “players” to try to change the rules for actualization.”
Uh.. No. You’re describing ‘gaming the system’ or ‘metagaming’, and not the Precautionary Principle.
One example of gaming the system is to redefine terms to weaken their use when they disadvantage your play. Like people who hate the Precautionary Principle frequently do (for example in this thread) by makin’ stuff up about it that just ain’t true.
“To actualize, one needs the capabilities, and the oppurtunity[sic] to do so.”
Motivational speaking 101?
The PP tries to limit the capability when the oppurtunity[sic] is avavilable.
About half of all Precautionary Principles apply to situations where the mathematically correct outcome given Uncertainty is to restrict attempts to take advantage where there likeliest is none until such time as the non-perishing advantages may be correctly exploited.
Oil in the ground keeps, for instance. A hundred years from today it will be more, not less, valuable than today (by all indications). It’s not a perishing resource. So Carpe Diem does not apply, except in the sense that the lifespan of some individuals who want money in their pockets from that oil is itself perishing and they have no regard for their descendents.
The other half of Precautionary Principles by symmetry apply to situations where failure to take advantage of an opportunity results in likely loss. And guess what? They just don’t apply very much to the situations of Climate Change avoidance; inevitably over the longest term the Risks on both sides are so unbalanced as to make it ludicrous to propose boldly continuing to change the climate in ignorance.
“The reason it fails is that is claiming an ability it does not have wrt knowledge and uncertainty.”
Okay, now you’ve asserted the failure of an entire branch of mathematics without presenting a single mathematical argument, a single example of correct logic, or even a single true statement.
“If one has knowledge, the solution is straightforward.”
If one has knowledge, then the Precautionary Principle doesn’t apply.
“If one has uncertainty, risk management has been the solution in the past.”
Uh.. what?! Have you ever done the least reading on Risk Management as a distinct pursuit? The Precautionary Principle is one of the mainstay tools of Risk Management. Or do you mean ‘risk management’ in lowercase, by which you mean gambling and hoping you don’t have to resort to the social safety net, leeching off your family, getting government bailouts because you’re too big to fail, or going bankrupt and leaving your creditors in the lurch? Because it sounds like what you’re saying is it’s okay to make bad decisions by ignoring precautions because you can count on someone else to pay for your mistakes.
“Now persons want to use the PP with conditions of uncertainty to trump the capability of a possible good outcome that they consider “risky” or preclude the use of capital conservation in an uncertain situation.”
Is this even a sentence?
Yes, it’s true, mathematically sometimes Uncertainty does mean the good outcomes some imagine aren’t real, and the Precautionary Principle recognizes this reality.
Don’t want to accept reality? That’s fine. Just don’t do it on someone else’s dime. That’s simply begging for the charity of others to bail you out when your fantasy falls apart.
Once the Precautionary Principle is applied, there remains plenty of room for Risk still, and plenty of opportunity for gain by taking risks; there remains plenty of rational exploitation of resources to do, and plenty of upside to see. The Precautionary Principle merely constrains the downside of uncertainty. It doesn’t even guarantee that all downside is avoided. It just guarantees that on the whole you haven’t made the downside inevitable so far as can be known.
“But note the contradiction the UN PP has Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Aha. You do have a quote from some UN document somewhere. Title? Page? Date published? Would be nice if you provided enough information to confirm your quote. Or even quote marks around it.
“How can one in the face of actual uncertainty propose cost-effective measures?”
You mean cost-effective based on cost-benefit analysis compared to the serious damage; they appear to mean compared to the threats. Simple reading comprehension mistake. Anyone could make it. Of course, confirmation bias makes it more likely to succumb to.
“There will be intrinsic and extrinsic assumptions to be made that differ to the point that they appear 180 degrees opposite of each other; and yet each can claim to meet the PP within the set of assumptions made.”
Because there are symmetrical Precautionary Principles, and you appear to be acquainted (though barely) with part of only one.
“The assumption of whether CO2 will be a net benefit or net loss and at what point it MIGHT reverse from one to the other.”
Unsought benefits of CO2 (way overblown from what I can tell) don’t count in any Precautionary Principle. An unsought benefit is like unsought procreation. The attacker is the only one having any fun.
Bart,
John might be referring to the 15th principle of the Rio declaration:
> In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163
As formulated, it is more an anti-anti-precautionary-principle than the PP, but we’ll wait until the discussion gets more constructive (?) to note the difference.
According to my rhetorical models, a flurry of appeals to ignorance might likely be forthcoming.
***
In any case, it would be interesting to know if this 15th principle is referring to Sen’s capability approach:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/sen-cap/
Summarized as : Don’t let the lack of facts ruin a good excuse for meddling.
Nice link Willard. Your linked work is a subset of the work done by biologists in the pursuit of explaining evolution. Perhaps even partly a superset since the work goes into the legal and moral dimensions from what I read.
Bart R, I failed to realize you would not understand my point was from the perspective of the UN, since I stated so. I note you asked JOhn Plodinec, but I did not see an answer. HIs “Should we spend billions of dollars now potentially mitigating a hypothetical threat” wrt to the thread I inferred was about climate change and the UN sponsored mitigation efforts proposed; otherwise his comment does not make much sense to me. Bart I have been engaged in different types of risk management from the informal to the formal for 26 years as an engineer. In particular I agree with “perishing” or not resources. This is where I point out that the UN has defined it such that capital conservation or risk avoidance is trumped in their declaration. Yes, and I agree it is confirmation bias and motivated reasoning on their part. Yes, I was pointing out that the UN is gaming the system. It is not that I am unaware, but I have a question that may cut to some of the misunderstanding. I note you use PP in both singular and in plural. My question are you taking about the same PP I and others are, such as outlined in the UNESCO document “The Precautionary Principle” March 2005?
John,
I suppose you mean this document:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf
Am I correct?
At last, something to read!
If that’s the document, here’s the working definition from Box 2:
I’m not sure this is the PP as BartR is used to regard it.
Yes Willard. It is one to read. Did you see my question about Sen wrt Nussbaum?
> [R]easoning from the conclusion to the premise is always an error of Logic, and the PP is a tool of Logic.
To be fair, we must say that what BartR says applies to logics that are not ampliative:
> Arguments that are deductively invalid are ampliative. Their conclusions contain information that is not present in their premises, they go beyond the information given in their premises. In some cases this is obvious. When we draw a conclusions about what all voters in Quebec prefer based on premises describing the preferences of a sample of Quebec voters our conclusion goes beyond the information in our premises (here to voters that we didn’t sample).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement3.html
Ampliative logics have been developed to model what we can call creative forms of reasoning. One such instance is abductive reasoning:
> For Charles Peirce, who coined the term “abduction” a century ago, the introduction of unifying conceptions was an important part of abduction [11, 25], and it would be unfortunate if our understanding of abduction were limited to more mundane cases where hypotheses are simply assembled. Abduction does not occur in the context of a fixed language, since the formation of new hypotheses often goes hand in hand with the development of new theoretical terms such as “atom,” “electron,” “quark,” “gene,” “neuron” and “AIDS.”
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html
This note is mostly an excuse to cite this classic of cognitive sciences. But there is also this intuition I can share: should we model the PP in an ampliative way or not? If we determine that precaution acts like an induction principle, we could build a reasoning system like the one with which BartR might be more familiar. On the other hand, it does not appear to be faithful (at least prima facie) with the Unesco or the UN formulation.
Something to chew on, unless of course one prefers to simply whine or bitch slap.
>
The UN Precautionary precept must be the weakest precautionary principle I’ve ever seen, restricting itself strictly to when “..human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,..” which anyone would have to call, once they worked out that it means only when scientifically there is likelihood of unacceptable moral harm but doubt of exactly where the likelihood begins due to the limits of science to predict that “..actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.”
I mean, think about what that says: strapping babies to a rocket sled and firing them toward a solid barrier is perfectly acceptable, so long as there’s no doubt about exactly how long before they run into a concrete wall. Well, okay, we can be pretty sure the UN meant to capture absolute certainties. But it’s still a mathematically weak condition, what with the “or diminish,” and with the failure to refer to justice, blame, responsibility, payment, compensation, consent, or any other ordinary term or concept related to trespass. They certainly could go much farther, without even catching up with the common law or international trade law or even other declarations of the UN.
Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment..”
– threatening to human life or health, or
– serious and effectively irreversible, or
– inequitable to present or future generations, or
– imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.
If that’s the precaution you’re offended by, if you think it’s your entitlement to kill, hurt or otherwise trespass on the rights of others for no compelling and equitable reason, then you fulfill every definition of a psycopath..
“if you think it’s your entitlement to kill, hurt or otherwise trespass on the rights of others for no compelling and equitable reason, then you fulfill every definition of a psycopath”
This is precisely what makes the UN/IPCC a psycopathic organization. It should be immediately culled before it does any more harm.
Bart, if your question “If that’s the precaution you’re offended by” is directed at me or my comments, or if you don’t mind me commenting, it is with the weakness of the UN PP construct that would instruct the UN and countries to engage in indirect harm that meets the four criteria you listed in the effort to prevent climate change or environmental harm, besides precluding a good precautionary principle of conserving in the face of real uncertainty, or conserving and solving the problems such that the indirect harm does not occur. As stated, this PP, I find logical or use inconsistant, if not outright contradictory if one assumes a situation that has more than two or three complications or is complex in nature, such as we know reconstructing our main energy use would be, or the results of climate change itself.
Willard:-
You’re correct – the UNESCO formulation, which I sort of bowdlerized. I am decidedly not a fan of the PP for most of the reasons cited against it. However, as far as I can tell, it is the only basis for questioning what to do – if anything – about climate change at this point in time. Frankly, I think it would be silly to even talk about it in the debates given the real problems we have to solve today.
John Plodinec,
No harm, no shame.
My personal impression is that the PP has merits. As auditors are fond to say:
> If I had a big policy job, in my capacity as an office holder, I would be guided by the reports of institutions such as IPCC rather than any personal views (a point I’ve made on a number of occasions); and that I believed that policy decisions could be made without requiring “statistical significance” ( such decisions are made in business all the time, and, in all my years in business, I never heard the words “statistical significance” pass anyone’s lips as a preamble to a business decision.
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/18/back-from-georgia-tech/
See also:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/559982829
Common sense and prudence guide most decisions in life. It also helps win football championships. I surmise that this also applies to ClimateBall, where one big mistake can ruin one blogger’s reputation, more so if it’s a blogger with an attitude. (Hi Tamino.)
Yes, but one should not tie the hands of policy makers by setting standards that preclude useful tools for success as the UN has.
On another note. Willard: I find the “group concept” better than the consequentialism (sp?) of that author. I agree with the critics on Philosophy Bites, IIRC, Consequentialism is too prone to taking shortcuts and using it as a tool for motivated reasoing. I will have to look into Nussbaum in detail. The snippets I read support the hatchet job I read. However, the critic presented no depth of contemplation that should be inherrent to the subjects and claims Nussbaum made, so I am pretty sure it was a hatchet job. However, take animal rights, context and situation define a lot of both actions and morals. I would have concerns that Nusbaum was projecting, after all a bear is a bear, and differnt cultures are different. Criteria or argument to make them better or worse, I tend to find suspect. This was a severe problem with early anthropological studies especially with “stone-age” modern cultures.
John,
Reading back the thread for all the open loops.
I’m not sure how a very general principle evoked by the UN could “tie the hands of policy makers by setting standards that preclude useful tools for success”. As far as I can tell, it tries to construct ethical principles out of actual conventions, upon which better standards could be discussed and contractual matters settled more fairly and squarely. Unless you can show that these principles could not lead to the settlement of successful contractual matters, I believe you are going a bridge too far.
See for instance what is being said of the PP for international agreements:
> The PP is frequently introduced in framework conventions. Although this strategy is widely used in international environmental law, it is merely a first step in elaborating more precise rules at the international level fleshing out that principle. Furthermore, in a number of international agreements, the PP is worded in such a way that it is
deprived of immediate and autonomous applicability. Use of terms such as ‘form a basis for’, ‘inspire’, ‘endeavour’, etc. imply that the principle is merely intended to prepare States to implement their international obligations. Only the repeated use of State practice and consistent opinio juris are likely to transform precaution into a customary norm.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001395/139578e.pdf
This document is not there to present a principle that has decision-theoretic power. This is mainly a conceptual analysis, followed by some issues for applied ethicians. And as BartR said, the definition has no real bite anyway.
Yes, the loops are tiresome.
Your point of a “bridge too far” has merit. However, my POV is from the person designing to meet and implementing regulations. In that case, the exact reading is where to start and how to consider impact when discussing the most likely. Even though it does state that States can do this or that, that requires effort. What professionals have found is what is stated by the authoring group is what you get. In some cases, this is mandatory or must have more restrictive requirements. An example 20% opacity national standard where a state/province could implement 10%, but not 21%. This is most important for definitions and the goals. People, especially politicians are not going to want to re-invent the wheel. Worse, they know each and every item that is changed is a potential landmine from one SIF (single issue fanatic) or another or worse, BOTH! In particular, never ever assume that politicains will go back to rediscuss it, even if it is really bad implementation. An example of this was a rule thought to encourage reconsideration, which basically stated if a quantity in pounds is not formulated, the quantity for reporting is 1 pound. This meant that technically every busted or leaking raditor should have been called into the US National emergency system with resulting investigations, reports, and follow-ups. The emergency system is one of the best ideaas for low probability, dangerous/damaging events, yet was burdened with such a ridiculous requirement that came about trying to make sure problems were not swept under the rug by politicians trying to avoid landmines and SIF’s.
John,
Indeed, it’s important to look at the way how principles get implemented.
To that effect, I did argue at Lucia’s that the same argument applies to Wegman’s recommendations. Agreeing with these recommendations barely makes sense without agreeing on ways to implement them. My argument was not well-received. Let’s not wonder why.
Perhaps the same criticism could be put forward the PP. Until we have an idea how to implement it, it has mostly a PR value. I’m not sure it would be as valid as W’s recommendations, for they’re principles. But those who develop an analysis of the PP should be able to warrant the development of more principled regulations.
Perhaps a bit like constitutional principles. Just an example from the top of my hat: I am no constitutionalist. But I believe you get the idea: the PP serving as some kind of foundation for international rights and duties.
Another limitation I see is that even if we do get principles and regulations running, we need to have interpretations. With the constitution, you have constitutionalists. Do we have the same kind of specialists for conventions like the Rio Declaration?
Willard
An uncomplicated formula:
PP = BS
Manacker,
Nice hit and run.
Willard if it gets down to the level of implementation it will “have the same kind of specialists for conventions like” other regulations and they will be regulators. The reason I “read” it so strictly is that is what regulators do. They do not , cannot, interpret, that is for lawyers. The regulators read and force /encourage compliance. Judges have a little more leeway, but remember they read strictly as well; they ensure it does not conflict with other law or decisions, or intent of Congress. If it does not, the ruling will be as strict. Some do not know or realize that law as implemented in the US is technical in nature, according to the lawyers who train me.
John,
Thanks to Pooh, I found something that might interest you:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/sunstein805.htm
Perhaps you already know Cass R. Sunstein. I did not. His Wiki page notes that he were a lover of Martha Nussbaum.
I would tend to trust Martha’s judgement. He seems to be somebody worth studying. And what he says does seem to agree with your own line of thinking. I find that this chapter seems to fit perfectly well our current topic:
> Chapter Five, “Reconstructing the Precautionary [*638] Principle—and Managing Fear,” emphasizes the importance of identifying the “full universe of relevant risks” (p.122), although, of course, this notion is in tension with his earlier argument that everyone is subject to the biases revealed by cognitive psychology. It is also fair, I believe, to note that if one is at all attracted to chaos theory and “butterfly effects,” then it becomes a combination of utopian and bizarre to suggest that we can ever hope truly to be aware of every risk attached to any particular proposal. One is almost always—the “almost” is really an academic fudge—making important decisions under conditions of uncertainty, as Sunstein well recognizes.
I’m not sure how one can bury the PP and reconstruct the PP in the same book, but it seems that Sunstein succeeds in doing so.
All in all, the concept of deliberative democracy is a concept that deserves due diligence.
Willard October 12, 2012 at 9:47pm:
Thank you for the link to the book review (Laws Of Fear….) by Levinson and the Garwoods. I had captured the papers, but not this succinct summary of the book. :-D
Thanks Willard. I think I read a brief write up of some of his work but it commented on the critic’s percieved weaknesses in Chs 4 and 6, elitism and the value of life. But that may have been about another author since the assumed valuation of these two properties are often criticized in AGW and environmental arguments. These were reported as “major” issues for the commentator. However, I think you are right, the work is one that would be more along the lines of training and expierence I have had. IIRC, Sunstein was taken to task by some for Bush bashing. I am only sorry I wasn’t the one with such clever and well thought out bashing. I believe it really struck some nerves. I also seem to remember that some of his work was part of the discussion of environmental justice where some UN?/NGO lawyers were claiming that they could make a good case for it legally wrt existing treaties. I can’t remember which way they used Sunstein, but IIRC they used it for support and that is why the critic was pumpng up the percieved weakness of Chs 4 and 6. It was about the time of climategate. Though at this rate of finding good things to read, I might have to give up a hobby or two.
PS. I’ve been on travel since right after I posted the original comment. I’m glad I’ve provided entertainment for so many, as well as the opportunity to feel superior!
Based on the last hundred years’ experience, should we sit back and observe for another hundred years, or should we sit back and observe for two hundred years before getting our shorts in a twist?
I’d settle for 10-15 years with no one telling us we have to act immediately or we’re all dead.
Hi Bill,
I initially agreed, and would still appreciate blessed silence from the alarmist loonies. However …
It may be that the continuing alarmist blathering, “We’re all going to die”, may cause the public to become inured to the noise, rendering these screamers neutered.
and then we all die
lolwot,
besides the simple fact of us all eventually dying, would you care to elaborate how climate is going to kill anyone?
lolwot,
What Gary Turner says makes sense to me.
Suppose there’s a fire alarm in your building: do you start to scream like a madman and panic?
I guess not. At least hopefully. That’s the point.
Cf. The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
Gary doesn’t think there’s a fire and hopes that the people screaming about a fire will eventually make everyone in the building stop taking the threat of fires seriously.
@lolwot
So where is the fire? Where’s the smoke and flames?
Gary assumes there can’t be a fire. Ever.
Either that or he wants everyone to die.
@lolwot
Lots and lots and lots of things ‘could’ happen.
But one is very very dumb to assume that they all ‘will’ happen. Better to use some rational judgement than simply follow the few fantasists who have already succumbed to mindless panic.
Otherwise, I have this lovely bridge to sell you..only one careful owner.
If you talk to a fire marshall, people in a building where there is fire and smoke are usually inclined to ignore the alarm. The real problem is non-alarmism. They wait too long. Then they panic. Then they trample.
Yelling fire in a theater is unlikely to cause a problem because people will just sit there. They’re enjoying the show. They do want to be bothered, and they want to appear to have cool heads. It’s when the burning curtains fall to the stage that they finally get up and crush one another.
Me too, Bill.
Max
The best question(s) to discuss/debate:
1. What is the most likely change in average temperature going to be over the next 50 years
2. What will be the likely change in conditions (positive and negative) in specific countries as a result of the conclusion reached in #1, and what is the evidence to support this conclusion?
3. Based on the conclusions reached in #1 and # 2, what government policies are suggested for a specific country and why do these policies make sense
+ LOTS!
Thank you. I am starting to wonder if people posting here really like to having substantive exchanges or simply like to post meaningless dribble.
A bit of both, the ability to skim quickly through the dross is essential.
Rob Starkey,
I agree. It’s disappointing that intelligent people can spend so much time writing such drivel.
It’s both…just like real life.
The upside is that the barriers to entry into the blogosphere are pretty much zero. This is great, because it allows those who are not full-time employed on climate matters as much of a say as the supposed ‘professionals’. And, for a problem (if it is indeed a problem) that supposedly affects us all, this can only be right. You do not need a DPhil to participate, nor to be affiliated to an institution. Anybody can write about it.
The downside (if you are a full-time professional) is that your work gets examined in a whole host of different ways by people with a whole host of experiences. A far wider going over than traditional ‘peer-review’ which was well characterised by Phil Jones
‘I’ve never requested data/codes to do a review and I don’t think others should either. I do many of my reviews on travel. I have a feel for whether something is wrong – call it intuition’ (CG 2486)’ (*)
and the discussions do not tart from the assumptions of the ‘climate science community’ that ‘its all going to be far worse then we expected’
and that ‘more research is needed’
The price you pay (if indeed it is a price) for this magnificent new tool is that some of the arguments are not presented in the manner of conventional academic discourse. If that offends you too much, then you are of course at liberty to withdraw. But I think you’d be throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you did so. There may be a lot of waste material in the blogosphere but there are also nuggets of gold.
(*) En passant, am I alone in thinking that the alarmists have been strangely silent on the supposed virtues of ‘peer review’ recently? A couple of years ago they could hardly restrain themselves from shouting ‘Peer Review’ on every occasion as if it was some sort of magical academic talisman. Now, however, it is hardly heard. Perhaps the awful (in very sense) of Gergis et al (hubris in living form) has persuaded them that their golden shield is instead little better than base metal. They really are running out of ideas.
“1. What is the most likely change in average temperature going to be over the next 50 years”
0.5C to 1C warming.
“2. What will be the likely change in conditions (positive and negative) in specific countries as a result of the conclusion reached in #1, and what is the evidence to support this conclusion?”
No-one knows.
“3. Based on the conclusions reached in #1 and # 2, what government policies are suggested for a specific country and why do these policies make sense”
Given the significance of the warming relative to past climate change coupled with the complexity of the climate system and the possibility of tipping points that cannot be ruled out, the reduction of emissions should be given high priority.
Countries should come to an international agreement to lock large proportions of existing oil, coal and gas fields and to lock any new discovered ones entirely. Locked resources would be prohibited from being mined until eg 2100 where there would be a reassessment. This would limit carbon emissions and reduce climate change risk.
It’s interesting that you only expect 1-2 C of warming during the next 100 years. That’s very little and basically meaningless. I can’t see anything bad from that small an temperature increase. For sure, the warmer climate will definitely be a good thing for Finland, where I reside. It’d boost our agriculture and reduce our heating costs.
When it comes to policy, it’s pretty much impossible to limit the amounts of oil, gas and coal used unless one comes up with a superior way of replacing them. If the technology is not there, you’ll just make it more expensive, which leads to poverty and environmental damage in poor countries. But when the technology is there, it’ll replace coal, gas and oil without any international agreements. Better technology has a tendency to replace worse ones.
You might notice I asked for a 50 year forecast and I did so intentionally because over that timescale infrastructure can be build and it is easier to measure whether or not anything is actually happening.
Actually he/she only expected .5C to 1C in 50 years, but it would not be appropriate for you to forecast that will doulbe in 100 years. Many “climate scientists” would argue that the rate might change greatly after year 40 and lead to runaway warming in years 51 through 100 that will lead to great disaster for humanity if we do not implement what they think is correct.
lolwot,
I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that we need to take dratic actions to deal with impacts we have no idea of. All you can offer is the concept of complex systems possibly having tipping points.
Your being afraid of one possible future – and one with little evidence to date of being even remotely likely – is enough to justify condeming tens, if not hundreds of millions of people to death and a few billion to a harsh, difficult and likely short life? For that is exactly what will result if we follow your policy precription above. Sorry lolwot, I’m not biting.
Gradually locking up fossil fuel reserves isn’t drastic. It would be a calm and controlled process over decades, with plenty of time to settle in and adapt, even room to change the pace. It’s a scenario that governments can easily plan for.
In comparison all the bad stuff you imagine from sudden cuts is actually more likely to happen in the event of a climate disaster. Aside from the direct impact, the aftermath of a climate disaster would likely see panic and very strong pressure for an international reduction in emissions.
Lets say the population of Australia for example are slammed by some kind of climate disaster and suddenly emission reductions are the top priority of every voting Australian. When Australia comes to the international table asking for other countries to cut emissions how do you say no without that effectively being perceived as an act of war (we’ll keep doing what harms you)?
If you want millions dead, either through war or a dash to cut emissions too quickly, the best plan is to keep blindly emitting as much CO2 as possible and risk climate disaster which will prompt those things.
lolwot,
Since you are convinced that a “climate disaster” is inevitable, despite the fact that no known mechanism has been identified linking a warming climate with any singular weather event, nor even any correlating evidence showing an increase in storm numbers or intensities as we have been warming, what is the point of a rational discussion?
You simply believe it, without any supporting evidence. That’s called faith and I’m not going to with someone about their religious beliefs, as I believe in freedom of religion.
Your very first founding sentence is wrong. I didn’t say a climate disaster was inevitable.
I warned one is possible.
A vastly improved climate is also a possibility. A greater possibility IMO given we’re 10,000 years into an interglacial period where the average length of interglacial periods isn’t much more than 10,000 years. And given how poorly food crops grow in snow and ice and how many people can’t feed themselves by hunting woolly mammoths. You may hold a different opinion of couse but it would be an opinion that is ultimately misguided and harmful.
OK,
I’ll stand corrected. Perhaps this is a better summary – it is inevitable unless we make dramatic (or significant, if you don’t agree with the term dramatic) changes to how we utilize current energy and natural resources.
“1. What is the most likely change in average temperature going to be over the next 50 years”
0.5C to 1C warming.”
I sort of agree with lolwot.
I was going to say the most warming anyone could expect is 1 C.
And mostly likely would be .5 C or less.
““2. What will be the likely change in conditions (positive and negative) in specific countries as a result of the conclusion reached in #1, and what is the evidence to support this conclusion?”
No-one knows. ”
This seems the whole point of question #1 and only thing of interest to policy makers- the entire relevance of everything and anything to do with studies of global climate [which is different than the subject of climate and/or weather].
And once again, I sort of agree with lolwot: “No-one knows.”
But the effect on humans to at least .5 C will be essentially continuation
of the same effect on humans over the last century.
And if it closely approaches 1 C in warming, the public will regard the CAGWer as having some merit to their expressed concern. The public and the pols could do something very stupid.
To get to 1 C of warming within 50 years, will require some significant warming within the next 10 years. And so will allow most people see the possibility of 1 C in 50 year as likely. So it will not take 50 years before policy acts. Or if we continue roughlly at rate of present warming for next 10 years, then at some point towards the 50 year point we need an rate increasing which is even more severe. Or quite simply, we need to see more warming that occurred over last century within a period of 40 years.
And if are right that we will see some cooling over next couple decade, basically temperature would need go straight up- and similar to Space Aliens showing up. Both of which are not very likely.
So, to get to 1 C, we need significant warming in next 10 years.
Though getting to the peak 1998 temperature within 50 year do not *require* much warming in the next 10 years, a couple decades of cooling could even result in peaking to this level in within 50 years. And that would .5 or less warming.
The effect on the environment of 1 C rise in 50 years, will be about as unnoticeable as the warming of 20th century. No polar bears will die as a result. Though a 1 C rise in global temperature may not tell us anything about global climate- temperature is not really something which effect humans or life, whereas patterns rainfall, would be more relevant than average global temperature. But such continuation of warming should have more effect on frostline and tree lines. Trees may being to grow where once they couldn’t.
Utter drivel. Unless there’s a plan to control global emissions (i.e. you can force the chinese and indians and such to comply) then emission control strategies are indistinguishable from penalising the western economic sphere with no gain possible.
Even if such a plan could be implemented (it can’t) then even in the US there’s enough anti-governmental growth sentiment that such a plan would be politically impossible. Bear in mind that the purpose of the bill of rights is to protect the citizen from the government, and lots of Americans view government growth and socialist 5 year emissions plans very poorly.
In what we like to call the real world, the one we all live in, what is likely the only reasonable solution involves harnessing solar from space (eminently do-able) to provide jobs and growth; this would be augmented with advanced nuclear technologies like thorium. Energy and wealth are the same thing. These things would happen for their own reasons and of their own accord; emissions reductions are simply a happy (for you) byproduct and not the goal.
There is no goal of emission reduction that works or can or will work in this lifetime, and only overeducated putzes are stupid enough to think such a thing is even possible.
Dr. Curry, could you pass ‘randomengineer’ my home email address and ask him to contact me about this:
“In what we like to call the real world, the one we all live in, what is likely the only reasonable solution involves harnessing solar from space (eminently do-able) to provide jobs and growth; this would be augmented with advanced nuclear technologies like thorium. Energy and wealth are the same thing. These things would happen for their own reasons and of their own accord; emissions reductions are simply a happy (for you) byproduct and not the goal.”
and ask him if he would like to discuss it away from the Climate Change environment?
If he is not interested, that is fine too.
Thanks.
lolwot
You have just contradicted yourself.
You forecast 0.5C to 1.0C warming until 2050. This equals an average warming rate of between +0.123 to +0.246C per decade
Then you write:
No doubt the “climate system is complex”, but the warming you forecast is not at all unusual “relative to past climate change”. It is only sightly higher than the short-term warming rate of the 1990s.
There is absolutely no logical indication of any anthropogenic “tipping points”, although sudden natural climate change can never be ruled out, as the Chief has reminded us (but, then again, there is nothing we can do about that).
Therefore, there is no logical reason to “give high priority to the reduction of emissions”.
Now let’s look at your assumed future warming rate.
First of all, at +0.184C+/- 0.0.62C it is slightly lower on average than the IPCC forecast of +0.2C per decade (AR4), and even lower than the earlier (TAR) forecast of +0.225C+/-0.075C. So your trend appears to be in the right direction..
The 21st century trend so far has been cooling at -0.063C per decade.
The long-term underlying warming trend as we have emerged from the LIA has been around +0.05C per decade.
I would guess that this long-term trend will continue and that you have exaggerated the future warming by three times on average, and that we will only see around 0.24C warming until 2050. (But that’s only my guess, which isn’t any better or worse than your guess.)
At any rate, you have demonstrated that there is nothing that requires immediate action on emissions.
Thanks. (I’m relieved.)
Max
“lock large proportions of existing oil, coal and gas fields ”
So, you beleive that modern life is possible without energy ?
lolwot: “0.5C to 1C warming” over 50 years? Then there is no problem.
Back in late September, I gave you some examples of the effect of 1C increase. The differences in average temperature are:
– For Boston, MA vs New York City the difference is 3F, or 1.7 times the 1C heating for low CO2 doubling and 2.5 times the 1.5 C heating for high CO2 doubling.
– For Boston, MA vs Washington, DC the difference is 6F, or 3.3 times the 1C heating for low CO2 doubling and 2.5 times the 5 C heating for high CO2 doubling.
– For New York City vs Miami, FL the difference is 21.8F, or 11.8 times the 1C heating for low CO2 doubling and 17.7 times the 1.5 C heating for high CO2 doubling.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/27/effects-of-solar-variability-on-climate/#comment-245716
As reads the 5C case for Boston-Washington, amend to read 1.5 C. :-( sorry.
Rob Starkey,
Excellent comment. Judith asked for a response to her question in the context of the US presidential election. I believe that is an important and relevant constrain on the question. So I interpret it as “what could the US President do to assist the world to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? I have a suggestion, I’ll post at the end of the thread.
I don’t think “some warming” has any meaning. “Some” may be unmeasurable. You can have “some” CO2 warming with a general cooling.
What’s the best climate question to debate?
IMHO:
Is “climate change science” mature enough to get alarmed by his statements?
I’d go with —
“how do you force the chinese and the indians — 1/2 of the world’s population — to play the game you want them to play?”
If you can’t get the planet on the same page it ain’t happening.
Random Engineer,
You can’t force them. But you can make it to their benefit to reduce emissions. The way to do this is to give them a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. The USA could lead the way on that. I’ll post more in a separate comment at the end of this thread.
Indeed Evoquing the Precautionary Principle is a good question. A beautiful example of the “boomerang effect” that even “non scientifically educated” political decision makers must understand. Another good one, addressed to manistream self procamed gourous scientists (?) could relate to the opportunity of using “spatio-temporal averaged temperature anomalies” for estimating possible slight changes in a very complex ENERGY system exhibiting a huge number of delayed negative feedbacks (Is this the right indicator to use?). Also the importance of (temperature) measurement errors on the long term predictibility of non linear time series (=temperature records and proxies) seems to be key to me for an eventual validation of any predicitve model. This last point, more mathematical, relates to the detection of a chaotic signature in time series, by calculating e;g. the corresponding Liapounov exponents or Hurst coefficients. This isa mathematical definitively strong argument, but however difficult to explain to non specialists. So, I make three propositions, according to who the audience would be.
Change is to climate as wet is to water.
Have a nice life now y’all.
A fish out of water is like a climate modeler observing reality.
=================
A Joshua defending a Louise is like a leopard defending his spots. ;)
Andrew
Say ‘Cheese’. Want to catch that Cheshire grin before the spots fade.
========
Except I didn’t “defend” Louise — well, except in your animal fantasies.
I criticized your comment – rather specifically. Do you have a response?
“Do you have a response?”
I do. Global Warming is a hoax. An explanation from you on why you pretend otherwise, would be interesting to read.
Andrew
I point at this, in answer to one of Joshua’s post:
> Global Warming is a hoax. An explanation from you on why you pretend otherwise, would be interesting to read.
And I point at this, from the same commenter as the first quote:
> Are Warmers like Joshua, Webby, Robert, willard, etc… as anally fixated on Global Delusions in real life as they are on the internet? My God, give it a rest for 5 minutes, would ya?
That is all.
The best questions to get to the bottom of the UN’s deceptive IPCC reports and restore integrity to government research (and constitutional limits on government):
1. “What is Earth’s heat source?”
2. “Is the Sun a.) stormy and evolving, or b.) stable and steady?
Measurements and observations on the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, other planets, meteorites and their oldest inclusions, atomic rest masses, and remote regions of the cosmos tell us clearly the correct answer are
1. A pulsar [Nature 270, 159-160 (1977)]
_ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html
2. a.) Stormy and evolving [National Geographic (July 2004); LPSC XXIX, 1041 (March 2001)]
_ http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature1/index.html
_ http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
Here’s the rest of the story of deceit and manipulation of observations and data after the United Nations was formed on 24 Oct 1945>: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
Neutron stars are not possible with mass less than 1.38 solar masses due to insufficient gravitational force to overcome neutron repulsion. This is known as the The Chandrasekhar Limit. How would it then be possible for Sol to have a neutron star (pulsar) at its core when its mass is well below the Chandraskhar Limit?
They say silence is golden. It’s also revealing in cases like these. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
It appears in the 30 years since I took Astronomy 101 in college the limit has been raised from the original 1.38 solar masses Chandresekhar proposed in 1930 to 1.44 solar masses today. My apologies. Of course that makes OManual’s problem in explaining a pulsar with <1.0 solar masses a little bit harder.
My idea for the best subjec t to debate is
Should the world commit economic suicide by reducing our consumption of cheap fossil fuels on the basis of the hypothesis of CAGW, when we know that there is absolutely no empirical data whatsoever to support this hypothesis?
I second Jim Cripwell’s suggestion. It appears to be the “question of the day”.
Max
It’s been moved and seconded. All in favor say me, me, me.
Doh, doh, rays.
=======================
Far solar the doh!
===========
Regina Coelis for Mi!
Actually it seems rather useless and unlikely to provide anything of real value.
Mr Jim Cripwell, The answer is: no.
Tom, you write “Mr Jim Cripwell, The answer is: no.”
You know that, I know that, and about half the denizens of Climate Ete. know that. But there are a lot of very important people who DONT seem to know that. Let me list a few
1. Our hostess. Or at least she might know it, but she wont admit it.
2. My MP, David McGuinty. He is a potemtial candidate for the leadership of our Liberal Party in Canada, and although it is a long shot, a future Prime Minister of Canada.
3. The people in charge of most of the scientific learned societies all over the world; headed by the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, and the American Meteorological Society.
4. The political leaders of most of the G8 countries, whose countries have a large proportion of the world’s wealth. Though is fairness, some of them, particularly in the UK, seem to be starting to realize the truth of the matter.
I could go on, but I hope people, particularly our hostess, see what I am getting at. So, although the answer is clearly no, as you state, the issue is still wothwhile debating, so that we can prove beyond resonable dounbt, that the answer is no, and thereby convince some VIPs that the answer is no
Jim, with all the obvious problems there are with AGW record keeping…
with all that Tony B. has shown as the recording methods used in the past 150 years…
2035 et al…
in truth what is there to debate. On first look. If it were anything else it would be;
Bye-Bye.
How about: Are Warmers like Joshua, Webby, Robert, willard, etc… as anally fixated on Global Delusions in real life as they are on the internet? My God, give it a rest for 5 minutes, would ya?
Andrew
Massive transference and projection on Bad Andrew’s part. He needs to resolve his own fixations first.
Jim Cripwell This is the best subject to debate.
Jim you forgot to mention the obvious alternative of all of us filling our cars with unicorn farts. Without a viable alternative in place there is no reason to even bother discussing climate crap. It’s moot.
Jim Cripwell,
I agree. However, it is apparent that the ‘warmists’ do not appreciate the economic damage that their policies would do. The ‘warmists’ apparently do not appreciate the effect the mitigation policies would have on human well being. But I do not know how we can make contact with ‘warmists’ on this subject. They dismiss it and do not want to engage.
Are there any warmists prepared to engage in seriously discussing the economic consequences of the carbon pricing and mandatory renewable energy policies they promote as the solution to ‘greenhouse driven global warming’?
Peter Lang,
“Are there any warmists prepared to engage…” You probably would call me a warmist but ………..
Anyway I’ll help out with a catchy name suggestion for your theory. How about:
“A stitch in time costs nine” ?
“the economic consequences of the carbon pricing and mandatory renewable energy policies ”
Forget the economic consequences. What will be the emission reductions acheived by such policies ? Nill.
Do some real systems analysis. Systems analysis is doing both climate science and fossil fuel projections. In simple terms, the system is the thing you draw the circle around. Some find the combination valuable ; however YMMV.
Here are some recent analyses that shed light on the numbers being bandied about:
http://oilpeakclimate.blogspot.com/2012/10/using-dispersive-diffusion-model-for.html
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/09/bakken-approaching-diffusion-limited.html
Let me get off of this box…
“What did Phil Jones have in the way of written weather records, where did they get dumped, and how?
Someone here should have the answer. Please.
Cop: “So you admit you did it?”
PJ: “Yes, I dumped the body and never told no-one about till I got caught… I never would ah, either.”
Cop: “Where did you dump the body PJ!”
This is the way they do things on TV.
Not in the 6th dimension of science.
Just the fax, M’am. Er, the emails.
=========
he had nothing of relevance. basically a small number of records from NWS. As detailed in the mails he thought he could get the data again but that it would be a PITA. This is a NON issu
Steven, so really none of this is of any relevance then is it? Nothing from Governor Houses from around the world. HMS XXXXXX… all of that stuff and more would fit in a trunk you think? A big rock show will fill a dozen tractor trailers. All of this stuff was to be the bones of our world weather history. No relevance? Okay, let’s all go home now. So please tell us: what was there, where it is now, and how was it disposed of? If it is of no relevance then, what’s the big deal now?
It is simply of no relevance. It’s of no relevance because
1. The data still exists at NWS.
2. Jones added no value to this data.
3. You get the same answer without “his” data
Steven Mosher | October 8, 2012 at 11:13 am
The big problem wasn’t that he had only a small number of records and had lost the rest … although assuredly the guardian of the records losing the records is indeed a problem.
The larger problem was that he was (and still appears to be ) willing to lie and cheat to keep anyone from finding out that he had lost the records. Not only that, but his friends were willing to lie and cheat to cover up Jones’s sins of omission and commission.
Finally, when it was all revealed, almost no mainstream climate scientists had the balls to comment on those transgressions. Instead they were all off pondering crucial questions like “How about those Yankees, you think they’ll win the pennant?”.
And those, my dear Steven, are HUGE issues that have led to the deserved discrediting of an entire branch of science … a discrediting that will be extremely difficult to repair.
In a speech at Clinton, Illinois on September 8, 1854, Abraham Lincoln said:
So you might as well not bother telling us that the damage done by Jones and his actions were a NON issue, Lincoln saw that BS coming a century ago.
w.
Willis, Do you know of some manifest that would show just what was received by CRU? There must be some document that would have logged the records sent to UEA/CRU. Even if the books have been burned; there should be an inventory still available. It would be a very interesting read.
…”although assuredly the guardian of the records losing the records is indeed a problem.”
Willis, PJ threw the records out on purpose to ‘save space’. Even a bigger problem, to me.
How do you know when Willis has no argument?
He cites lincoln.
1. Jones got 98% of his Monthly data from GHCN.
2. The source data he got directly from NWS, was not kept after
their “value added processing” but Jones thought he could
reconstruct/re request this data if required.
3. If you take all 36K+ temperature records and remove those that CRU uses, and compute the global average you get the same damn answer.
He lost data that others gave him. Like So: I give you data, and you lose it. But I still have it, so the data is not “lost”. I might call you absent minded or sloppy if you lost data I gave you Willis, But I would not cite Lincoln.
It’s Scientifically un interesting. Which explains why you must bloviate.
Let’s put it in perspective. Lucia lost a hard drive and some mails. Nobody gives her grief. I’ve misplaced a bunch of papers and data over the last 5 years. Nobody gives me grief. Jones misplaced data or failed to preserve data that others gave to him. And you want to crucify him.
There is a concept called proportionality. Your emotions are out of proportion to this situation so you are either grandstanding because you have no real argument and pounding your shoe on the lecturn or you are too attached to the Jones issue.
He lost his copies of other peoples data. Nothing scientific changes. The data still exists. The same answer is derived with independent data. So, the reason why you are upset, must be you.
“he had nothing of relevance”
Then, why did he lie about it?
When asked for the data he should have replied “sorry chaps, I lost it” and that’s that.
it might not be scientifically relevant, but it’s relevant from other aspects.
“While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.”
Assuming that greenhouse-driven global warming is the most significant impact in the long term would require a definition of the long term.
Over the past 300 years an area the size of the continent of South America has been converted to plowed land. In addition, twice the area of South America has been converted to “agricultural” land. “Peak” land use, which impacts the carbon cycle, occurred before the estimate “peak” oil and is a more pressing issue in the long term than peak CO2. CO2 could well be a “tracer” gas of issues instead of a cause of the issues in the long term.
” What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?” Polices that deal with the largest number of potential issues in the long term.
Any question which states that “the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear” is not worthy of consideration.
If you can’t explain “ordinary” in climate, how can you even ask the question?
I do not think the West has the moral authority to withhold the economic and societal benefits offered by plentiful and cheap carbon-based fuels to the Third World. More affluent societies have lower birth rates which go a long way in reducing pollution, greenhouse gases, and the drain on natural resources. Therefore, I would not limit the use of carbon-based fuels in any way, other than to reduce particulate pollution and elemental pollution (but not with the intent to close down “unsuitable” carbon-based energy sources like coal, as this Administration is doing).
I agree 100%. If the rich countries what to help the world cut greenhouse emissions, the rich countries should develop a cost effective substitute for fossil fuels that is appropriate to be used all over the world.
And not impose by force energy deprivation until such an effective substitute is available.
Peter Lang,
“….the rich countries should develop a cost effective substitute for fossil fuels
Isn’t that the point of putting a price on carbon emissions? There are cheaper solutions if the cost of emissions is properly factored in.
The best question “What would it take for humanity to address a real “failure of the commons?”” Until this is resolved satisfactorily, answering “”What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?””
is not answerable. This is based on the assumption that BAU will not work. If one assumes BAU will work, then there will be little or no oppurtunity to do better than is already likely to happen.
BAU is adaption.
Nice convo you had with BBD. Looks like you had some upside down data… capsized.
Johnfpittman,
“What would it take for humanity to address a real “failure of the commons?””
No, that is a pointless question. It has an underlying premise that is not accepted by many. The premise is that climate change is catastrophic. The evidence for that is weak.
I did not state that CC is catastrophic, nor is it necessary for such that a failure of the commons should be addressed. CAGW does not and I did not claim it was the only failure of the commons. Your conclusion of my premise is incorrect. But I will state in terms of CC, if true, one still needs a good way to addresss this failure.
Communism has been tried and failed – at every attempt.
Peter, I am not and have not been advocating communism. That is one of the reasons that a real conversation needs to occur. Otherwise, if only a communist government can comply, the likelihood of having an agreement by the US is unlikely and, besides, historically, the worst polluters have been autocratic states and the poor. A combination of both would be both a human and an environmental diaster based on autocratic government’s track record.
What’s the best climate question to debate?
Should politicians continue spending billions of tax payer dollars to subsidize a political movement disguised as science?
Should we :
Defund the IPCC;
Defund the unending stream of “research” grant applications that seek to cash in on the current apocalyptic fad;
Defund the EPA’s attempt to decarbonize the economy by fiat.
Yes, we should.
Gary M
I would support an “all of the above” policy.
Max
Defund the IPCC;
It is worse than useless, get rid of it as soon as possible!
The IPCC could be told their previous reports were not acceptable.
Maybe the process should be put out to tender at a fixed price? I’m sure Heartland would be able to put together something for for much less than the IPCC charge, and which would be much less ‘alarmist’.
I have always had difficulty with questions which stealthily already contain the answer.
For instance asking “What minimal (no regret etc) action must be done in order to …” implies without necessarily demonstrating it that the answer can’t possibly be “No specific action at all.”
Symmetrically asking “What minimal observation (proof etc) must be done in order to contemplate actions to ….” implies without necessarily demonstrating it that the answer can’t possibly be “We should do X anyway”.
That’s why the answer depends on the way the question is formulated and the debates about these formulations (which are made more obscure by the evocation of an even more obscure precaution “principle”) can and will go on forever.
My personal position has always been the same for the last 10 years.
First I ask when is predicted the next Ice Age .
Second I ask whether a transitory during 1-2 centuries will cause the next Ice Age to occur rather sooner or rather later and if a translation, is predicted, by how much.
As long as I have not a well argumented answer on these 2 questions, I consider the climate dynamics just as an academical and interesting exercice with few and far between well understood domains.
That’s why there is no specific action for limiting CO2 that would interest me, especially then not if it should have a significant cost.
Likely obvious for me is the fact that actions leading to energy and matter savings have always been important and interesting regardless whether their byproduct is decreasing CO2 (majority of cases) or increasing CO2 (minority of cases).
This reinforces my earlier reply that any question which states that “the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear” is not worthy of a response.
Judith Curry
Andy Revkin tells us:
The first phrase is undoubtedly correct, i.e. ”persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming”
You have argued this point very effectively in the past. There is too much uncertainty in climate attribution to claim, as IPCC does, that most of the past warming was with 90+% likelihood caused by increased human GHG concentrations.
From this uncertainty in the attribution of past warming it follows that the IPCC projections of future warming and its impacts are even more “uncertain”.
The next phrase is purely presumptive on Revkin’s part, ”the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear”.
While it is highly likely that our climate will continue to change, as it has over past centuries, it is NOT at all clear that there will be a “profoundly changed Earth”; it is even LESS clear how this “profoundly changed Earth” will look. So Revkin has tossed out a strawman.
The rest of his paragraph is based on the validity of his “profoundly changed Earth” strawman.
It makes a further (unstated) leap of faith that we humans are causing this posited “profoundly changed Earth” and an even further one that we could do something about it if we wanted to.
There is no “best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets”. [Maybe the best would be to abandon the IPCC?]
Revkin should realize that it is silly to even talk about these until the “deep uncertainty” surrounding human attribution of past climate change can be cleared up enabling scientists to reliably forecast whether or not there will be significant human-caused future changes and how these will look.
So what’s there to debate?
NOT how to solve the imagined future problem as Revkin proposes.
Instead we should debate whether or not we have a future problem at all.
Max
no problem…
“While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear”
How long are we going to put up with garbage like the above? “The long term picture of a profoundly changed Earth” is a nonsense. We’ve seen it all before, and will see it all again.
“What’s the best climate question to debate?”
When will climate scientists clean up their act?
When Hell freezes over, or some time next year, whichever comes first.
===================
When will climate scientists clean up their act?
That is easy.
When they no longer get a lot of money for their junk science.
Further to my earlier post, it is apparent that Revkin wants to redefine (or by-pass) the global warming decision process.
See
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5695851735_713e9422ee_b.jpg
A gigantic baksheeshing the question. And we’re begged to come up with a question. It seems so backward, but ignorant we are.
=============
…What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
Is that, speaking as an average New Yorker, American, Westerner, Hollywood personality, UN delegate, historian, George Obama and Joe the Plumber, an egalitarian communitarian or a scientific literate skilled in numeracy with respect for the teachings of the scientific method as a means of separating truth from fiction?
Wagathon,
The scientists have a contribution to make. But they lack others skills that are needed for informing policy decisions. Their lack of understanding of the other essential skills has been demonstrated repeatedly by the alarmists (including the advocacy climate scientists) who post on Climate Etc.
Absent respect for the teachings of the scientific method all we’re left with is the casting of chicken bones and the ancient science of astrology to overcome superstition and ignorance through knowledge.
I am not sure at this point how to word such a question, but some guidelines that I might work from in formulating the question include:
1.) Clearly the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ to ask are informed by the context/forum in which the question is advanced. For example, the question may be more revealing in a setting such as the first debate and useful than in the upcoming town-meeting format which is probably going to draw out time-limited pre-canned answers.
2.) If it is highly likely that the candidate will answer to a ‘constituency’, then the answer is worthless and there is no need for the question to begin with. (I regret that this is this is highly likely.)
3.) Canned answers are useless. One objective I would have would be to phrase any question in a manner that reveals something about the ‘real’ state of the candidate thoughts. Can the question be devised to provoke a degree of spontaneity? (Probably not.)
4.) I might consider something like the following: Given the current state of the climate change debate,and given that we can not jump into a time-machine machine and reset history, what are the present alternative approaches—no action, staged response alternatives, all out response, etc? What do you see as the upsides and downsides to each alternative? The preceding may be sloppy phrasing on my part, but the idea is to probe the candidates’ views and understanding of the overall problem incorporating the component political, technical, societal, and economic contexts. How well can the candidates’ define the problem without pandering to a constituency. In the question I would avoid explicit reference to the precautionary principle—it is too much of a pre-wrapped bias (as a crutch or as a club) to hand a candidate. If a response uses it fine—that may provide insight about the candidate. In asking the question I would also not explicitly ask for selection of an alternative—let the candidate reveal that if he is so inclined.
I can tell you right now. One candidate believes the science is settled and the policy course is clear. The other is less certain.
=============
kim
I could careless about what the candidates’ beliefs on the science are. That is only a component of what the question (if possible to formulate) would seek. I want to probe the candidates understanding of the BIG issue, to wit:
“the idea is to probe the candidates’ views and understanding of the overall problem incorporating the component political, technical, societal, and economic contexts. “
Climate question: Can we fuel economic growth and control climate?
When mitigating anthropogenic global warming is projected to require greater than 80% lower fossil energy use, how do we provide the transport fuel and energy for rapid growth by developing countries while sustaining OECD economic growth when the Available Net Exports of crude oil – after China and India’s imports – have already declined 13% since 2005, and Saudi Arabia may need to import oil by 2030?
Jeffrey Brown observes:
See graph at: An update on global net oil exports: Is it midnight on the Titanic?
Gail Tvedberg at Our Finte World documents a very close connection between Energy consumption, employment and recession
David,
That is an amazing question.
What technologies do we have to control climate in the first place?
Aerosols from unfiltered coal-burning Chinese power plant smokestacks seems to be a smashingly good technology to battle global warming. At least the usual suspects think so since they’re blaming the lack of warming for the past 15 years on it as well as the lack of warming from 1940 to 1980. Unfortunately they haven’t come up with a good reason for the Little Ice Age yet since very few unfiltered coal-burning Chinese power plant smokestacks were extant circa 1650AD. :-)
It’s Columbus Day.
lurker
The primary issue is still how to we ensure growth and avoid economic collapse for failure to provide sufficient transport fuels.
Re: technologies to “control climate”
Numerous authors posit options
First, should we mitigate or adapt?
To date I have not seen a financially sane basis to “mitigate” global warming, only to “adapt”. cf Monckton “As they say on the London insurance market, ‘When the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure.’”
Is “climate control” possible?
Chemical engineering expert Pierre R. Latour waxes eloquent
Engineering Earth’s thermostat with CO2?
Chemical engineer takes on global warming.
To control a system, Latour notes it must be measurable, observable, controllable, stable and robust. He explores how conventional wisdom on controlling anthropogenic global warming does not meet any of these requirements, let alone all of them.
Avoid glaciation
I have seen very little discussion addressing the far greater problem of what we do to ensure that we do not descend into the next glaciation.
Bigger question: Can we avoid another glaciation?
See: Onset of the next glaciation
Most optimistically we’ve simply forestalled the next glaciation.
Most pessimistically, we put enough carbon into atmosphere to trigger a massive methane release set to begin any year now.
The truth is somewhere between these two extremes. Finding it is what the game is all about.
The Skeptical Warmist
I am very skeptical that you are actually sufficiently skeptical!
Your optimistic wish gives no evidence or validated models to rely on.
Your pessimistic projection still gives no evidence that that will happen or that it will be enough.
See Tsedakis et al. (2012) Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
But with published estimates of climate sensitivity varying by an order of magnitude, I don’t see how we can rely on their projections.
We need verified and validated models backed by solid evidence, not wishful thinking.
Advancing glaciers would very thoroughly erase Chicago while higher CO2 with warming would improve agricultural production in America’s breadbasket. That is a huge difference and we need clear valid methods to chart our way through.
Restore the integrity of climate science as well as rhetoric!
David,
I don’t disagree. I merely pointed out that the truth lies somewhere between. The science is in determining where the most likely point is and the policy rests in responding to most likely scenarios.
Judith Curry
As you can see, there appears to be a flood of posts questioning the very basis of Revkin’s (loaded) question.
You write:
Let’s follow your logic.
“Some warming that is attributable to CO2” can be roughly estimated based on the past record (from 1850).
We see that this gets us to somewhere between 0.35 and 0.65 deg C for a CO2 increase from 290 to 390 ppmv, depending on whose estimate we accept for the % forcing from CO2 (IPCC at 93%, several independent solar studies at 50%, both based on the IPCC assumption that all other anthropogenic forcing factors cancelled one another out).
This translates to a 2xCO2 temperature response based on physically observed data of between 0.8C and 1.5C or let’s say 1.15C+/-0.35C.
On this basis (and with CO2 continuing to rise at the same exponential rate as now to 600 ppmv by 2100) we might see CO2-caused global warming of 0.5 to 1.0C above today’s temperature.
This is certainly nothing to worry about, so there should be no argument about “what to do about it?”, but rather to reduce the “uncertainty: “could it be substantially more than 1.0C?” and “if so, how much more and on what scientific basis?”.
IMO these would be the primary arguments.
The secondary arguments to debate are those listed by Jim Cripwell.
Just my opinion.
Max
Since we are limited to one question:
What will be the effect upon our Liberty if we hand over the means of production (energy) to the “command and control” of unaccountable bureaucracies (EPA and U.N.)?
Garrett, Major, and AP. “Administration Warns of ‘Command-and-Control’ Regulation Over Emissions.” News. FOXNews.com, December 9, 2009. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/administration-warns-command-control-regulation-emissions/
Russell, George. “As the UN Opens Its General Assembly Session, It Is Already Thinking up New Global Taxes.” News. FOXNews.com, September 27, 2012. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/27/as-un-opens-its-general-assembly-session-it-is-already-thinking-up-new-global/
UN. “Agenda 21.” DSD :: Resources – Publications – Core Publications, n.d. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
P.S.: The state will not “wither away”.
How about this question: How many American jobs are you willing to sacrifice now in an attempt to prevent what is still an unknown amount of climate change in the future?
How about:
>How many people are you willing to kill?
courtesy of kdk33 at Keith’s:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/06/05/conservatives-who-think-seriously-about-the-planet/#comment-111466
;-)
Everybody dies
willard,
If you are serious about killing people, limit their access to resources.
timg56,
Except for Chuck Norris, access to resources is always limited.
Why should Theodore worry about a future that’s too distant for him to be a part of?
Maybe he’s a “here and now” kinda guy. I believe most people are, and I think that’s a problem for more things than just climate change.
How many people are you willing to kill?
——————————————————
You mean by diverting food to fuel, by spending money on windmills instead of vaccines and anti-malaral bed netting, and that sort of thing?
Obviously a lot fewer than creepy Willard.
Add this device to your list David…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingshot_%28water_vapor_distillation_system%29
> Obviously a lot fewer than creepy Willard.
Obviously David Springer can’t recall that the word “obviously” just started some bitch-slapping on another part of this comment section.
Let’s recall that Andy’s question (and now Judy’s) was about the low-hanging fruits about which we could all agree. Too bad they don’t seem to coincide with David Springer’s pet peeves.
Dear Creepy Willard,
You asked the question “How many are you willing to kill?” not me. I answered it. If it was rhetorical maybe you should have stated that up front.
David Springer,
I’m not the one who asked the question, but kdk33.
I am just following through the appeal to emotions.
Please learn to read.
“the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.”
“limit environmental and economic regrets?”
The best question to debate is – Specifically what are we worried about?
That is to say the ‘problem’ is not identified or bounded.
“profoundly changed Earth” and “environmental and economic regrets” are not scientific terms, not quantifiable, and just fuzzy nonsense.
The unquestioned assumption is that beyond the probability that GHGs will increase the heat content of earth, there is a net negative impact on humans and/or other ecosystems. But that negative impact is not specified!
We know that there are benefits to fossil fuel use. Those benefits start with the energy use itself in a useful manner with developed infrastructure which supports it. Beyond that, plant growth and crop yield increase with increased CO2. There are no carbohydrates without carbon dioxide. Plant drought tolerance increases with increased CO2 because of stomatal response. These features are ubiquitous in the literature. We know that precipitation is nature’s desalinization plant and precipitation is modeled to increase with a warmer world. We know that increased growing season and the range of agriculture might be expected to increase. We know that home heating energy use exceeds home cooling energy use, on average, so a warmer world might mean decreased energy consumption. We know that many diseases are limited by heat – including influenza and a significant number of digestive diseases ( heat breaks down virus phospho-lipid shells ). That’s probably a big reason why human mortality peaks in the cold season and troughs in the warm season. We know that human civilization, at least as measured by the ‘cradle of civilization’ occurred during the warmth ( indeed longer, hotter summers and colder winters ) of the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Earlier than that, we know that human migration out of Africa and population were set back during glacials and advanced during stadials.
These benefits are known, it is the detriments which are weakly identified.
What -specifically- and measurably are we worried about? Sea level which is rising at about the same rate it has for more than a century? Slowly rising temperature which, given global economic trouble, will have a hard time sustaining?
+1.0*10^6
It’s good that climate scientists are using tax dollars to do research, as it keeps them off the streets!
Points awarded for resigned rationalization over a negative outcome. See, even I can play that game!
The rationalizations are endless and on the level of a 5-year-old saying that he doesn’t want to do something, just because!
If it’s warming, that’s a good thing, because it’s good for plants!
If it’s warming, even better, because it will protect us from an ice age!
If the arctic sea ice is decreasing, lucky us, because now we can travel from Canada to Russia by a shortcut!
If the arctic sea ice is decreasing, even better, because now we can start drilling for oil way up north!
If CO2 is increasing, that’s OK because there is an upper limit to how much hydrocarbons that humans can burn! (but natural variability in temperature has no upper bound, apparently).
OK, so fossil fuel resources are limited, but renewable energy sources such as wind turbines do not work, and will never work because the people that are interested in it are greens, but they are hypocrites, as wind turbines kill birds, make noise, shed ice, blot the landscape, and parts can fall off and land on somebody’s head!
The climate scientists are wrong, and if they were right, it wouldn’t matter, because they write nasty emails!
If the climate does change, that’s OK, because I will be long gone by then!
“If the climate does change…”
It will change, 100% certain.
So, you can’t answer specifically what the problem is either.
Nice rant WEB,
You even got a couple of things right.
Now, care to flip over the disk and play the other side? The one with the rationalizations for why we need to act now to combat climate change.
Let me help you get started:
As the climate changes we will be over run with refugees fleeing its impacts.
As climate changes nations and populations will go to war.
As the climate changes coastal cities will be swamped.
If we don’t act now tropical dieseases will spread.
If we don’t act now we will see extreme mega weather events.
Climate change will turn the oceans to acid, make the birds fall from the skies, make frogs smaller, forests disappear and cause our teeth to rot and fall out.
Care to point out one here that is not a rationalization?
+1.0*10^9
The first question worth debating is whether or not there is a climate crisis that demands trillions of dollars and radical changes in industry.
The second question worth debating is whether or not emphasizing on mitigation has any added value over emphasizing adaptation.
Neither of these have been settled, no matter how much AGW proponents claim otherwise.
> The second question worth debating is […]
Judy disagrees:
> This [What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?] is a very good question to ponder, its at the heart of the climate policy debate.
willard,
I am not so certain that I disagree with Dr. Curry. There will likely be a mixture of solutions. That does, however, beg the question: whatis the scope of the proplem, if there is one at all.
Right now the AGW community is demanding we spend trillions on a problem that appears to be in the billions or less.
And could be better addressed by way of focusing on cleaning up energy sources.
Not one mitigation strategy apepars to be either feasible, potentially successfully and not even close to economically sensible.
Wasting money is generally considered to be a high regrets policy.
@lurker
‘Wasting money is generally considered to be a high regrets policy’
Depends who is doing the considering. There appears to be a small but way too influential eco-zealot constituency for whom wasting other people’s money is an irrelevant concern, so long as they get somebody else to pay for their latest impractical, uneconomic and unworkable scheme.
lurker, passing through laughing,
I believe that Judy’s asking for the lowest (?) fruits that are hanging.
There’s no need to settle anything about any wicked (?) problem to do that.
“No regrets” means no regrets.
In other words, please channel your inner Lomborg.
Actually the title of the post is “What’s the best climate question to debate?” rather than “What’s the best answer to Revkin’s question?”. It appears our hostess had a bit of a brain fart there with the title not matching the contents. I’m going with the title question.
> I’m going with the title question.
Of course you would.
As if topicality prevented you from anything.
You got something right!
But I have a question for you in regard to it. Is your response to me topical? If not that makes you a hypocrite. I already have to append creepy in front of your name. Don’t make me have to add hypocrite as well. Think of the bandwidth, man. If you’re really a man, that is.
David Springer,
In reply to your “but I am in line with Judy’s title”, I said “as if you care”. Paraphrasing, of course. So my comment shares the topic of your comment.
I don’t recall relying on any excuse to justify my excursii. Not that I agree with most of the ways to judge what is OT and what’s not. My teaching experience allows me to have my own ideas on the subject.
As far as I can tell, you’re just playing an adolescent game. In fact, you look like a kid in a curmudgeon’s frame. Perhaps inside this kid there is still an angelic heart, a fact the fat of your spirit is fastening so much as to dislike Chief’s video on that subject the other day.
Enjoy your coffee,
w
I will point at Judy’s:
> How would you answer this question? For the moment, accept that there is ‘some’ warming that is attributable to CO2 (i.e. lets not debate the fundamental science here, but uncertainty assessments are ok). Please keep your responses on topic.
And I will point at the over comment thread.
That is all.
@willard
Still hoping that gnomic riddles will conceal the fact that you have nothing worthwhile to say?
Latimer Adler,
My greenfieldism simply points to the obvious fact that most of the comments so far are OT. This thread, like most of the other threads at Judy’s, are free-for-alls, notwithstanding Judy’s explicit and repeated requests. If you want a perfect example of rhetorical anarchy, this is it.
I’m truly sorry that my greefieldism was too gnomic for you.
So why didn’t you say that the first time around?
It seems odd that you complain about ‘rhetorical anarchy’ while deliberately adopting a writing style that is a major contributor to it.
willard it is not rhetorical anarchy. It is an issue tree. err maybe issue, “shrubs.” Shrubbery is nice.
I don’t mind anarchy much, as long as we agree that this is what’s happening.
Think of it as the International ice hockey rinks dimensions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink
More space to skate. No lines. No offsides.
I believe I can skate on this kind of rink, at least figuratively speaking.
Massive transference and projection.
@web hub telescope
Please provide examples of my ‘gnomic utterances’.
I try to make my posts as clear and to the point as I can. If I have failed to do so in some places please show me where so that I can learn from them to write better in the future.
Thanks.
Latie, No blog, no deep analysis. All you share is gnomic utterances on the ocean’s pH and your experiences in IT. Willard has some deep analysis on his blog. Therefore, you demonstrate massive transference and projection of your inadequacies onto someone else.
The stuff boomerangs back at you. Get a mirror, buddy.
“Willard has some deep analysis on his blog.”
ROFLMAO!
Good one. Now I have to clean coffee of my laptop. Hope you’re happy.
His blog deconstructs other people’s analysis with attention to “epistemology, philosophy of science, informal logic, philosophy of language, communication theory, and fallacy theory”
One can do worse. Like trying to defend Intelligent Design.
WebHubTelescope,
Thank you for the kind words.
There is a better suggestion than this:
> Get a mirror, buddy.
A tumblog would be cheaper and better:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33228390431
I’m not sure he would find it obvious enough to satisfy himself. Speaking of which, here could be an anthem for his orations:
David Springer,
Laughter is good for the soul, and laughter and coffee is good for the soil.
I bet you’re a down-to-earth guy, David. Perhaps this would be more your cup of coffee:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/
An enigma:
> Did McIntyre get the image directly from Daly’s website? Or via someone else?
If you could help Steve jig his memory about the source of his image, that would be appreciated.
Many thanks!
@web hub telescope
‘Willard has some deep analysis on his blog. Therefore, you demonstrate massive transference and projection of your inadequacies onto someone else.’
Care to explain the ‘therefore’ in your little rant? The two propositions you advance do not appear to have any relevance to each other, let alone ‘therefore’.
@web hub telescope
But I gave up on there being any logic to your posts a long time ago.
PS : – you still haven’t given any instances of my supposed ‘gnomic utterances’. Just assertions without evidence. As usual.
WebHubTelescope,
I’ve answered Latimer for you over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-251093
Sorry to budge in and to mistake the propre “reply” button.
Latimer Adler,
It might be a bit unfair to burden WebHubTelescope with the task of meeting your demands. He simply seems to say that I might not be as gnomic as you try to portray. Or that he can get most of what I’m trying to say. Or something like that. I don’t mind much to stand corrected on this: this interpretation satisfies me enough not to bother asking him.
You have no idea how much understanding people can get from others’ words when they put their charity into it. Some cultural background can also help. For instance, by speaking of “charity”, I am gnomically referring to the principle of charity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Speaking of charity, here’s the link to the Concluding Remarks of the chapter you’re supposed to have read:
> This chapter has assessed how processes related to vegetation dynamics, carbon exchanges, gas-phase chemistry and aerosol microphysics could affect the climate system. These processes, however, cannot be considered in isolation because of the potential interactions that exist between them. Air quality and climate change, for example, are intimately coupled (Dentener et al., 2006). Brasseur and Roeckner (2005) estimate that the hypothetical removal from the atmosphere of the entire burden of anthropogenic sulphate aerosol particles (in an effort to improve air quality) would produce a rather immediate increase of about 0.8°C in the globally averaged temperature, with geographical patterns that bear a resemblance to the temperature changes found in greenhouse gas scenario experiments (Figure 7.24). Thus, environmental strategies aimed at maintaining ‘global warming’ below a prescribed threshold must therefore account not only for CO2 emissions but also for measures implemented to improve air quality.
The emphasized sentence seems to run across one of the desiderata you expressed elsewhere. No, I’m not quoting it for now. I want you to ask for it. As I’m not including the quotes related to models: you will have to go fish them out all by yourself.
I have the impression you don’t realize that when I write a comment, I am entertaining how you could respond. That helps me leave you with some options.
How do I do it, you may ask?
By using the charity principle.
The emphasized sentence should be:
> These processes, however, cannot be considered in isolation because of the potential interactions that exist between them.
Willard, should I also look at Nussbaum wrt Sen?
John,
I have a friend who did his thesis on Nussbaum. A sexy lady, and truth is sexy. But this is only if you like morality. And even then, I get the feeling you’d rather prefer a consequentialist like Philip Pettit:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ppettit/
In any case, my advice would be that if you wish to read anything, first look first at Herbert Gintis’ Amazon Reviews:
http://people.umass.edu/gintis/
This is a serious guy. Way more than me. Here is his Amazon Review of Sen’s **The Idea of Justice**:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RPXOKKWEEX5NS
Beware that reading this kind of thing might induce the belief that what’s happening at Judy’s are more wood-pushers’ kibitzes than anything else.
@willard
Well, I dunno why I bother trying to write things here when the really clever follks like you and Webbie are making such edikkated interlectual points all the time. And managing to pay attention to
‘epistemology, philosophy of science, informal logic, philosophy of language, communication theory, and fallacy theory’ at the same time.
I’ll just collect my cap from the Servant’s Hall and slink off back to my hovel while you drink the port and brandy. And I’ll tell my pals in the Dog and Duck that I’ve met some of the greatest intellectuals of the day..at least that’s what they’d like me to think.
‘So what were they like Lattie?’ one of my chums will ask.
‘Dunno – couldn’t understand a word they said. But they were ever so pleased with themselves about how clever they were in saying it’
‘Did they tell you why they think the world is going to end three weeks come next Michaelmas widdershins?’ says Joe Sixpack.
‘I don’t know….they might have, but they were so hard to follow I lost track. One of them with the silly name said something about getting oiled enough…I thought he just wanted another drink, but maybe he meant something else’
‘So they didn’t really tell you?’ chimes in Stirling English
‘Nope. You’d think that if they really had something to say they’d be able to do it clearly and simply. But they don’t. I think they just like playing intellectual games’
‘So what they say is all a load of old bollocks then?’ remarks Woody the Barman.
‘Seems like it. And I don’t think its worth wasting much more time on them. If we’re all threatened with going to die in Thermageddon, it’ll be better to talk to people who do know what they’re on about. This pair of chumps don’t’
Latimer Adler,
I too wonder why you bother trying to write things when you simply rinse and repeat about the same apostrophes. But just as I might despair you come up with scintillating commiserations like this last one. Long live to Stirling and Joe!
Not that this playing the victimized plebian has never been seen before. But your act has some zest and some gusto. Are you Scottish like Groundskeeper Willie, by any chance?
I also wonder why I bother. Rest assured that my audit is nearing its end.
You’ll be able to keep to your bitch-slapping soon enough.
Patience, dear Stirling, dear Joe!
***
So, for now, we have seen the Executive Summary, the Introduction, and the Concluding Remarks of Chapter 7: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry.
Here is a quote from section 7.1., entitled Ocean Ecosystems and Climate
> The functioning of ocean ecosystems depends strongly on climatic conditions including near-surface density stratification, ocean circulation, temperature, salinity, the wind field and sea ice cover. In turn, ocean ecosystems affect the chemical composition of the atmosphere (e.g. CO2, N2O, oxygen (O2), dimethyl sulphide (DMS) and sulphate aerosol). Most of these components are expected to change with a changing climate and high atmospheric CO2 conditions. Marine biota also influence the near-surface radiation budget through changes in the marine albedo and absorption of solar radiation (bio-optical heating). Feedbacks between marine ecosystems and climate change are complex because most involve the ocean’s physical responses and feedbacks to climate change. Increased surface temperatures and stratification should lead to increased photosynthetic fixation of CO2, but associated reductions in vertical mixing and overturning circulation may decrease the return of required nutrients to the surface ocean and alter the vertical export of carbon to the deeper ocean. The sign of the cumulative feedback to climate of all these processes is still unclear. Changes in the supply of micronutrients required for photosynthesis, in particular iron, through dust deposition to the ocean surface can modify marine biological production patterns. Ocean acidification due to uptake of anthropogenic CO2 may lead to shifts in ocean ecosystem structure and dynamics, which may alter the biological production and export from the surface ocean of organic carbon and calcium carbonate (CaCO3).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-1-1.html
To make sure we will get distracted from observing anything from the emphasized sentence, let’s foreshadow your rant about the word “acidification”.
Queue in five, four, three, two, one.
I am not sure of a preference as much as familiarity. I read one of Gintis on Sen. It was a good read. From the link on Sen you had, it seems his nomenclature could be part of the problem such as having a dual use for utility. I will read others as time permits, but I expect like trying to understand something like “Free to Choose” it will require rereading and time. I hope to get to Nussbaum. The one I read had the feel of a hatchet job, the hatchet was used to make chopped liver of the work in order to give substance to a strawman was my take on it. Kibitzing has a good and honorable past, as does philosophy and scepticism.
John,
Go ahead with Nussbaum. You won’t regret it. She writes clearly and beautifully, not like some commenters at Judy’s. And this will make you discover the Ancients, which is rarely a bad thing.
Don’t worry, I meant kibitzing affectionately, like most chessplayers would. But they’re kibitzes, and even Grandmasters’ kibitzes are just that: kibitzes.
I could have said Gremlins’ sounds, but I don’t know which verb should be used to express what Gremlins utter.
@willard
You are clearly using a different definition of ‘obvious’ than the rest of the world. If I need to read down to Chapter 7 of the IPCC report,, to look for some sentence that might be construed to be an expectation (not an observation) that there might be some small effects, then that is not ‘obvious’ by any rational criterion that I know. ‘Clear, self-evident or apparent’ it isn’t. ‘Obscure and speculative’ covers it well.
You guys (yes, this time I am including the singular as well as the plural use of the word ‘you’) would be a lot more convincing if you didn’t consistently overstate your case. It’s too easy to find the holes when you do. And then we watch you just wriggling and squirming and giggling among yourselves. It seems that you have learnt nothing in the last five years.
Latimer Adler,
Quite frankly, I could not care less about what you find obvious or not. I can’t say I’m that interested in Joshua’s claim either. It’s just some kibitin’.
What interests me is to post snippets after snippets from a document on which, had you spent the tenth of the time you spent at Judy’s, you would be an international authority by now.
You don’t seem to have read it. You might have. It’s just that nothing authorizes me to infer that you did, except your own personal testimony, which I find as authoritative as Stirling’s. (Yes, I used two Is: I prefer my Stirling stirred.)
What matters to me is that I am quoting and citing the IPCC documents.
For instance:
> In many areas of the Earth, large amounts of SO4 particles are produced as a result of human activities (e.g., coal burning). With an elevated atmospheric aerosol load, principally in the Northern Hemisphere (NH), it is likely that the temperature increase during the last century has been smaller than the increase that would have resulted from radiative forcing by greenhouse gases alone. Other indirect effects of aerosols on climate include the evaporation of cloud particles through absorption of solar radiation by soot, which in this case provides a positive warming effect. Aerosols (i.e., dust) also deliver nitrogen (N), phosphorus and iron to the Earth’s surface; these nutrients could increase uptake of CO2 by marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
This comes from section 7.1.3, entitled Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate
Sooner or later, you will have to admit that all you have is your semantic quibble over “obvious”. Unless you would prefer to go watch the grass grow.
That’s all you have left, I’m afraid. My pieces control all the board.
You’re almost in zugzwang.
@willard
No. I am not Scottish like Groundskeeper Willy.
@willard
Somewhere along the way you have entirely lost your thread of this discussion. Which was about the ‘obviousness’ or otherwise of the remarks that Joshua made here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250301
If you feel that you have some how ‘won’ an argument with me about a different topic, then knock yourself out. I’m cool with it, You can sleep well tonight in that belief. But whatever it is you delude yourself that you have achieved, you have failed on the substantive point.
Perhaps your Great Intellect meant that you spent so much time on the epistemological aspects, the informal logic and the fallacy theory that you actually forgot the main point?
And your quote mining from the IPCC as if it is holy writ is reminding me more and more about the religious zealots I mentioned before,
FWIW a quote from the IPCC that they expect something to happen or that something could happen is hardly conclusive proof of it, however much you might like to think it is.
Willard, As someone who played chess in tournaments and had a provisional rating until I had to give it up for studies, I appreciate kibitzing. Gremlin sounds would not register with me.
Latimer Adler,
Here is the first sentence upon which I commented:
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
I believe that you’re not asking for “obvious” evidence, but for evidence beyond “it’s obvious”.
I believe that the quotes I provided, especially the sentences underlined, point to some lines of evidence Joshua could invoke to meet your challenge. These lines of evidence are not to be obvious to meet your challenge: they only have to be evidence.
It is you who changed the criterium on your next comment:
> Any particular piece of the large and dull tome you would wish to draw to my attention vis a vis the topic under discussion – the ‘obviousness’ of bad effects of ACO2 other than climate change.
I hope you do notice that asking for evidence about the bad effects of CO2 beyond “it’s obvious” is not the same as asking for obvious evidence.
***
You know, Latimer, philosophy is a tough discipline. Philosophers have to learn to read, a skill that the climate debates convinced me is quite underestimated. Playing parsing games with philosophers needs careful preparation. You do not have the stuff yet to do so. If you want to see some examples, see:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/parsomatic
***
Notwithstanding all this, we can continue to quote chapter 7. Here’s an intriguing part on methane:
> Atmospheric CH4 originates from both non-biogenic and biogenic sources. Non-biogenic CH4 includes emissions from fossil fuel mining and burning (natural gas, petroleum and coal), biomass burning, waste treatment and geological sources (fossil CH4 from natural gas seepage in sedimentary basins and geothermal/volcanic CH4). However, emissions from biogenic sources account for more than 70% of the global total. These sources include wetlands, rice agriculture, livestock, landfills, forests, oceans and termites. Emissions of CH4 from most of these sources involve ecosystem processes that result from complex sequences of events beginning with primary fermentation of organic macromolecules to acetic acid (CH3COOH), other carboxylic acids, alcohols, CO2 and hydrogen (H2), followed by secondary fermentation of the alcohols and carboxylic acids to acetate, H2 and CO2, which are finally converted to CH4 by the so-called methanogenic Archaea: CH3COOH → CH4 + CO2 and CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O (Conrad, 1996). Alternatively, CH4 sources can be divided into anthropogenic and natural. The anthropogenic sources include rice agriculture, livestock, landfills and waste treatment, some biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion. Natural CH4 is emitted from sources such as wetlands, oceans, forests, fire, termites and geological sources.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.html
Thus it seems that methane output has something to do with CO2.
@willard
Despite all your havering, you have completely failed to establish the proposition. Realising that you find it hard to stick to the point, you will recall that I reminded you of it in a comment addressed directly to you here
‘http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250864
‘@willard4
………
So – once again – where please are the ‘obvious’ parts of Joshua’s proposition?
‘That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change is completely obvious’
and all the clever-clever logic-chopping philosophy you can dream of won’t make it true. It is not obvious.
The proposition falls.
Latimer Adler,
I have not failed to establish that proposition, as I have not tried to establish it. You are now trying to burden me with a commitment I never take. In fact, you are backtracking to a point in the conversation I have not commented.
In other words, brave, brave, brave Latimer is running away.
Besides, nobody has any idea what you would find evidence. Nor have you set forth any criteria for what you would consider as evidence. Considering your utter lack of any kind of satisfaction in our auspices, nothing warrants that you’re not playing some kind of pea and thimble game right now.
Take for instance the very concept of CO2. I don’t find the concept that obvious. There is at least one meaning of “obvious” that renders it trivially unobvious: it is completely invisible to the naked eye. The same reasoning applies to the concept of evidence.
And all this while you have (say) ocean acidification right up under his nose. Go ahead, please tell us that ocean acidification is not evidence, or that it’s not obvious, or both, or “whatever”. As if I care, as if I was commited to that gruesome task of providing anything that you would find an obvious piece of evidence.
***
Unless we have an idea of what would count as an obvious evidence, Latimer can always refuse to consider the evidence benevolently brought to him. And the he can always proclaim that he can’t get no satisfaction. No, no, no. Eh, eh, eh. That is what he says.
Burdening a commenter with commitments he never took is a common trick. For instance, here’s a study where this has been done at Steve’s:
> My sense was that my audience at Climate Audit had placed me on “one side” of what they saw as a “two sided debate,” and held me responsible for everything “my side” had ever said. That kind of refusal to allow a conversation partner to define the responsibilities she is willing to undertake is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion. In this particular case, I think the demands for to defend things we hadn’t said occluded possible areas of agreement about what we did say.
http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/debate-in-the-blogosphere-a-small-case-study/
Of course, now that I’ve used the word “commitment”, Stirling and Joe will return and have a ball. The word commitment might not seem quite obvious to Latimer. At the very least, his last trick shows this quite clearly: he confuses my commitment (which was in reply to a specific sentence of his) and Joshua’s.
***
Come what may, here’ are two quotes from chapter 7 of WG1, this time from 7.4.1.2, entitled Effects of Climate
The first:
> Changes in the hydrological cycle due to this CO2 doubling cause CH4 emissions from wetlands to increase by 78%.
The second:
> [A]ny change in climate that alters the amount and pattern of precipitation may significantly affect the CH4 oxidation capacity of soils. A process-based model simulation indicated that CH4 oxidation strongly depends on soil gas diffusivity, which is a function of soil bulk density and soil moisture content (Bogner et al., 2000; Del Grosso et al., 2000).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1-2.html
And thus it seems that AGW leads to a modification of the chemistry of the soil and wetlands.
That ought to raise no concern at all. Perhaps because it is not evidence. Or perhaps because it is not obvious. Who knows?
Latimer, of course!
He said the sky is blue, but she said there’s white in it.
=================
Willard:
Just as a point of clarification – I feel I have no “commitment” to Latimer. If he doesn’t think that harmful effects from burning fossil fuels – outside of impact on the climate – are obvious, so be it. I think such a viewpoint is absurd – and so it is obvious to me that there is no point in responding to his “challenge.” It’s clear that no matter what I would offer as evidence, he would claim it is invalid or isn’t obvious. He “challenge” is not in earnest. I’m content to simply state that anyone who is familiar with the evidence – as I have every reason to assume is true of Latimer – and thinks the effects of which I speak of aren’t obvious, is willing to believe in the absurd.
I have encountered this type of situation with Latimer before – notably the first time over the use of the term “ocean acidification.” I won’t be chasing down any more of Latimer’s rabbit holes (h/t Keith). He’s entitled to think that I have a commitment that I haven’t fulfilled; It doesn’t bother me in the least.
Joshua,
As I see it, you’re commited to your claims, not to Latimer’s judgement of what is obvious evidence to him. But you sure have the right to refuse to debate with Latimer, if only because he never seems to get no satisfaction.
But please consider the other participants. You can’t tell them that your claim is obvious because, well, it is obvious. While Latimer’s request is not obviously made in good faith, it could be a good idea to still answer it by providing some lines of evidence.
So, when you made this claim, what evidence did you have in mind?
Declining to answer, trying to say a question is not made in good faith as Willard wants to say, whatever that means …
These are sure signs of intellectual bankruptcy. Best avoid them. Even the slippery Willard agrees.
Willard:
If anyone, in good faith, asks for clarification, I’d be happy to do so. However, the evidence is abundant. Even a cursory investigation will turn up much. As simple an attempt as Googling “pollution from fossil fuels” will work for anyone interested. I’m not telling anyone it’s obvious because I say it’s obvious. I’m saying it’s obvious. If someone with an open mind doubts that, they will find that I’m correct. Given that the folks here are climate fanatics, I don’t see how anyone in these threads would have such questions in earnest.
When Latimer invites me to enter his rabbit hole, I decline. If he wants to actually come out and make a point, he’s entitled to do so. If he thinks that air and water pollution from fossil fuels is not obvious, or don’t qualify as negative impact, he’s entitled.
Joshua has now clarified his position perfectly : he has no answer for Latimer, but is loathe to admit it.
Willard:
Do you not see my point? There is no reason to enter these rabbit holes. Let the rabbits amuse themselves. No one is harmed in the process.
Willard –
A perfect illustration of what it’s like to enter those rabbit holes:
Tomcat,
You claim that Joshua has no answer for Latimer.
As far as I can tell, it seems that Joshua’s suggestion of making one’s own cursory investigation counts as an answer:
> As simple an attempt as Googling “pollution from fossil fuels” will work for anyone interested.
So I am not sure you have any ground for your claim.
Would you care tell us how you reached that conclusion?
***
That does not mean that it is an answer for Latimer, since he refuses to try play rabbit holes chases with him.
That does not mean that it is an answer that could satisfy Latimer, for I have no reason to believe that it’s possible to “fire up” Latimer’s imagination enough to do so.
Knowing what would count as a satisfying answer to Latimer is certainly an open problem I would like to solve. And I’m sure that Latimer tries to get satisfaction.
And he tries.
And he tries.
And he tries.
And he tries.
But it doesn’t seem he can’t get no satisfaction.
At the very least, that is what he constantly seems to say.
If you know how Latimer can ever get some satisfaction, please tell us.
Many thanks!
Joshua,
Thank you for your reply and your video. Your commitment has been fulfilled satisfactorily enough.
Now, please leave me to the chase. Your presence might distract the rabbits.
Joshua & Willard
It’s really very simple. Either
– you know what you’re talking about, and so can answer your questioner; or
– you can’t answer, and make up all sorts of pathetic evasive excuses like the question lacks good faith, you don’t like rabbit holes, asking the person to go and find the evidence you claim, etc etc….. all of which indicate that you have no answer, but refuse to face up to that.
Tomcat,
The claim that Latimer is underlining is this one:
> Given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment.
I don’t think this is the same as the two-pronged claim you’re now underlining:
> Either you can answer your questioner; or you can’t answer.
which is trivially true, but only if we presume that the act of answering behaves like an on/off light switch with no dimmer.
I believe that Joshua has just provided an answer: some keywords for a web search, keywords I admit finding quite obvious. Not that this means in any way that Latimer finds the expression “pollution from fossil fuels” obvious, mind you. As I said in an earlier request, a request you have yet to acknowledge, I have no idea what Latimer would find obvious.
Would you like me to report what this web search gives me?
***
Furthermore, I believe that Joshua’s answer contradicts this claim:
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?
Joshua has provided a justification for his refusal to go down Latimer’s hole. He also provided an answer. As far as I can tell, your alternative is been answered.
If I can be frank with you, Tomcat, I believe that you’re using Joshua’s answer as a bait to switch the topic on Joshua’s person, which was not the topic of Joshua’s claim, nor Latimer’s.
That does not look very slick, Tomcat.
***
As promised to David Springer, who’s silence we can all hear after he tried to bully me yesterday, here’s a quote from section 7.1.5 of the WG1, entitled Coupling the Biogeochemical Cycles with the Climate System
> It is well established that the level of atmospheric CO2, which directly influences the Earth’s temperature, depends critically on the rates of carbon uptake by the ocean and the land, which are also dependent on climate.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-1-5.html
Now, the emphasized expression is quite interesting. Would you say it is an expression that is similar to “it is obviously the case”?
Many thanks!
Willard
I hope you are finding amusement, intellectual nourishment even, in the rabbit hole. I might observe that a stoat would be more often seen in such a place, the creatures being partial to rabbits, but I don’t believe you to be ermine, and I fear the Stoat has, perhaps wisely, decided not to enagage in this particular warren chez Judy. But I digress.
A point of order. I have the unpleasant task of drawing your attention to an error in the above.
It may or may not be obvious that Dave Springer engages in bullying. Some might even say that it is well established that he does, and could cite comments herein to provide evidence. However is not my point here to highlight the unpleasantness or otherwise of Dave’s interactions.
Rather it is a more serious sin I have observed.
The apostrophe is a cruel mistress.
That is all.
Carry on.
VeryTall,
Thank you for your comment. I stand corrected. I will confide that I am quite ambivalent with all this.
On the one hand, there is the feeling to do Philosophy the Old Skool way. This does not give me the impression to chase rabbits, but to play on the third or the fourth line of an hockey team:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(ice_hockey)
When it’s technical, I feel like I’m on the checking line. When it’s not, I feel like I’m on the energy line. I’d rather remain on the third line and to follow the path of Bob Gainey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Gainey
But there is a need to stand in front ofl punks like Latimer Adler or thugs like David Springer when they jump on the ice. And there are lots of players like that. We might even rename Judy’s Denizens the Syracuse Bulldogs (sorry BBD):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slap_Shot_(film)
So one needs to learn to stand his ground. And so I have learned.
On the other hand, this just feels empty. The Syracuse Bulldogs behave as if nothing ever happened. Where is the warrior way in a world void of honor?
Thank you for the kind words,
w
PS: If you want the soiler (typo courtesy of JCH) for that film, click on the link above:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/4003586377
VeryTall,
The link below, not the link above.
@willard, @joshua
I’m flattered that while I was getting on with life in the real world (not ‘running away’, just busy elsewhere) untroubled by the KlimatAngst that seems to have so gripped you, you have found so much harmless amusement in analysing my question.
And after all the to-ing and fro-ing and logic chopping and deep philosophical treatises it comes down to the conclusion that what is obvious to Joshua…is necessarily obvious to anyone else (me included). Very little evidence presented of such an effect and notably Joshua was not the one to provide it. It was left to Willard to spend three gos to eventually find an obscure sentence in an obscure part of the IPCC report to come up with something that even remotely supported the proposition. ‘Obvious’ it was not.
Still, I guess ‘Care in the Community’ was always going to have teething problems :-(
You ask ‘what would satisfy Latimer?’
Simple.
Observational evidence that all these bad things are happening. Not unfounded ‘predictions’ or ‘possibilities’ or ‘wouldve couldve shouldve mightve’ speculation from activists and especially not unproven models.
If you come with real evidence, real data that can be shared and challenged and pored over from hundreds of different perspectives and confirmed by other researchers, then I’ll be satisfied. As to whether the theories built on that data are proven valid is another level of inquiry after that.
We used to call this way of investigating things ‘science’.
But it seems that you guys are more into philosophy, epistemiology and word game-playing than worrying about any such experimental/observational stuff.
Joshua & Willard
Suggestion : if someone asks you a question, and you say the answer is obvious, and they then say don’t see this, *just tell them the answer*.
If it really is obvious, they’ll probably kick themselves. If it it isn’t, you’ll both learn something. Win-win.
Avoiding answering by bleating about rabbit holes etc just says you’re trying to hide your own militant ignorance.
Latimer Adler,
First, you say:
> I’m flattered that while I was getting on with life in the real world (not ‘running away’, just busy elsewhere
My reference to Brave, Brave, Brave, Brave Latimer running away was meant to point at the fact that you have been backtracking to a point in the conversation with Joshua for which I had no commitment.
You changed the question, accused me of having changed it, and burdened me with a question I had no commitment to fulfill.
And now you’re just ignoring all this.
***
Next you say that:
> It comes down to the conclusion that what is obvious to Joshua…is necessarily obvious to anyone else (me included).
I thought having forestalled this trick. Joshua already gave me an answer to this trick. What you find obvious or not does not appear to be any of his concern.
Considering your distorsions, I can understand that.
Next you say this about the evidence presented to you:
> ‘Obvious’ it was not.
As if this mattered in any way.
***
Finally, you come up with this idea that deserves due diligence:
> Observational evidence that all these bad things are happening.
Not just evidence, but observational one. Of what? Something bad.
Now, the observational evidence of something bad happening is an interesting concept. An obvious observational evidence of something bad happening is even more intriguing.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. I’m not sure I find that obvious. Perhaps you can give me an example. When was the last time you observed something what was obviously bad, Latimer?
Could you observe the badness of that something?
How was that badness came to be obvious to you?
Just curious.
***
Perhaps we can follow WG1 to see what’s inside. We still have more pages of chapter 7 to read. Then we could follow Moshpit’s advice and read WG2. What a spoil sport: there was no hurry.
Here’s from 7.5.1.2, **Sea Salt**
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-5-1-2.html
Interestingly, we can find the word “evidence”, but not the word “obvious”, nor the word “bad”.
You should really wonder why, Latimer. .
@willard
Re your post
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-252298
I just wanted you to know that I am not ‘running away’ from it.
I read it, tried to extract some substantive meaning from it, failed and gave up.
So the reason you will not see a further reply is that I see no point on wasting my time on it. You can indulge your word games by yourself or with your little playmates
But please leave the adults to get on with debating the ‘climate issue’ in peace.
Joshua,
I believe that next time Latimer Adler shows up again to bug you with is ignorant pest act, you can always reply to him:
> [T]he reason you will not see a further reply is that I see no point on wasting my time on it. You can indulge your word games by yourself or with your little playmates.
Oh. Wait. Perhaps you already did!
***
Now, what did Latimer inferred from such a refusal to respond?
@Willard
If I were ever to write such a content-free bunch of incomprehensible drivel as your post to which my remark specifically referred, then Joshua (or anybody else) would be fully entitled to make such a reply.
But I try hard to avoid being unclear or unspecific. So I hope that that particular charge cannot often be laid at my door.
Simple advice to any alarmist….while you may be able to get away with sweeping generalisations in your private discussions or in highly regulated cheerleader blogs, be prepared to justify them in public fora.
And to Willard specifically….you do not gain extra brownie points for the esoteric and obscure nature of your posts. If you can’t say what you mean clearly and directly, then keep your powder dry.
Folks, WE can debate these issues here, but it makes no sense whatsoever for US Presidential candidates to engage in a debate surrounding climate science or policy for a few reasons:
– Neither candidate knows enough about the science to have come to any valid conclusions.
– The science is NOT settled
– There is nothing that a US President can do to change our planet’s climate
– The issue itself is of such minor importance to US voters, that there is no use wasting time to debate it
We are being presumptive to assume that this issue (which may be of great interest to us personally) is of any real interest to the US voters, in general, or the US presidential candidates.
Better yet would be to debate an energy policy for the USA, including opening up exploratory oil and gas drilling including shale deposits, limiting the exponential growth of regulations currently stifling new exploration, ending the EPA regulatory war on coal, reactivating the Keystone pipeline, etc.; these issues have direct impact on American jobs and future energy independence, both of which are more important issues for US voters (and presidential candidates) than any “climate” debate.
Max
I point to Manacker’s appeal to US politics, and I point to Judy’s last paragraph:
> This is a very good question to ponder, its at the heart of the climate policy debate. How would you answer this question? For the moment, accept that there is ‘some’ warming that is attributable to CO2 (i.e. lets not debate the fundamental science here, but uncertainty assessments are ok). Please keep your responses on topic.
That is all.
Apparently coming up with thoughts of your own is a bit challenging, huh willard?
timg56,
You seem to presume that Manacker’s comments contain original thoughts. That presumption lacks evidence, to say the last. As far as I am concerned, Manacker rinses and repeats the same claptraps day in, day out, disregarding most of the discussions he had with the commenters, including me.
Since you ask so gently, I could tell you that I think the most important policy should recreate the magic of washing machines:
> And what’s the magic with them? My mother explained the magic with this machine the very, very first day. She said, “Now Hans, we have loaded the laundry. The machine will make the work. And now we can go to the library.” Because this is the magic: you load the laundry, and what do you get out of the machine? You get books out of the machines, children’s books. And mother got time to read for me. She loved this. I got the “ABC’s” — this is where I started my career as a professor, when my mother had time to read for me. And she also got books for herself. She managed to study English and learn that as a foreign language. And she read so many novels, so many different novels here. And we really, we really loved this machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw6NxCcvipQ
Considering the quality of the debate at Judy’s, I must admit that washing machines might not be enough.
But that would be a good start.
A majority of people here, including myself, tend to repeat comments and opinions. I was commenting on you repeatedly responding with a quote from Dr Curry above. A tactic in response to other posters? Ok.
As for the washing machine story – whatever. I recall the first washing machine my mon’s mom had. It was electric, open topped, with an agitator. You had to squeeze the water and suds out by hand, drain the machine and refill with water, then repeat the process. Both our stories have the same bearing on climate discussions.
> As for the washing machine story – whatever.
Thank you for your comment.
Max
I tend to disagree with your stated conclusion(s).
You concluded: Neither candidate knows enough about the science to have come to any valid conclusions.
I do not know this to be true and do not think you have any special knowledge about the relative knowledge of each of the candidates. Romney appears to know enough to believe that restricting CO2 emissions in the US may create more national harms than benefits. Obama seems to desire that CO2 emissions be limited, but it would be enlightening if he would be able to justify the reasoning behind the position for voters.
You concluded: There is nothing that a US President can do to change our planet’s climate.
I respectfully disagree. Policies supported by a US president could have a long term impact, but I agree that the climate impact will not be very large.
You concluded: The issue itself is of such minor importance to US voters, that there is no use wasting time to debate it.
I again respectfully disagree. Because the issue of CO2 emissions is tied closely to domestic energy production in the US over the next 20 to 30 years, there is a potential large impact in the USA on the domestic economy. If Romney was elected and if his policies were enacted, there could be a substantial increase in the development of US fossil fuels and a substantial intermediate positive impact on domestic employment and the availability of domestic capital. US voters would be more likely to support the development of these resources if they were better informed of the facts on the impacts on employment and capital availability and of the lack of clear scientific conclusions regarding the negative consequences to the USA.
> Romney appears to know enough to believe that restricting CO2 emissions in the US may create more national harms than benefits.
WebHubTelescope has a nice serie on Romney’s view on energy issues. For instance:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/07/climate-change-and-u-s-presidential-politics/#comment-236990
The whole serie would make an interesting G Doc.
Wink wink.
Some have pointed out that this book was likely ghost-written for Mitt Romney. There is a distinct possibility that Romney probably doesn’t even realize that he has labelled himself a peak oiler.
WebHubTelescope,
Unless we could prove that Willard Romney has ideas of his own, I don’t see the problem with ghost writers. I might be biased.
WHT
Who’s “ghost writing” your posts for you?
[Whoever it is, you should fire the guy.]
Max
Willard and Webby
The quote from Mitt Romney’s (allegedly “ghostwritten”) book points to the conclusion that the USA should do more oil and gas exploration (“drill, baby, drill”) including shale deposits, to get more “energy independent” (combined, of course, with supporting basic research for new energy technologies).
All makes sense to me – and it appears that this is the course Mitt Romney will take if he becomes the new US President.
Max
Manacker,
You jest while you have homework to do:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-248950
Also please provide a quote for what you claim: I have no reason to trust your reading skills.
Many thanks!
Rob Starkey
Whether Mitt Romney “knows more” about climate science than Barack Obama is possible but uncertain – that neither is an expert is fairly certain. (Both have had other things to worry about.)
I agree with you that Romney probably has a slightly better understanding of industry than Obama, based on their backgrounds.
But I believe that, apart from “giving a signal to the world”, there is not much either could do to change our planet’s future climate.
Let’s say the new US President takes the bull by the horns and cuts 50% of the US CO2 emissions starting the day after he takes office (maybe not completely impossible but highly improbable).
Wiki tells us that USA emits 5.5 GtCO2/year (2010) out of a global total of 33.5 GtCO2 (China emits 8.2 GtCO2).
Without this drastic USA cutback, IPCC estimates that we will reach 600 ppmv CO2 by 2100 (average of cases B1 and A1T, both assuming no special “climate initiatives”, population growth rate slowing down reaching 10.5 billion by 2100, with medium and fast economic growth rate).
The cutback will result in a cumulated CO2 reduction of 96.8 GtCO2, of which 50% will “remain” in the atmosphere.
This will result in a calculated reduction of atmospheric CO2 of 6.2 ppmv.
Using the logarithmic relation and IPCC’s model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3°C, we have a net reduction in global warming by 2100 of 0.045°C.
If the new US President shuts down the present CO2 emissions completely today, we would have a net reduction in global warming of 0.09°C by 2100.
Neither reduction could be measurable.
IOW, there is not much the new US President can do to change our planet’s climate.
And that was my point.
Max
PS That “dratstically cutting back CO2” versus “drill, baby, drill” would have severe economic consequences for the USA is another matter.
It would, at least one candidate knows this, and (if he’s elected) it won’t happen.
It is unlikely that the incumbent (if re-elected) will enjoy having Congress on his side, so any attempt to force a CO2 reduction through the EPA will get strong opposition. But it will still be a totally unproductive nuisance and the negative job impact of not doing “drill, baby, drill” will be significant.
My opinion, as an outsider
Max
Hi Judy –
I feel Andy has too narrowly posed the question. What should be asked is
What are the major threats to local and regional water, food, energy, human health, and ecosystem function resources from extreme events including climate, of which added CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a part, but also from other social and environmental issues? After these threats are identified for each resource, then the relative risks can be compared with other risks in order to adopt optimal preferred mitigation/adaptation strategies.
To focus on “greenhouse-driven global warming” is much too narrow, as we reported on in
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
Roger Sr.
I point to Judy’s last paragraph:
> This is a very good question to ponder, its at the heart of the climate policy debate. How would you answer this question? For the moment, accept that there is ‘some’ warming that is attributable to CO2 (i.e. lets not debate the fundamental science here, but uncertainty assessments are ok). Please keep your responses on topic.
And I point to the beginning of Roger Senior’s coatracking:
> I feel Andy has too narrowly posed the question. What should be asked is […]
That is all.
willard,
trying out for both parts of Dumb and Dumber, I see.
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
I’ve seen that link before. What were you saying about repeatedly posting the same “rinse and repeat” comments above?
Rinsing and repeating the same editorial comments is not the same thing as calling out over and over again the same silly tricks.
willard in this vein, please tell us your views on the well known Emot-O-cons being used by scientists today?
Tom,
In a nutshell: so much and so little for the word “unprecendented”. This impression applies even more to all the hurly burlies surrounding them.
***
I now have something like an hypothesis: it seems that we’re witnessing a paradigmatic clash between the Lambian Ol’ Skoll and the numerical guys:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c
In that comment thread, I found back this old thread at Judy’s:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
***
This is the 20000 feet overview. Today’s debate centers around this comment by Tom Curtis:
INTEGRITY ™ — Defend of Admit
***
Following up the breadcrumbs from the Deming Affair made me found back this concluding answer from Lee:
> As an aside, I’ve left because I got the answer I was looking for (dont rely on the dendro reconstructions, at least not yet), and because I’ve decided that Steve is very bright and very good and I don’t trust his honesty.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/33209686101
Considering the recurrence of these repugnant (TM – Auditing Sciences) pea and thimble games at Steve’s and elsewhere, I nowadays believe that an opinion like this has merits.
willard, check.
Tom,
An update. No reply to this comment I quoted, which I now cite:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/#comment-362006
The Auditor resurfaced this morning:
> Unfortunately, Tom is just making stuff up here.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/09/the-afterlife-of-ipcc-1990-figure-7-1/#comment-362237
You will also note that this blog post does not contain any link to John Mashey’s post at William’s:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-1990-fig-7-1c/#comments
So it seems that the auditing scientists are moving toward Zielinski’s work.
Can you imagine that these are all brilliant grown ups?
“That is all.”
We wish you actually meant this. :) ;) :P
Andrew
willard,
after seeing many of the subsequant comments by you I take back the Dumb and Dumber crack. It was a response to the early repeated referals back to Judith’s comments. My apologies.
Thank you.
Dr Curry. I must ask: Are you going for a CE blog recording number of comments to a posting? This may be the one!
‘record number of comments’ word completion, gack!
Any question based on the premise that “the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear” is not a good question, rather it is a question that ignores the debate. The line about minimizing regrets then nullifies this premise, regrets for what we ask, that the premise is false? How can it be both clear and possibly false? Thus the question is internally inconsistent, hence meaningless. Revkin at his best. He does this all the time.
Strictly as a matter of logic, that is an entirely subjective determination. It may not be a “good question” from your perspective, but your perspective is not the only perspective.
Again, subjective. There is no “the” debate. It makes a presumption about the debate that you want to have (that it is out of touch with reality), but it focuses on a debate that others are interested in.
If you object that Revkin’s assumptions are not sufficiently inclusive, then perhaps you shouldn’t make similarly exclusive assumptions.
Again, you are assuming that your perspective is the only valid perspective. “It” is not possibly false from Revkin’s point of view.
No. It is inconsistent from your (external) perspective – not from the logic internal to his perspective.
Hmmmm.
All we have are our beliefs Joshua, so your points are pointless.
My point wasn’t that everyone has beliefs, David.
My point is that when people confuse belief with fact – as you did in your comment – we run into problems. That would apply to discussants no matter on which side of the debate they reside.
You are certainly entitled to believe otherwise, but my belief is that confusion between fact and opinion renders the climate debate to be of relatively little value other than possibly as an object lesson (as are other proxy debates) in how motivated reasoning affects discourse and reasoning in controversial issues that overlap with political, social, cultural, and personal identifications.
I will note, however, that you consider speaking to your confusion between fact and opinion as “pointless.”
No Joshua, I did not say you said all we have are beliefs, your mistake is not knowing this. There is no confusion between facts and beliefs. All humans have are beliefs. If they correspond with the facts they are true, if not they are false. Facts and beliefs are fundamentally different things. By the same token, everything everyone believes is subjective, but that is no argument against it, and it is pointless to point it out as some sort of criticism. This is basic epistemology.
David –
Except that there is widespread confusion in that regard, and more specifically, it was apparent in your first post I responded to, You confused fact and belief. You stated your (subjective) belief as a fact (apparently, and ironically, in objection to what you felt was Revkin stating opinions as fact).
“It” has an ambiguous antecedent there – but I suspect you are mistaken. I am not criticizing subjectivity. Of course opinions are subjective. And opinions are perfectly valid.
I am criticizing an failure to acknowledge subjectivity.
I think my point has been rather clear. You have repeatedly misconstrued my point – It seems in a defensive way. I’ll leave it there.
What’s the best climate question to debate?
What percentage of the warming we have experienced since 1850 is due to the increase in CO2?
The prior question is how much warming have we experienced? This is far from clear.
I thought that you have said that you are quite sure that there is no valid evidence that Earth has warmed. For that I gave you credit among “skeptics” for being internally consistent. Am I wrong or have you changed your mind?
I have said repeatedly that there is a step function warming in the satellite record, coincident with the big ENSO cycle. This is real warming but it looks natural. Other than that the satellite record says that the warming shown in the surface statistical models does not exist. It follows that we do not know that the post 1850 warming shown in the surface models actually exists.
How does one event (a big ENSO cycle) warm the Earth over time? Doesn’t it stand to reason that a “cycle” implies cyclical change, not a state change as in “the Earth has warmed?”
I will point at Judy’s:
> For the moment, accept that there is ‘some’ warming that is attributable to CO2 (i.e. lets not debate the fundamental science here, but uncertainty assessments are ok).
That is all.
The atmosphere is incapable of being permanently stepped up in temperature by a big ENSO. You are deceiving yourself. There is no way for it to retain it. It mostly all goes away in months. The sunlight comes every day. Every day the energy interacts with the atmosphere, which determines how much stays and how much goes. Because there is a growing enhanced GHE, GMT and OHC have gone up. As was predicted decades ago.
Joshua, “How does one event (a big ENSO cycle) warm the Earth over time? Doesn’t it stand to reason that a “cycle” implies cyclical change, not a state change as in “the Earth has warmed?””
Over what time? 1976 to 1998 is 22 years, that is about 1/3 of an AMO cycle and 2/3 of a PDO cycle. There are also cyclic Bond events with ~1500 year periods that have 6 to 10 decay oscillations. That would be ~150 to 250 year pseudo cycles created by a roughly 1500 year recurrence. Those Bond Events appear to be recurrent pseudo cycles of a 4300 to 5500 year decay recurrences for a 23K year orbital cycle of perturbations. 22 years is about 0.1% of a long-term picture.
Cap’n –
Near as I can tell, you’re speaking hypothetically whereas David is pointing to a specific ENSO cycle. Thus my question to him – how did “the big ENSO” in question lead to a state change?
W/r/t your comment, should I assume that your comment means that you do not think that the “Earth has warmed?”
Or do you think it has warmed to some extent, and to some extent of the extent due to ACO2? If that is the case, then how do you make that determination – as it would require that you distinguish that warming from the long-term cyclical patterns you describe?
Joshua, “W/r/t your comment, should I assume that your comment means that you do not think that the “Earth has warmed?” That would be evidence of your confirmation bias :)
The Earth has warmed since 1976 after taking a break from warming in 1945 from warming that started in 1900. There has been a rather steady warming trend of 0.4 per decade in the tropics, 0.6 c per decade in the southern extra tropics and 0.8C per decade in the northern extratropics since 1900. CO2 may have added 30% to 50% to the warming since 1900. The 1998 Super El Nino was likely the bookend for the 1946 Super Duper La Nina :)
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/09/super-duper-la-nina.html
Non-linear systems have non-linear occurrences, hence the name. Just like waves on the ocean, you can follow the oscillations back to the cause.
Joshua, I am not claiming that the big ENSO caused the step warming, just pointing out the pattern. It seems likely the two are connected, possibly via an ocean circulation change along the lines of the standard theory of abrupt events, but that is merely a conjecture.
David,
There’s probably a connection. That connection is that ENSO caused an illusion of step change while nothing like that really happened.
When you have a gradual warming trend and add to that an exceptionally strong ENSO you get this illusion. That’s all.
Pekka, the fact that there was no significant warming for the 20 years preceding the big ENSO is hardly an illusion. It was widely discussed at the time. Nor is the fact that there has been no warming since the ENSO (but the average temperature is a little higher than before). The pattern is too simple to be an illusion, not to mention that the term illusion has no place in data analysis. Try using mathematical language if you have an actual point to make.
JCH
I have provided a fair answer for you on RC but Gavin removed it. The difference between RC and Climate etc and WUWT is more than obvous
you can find it here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250505
But it’s not true either. The warming from 1978 to 1998 was very clear, actually exceptionally strong in comparison with any other period.
That one satellite data set is inconclusive is irrelevant for the full picture. The interpretation that you have is not at all supportable by the data. It’s just your imagination. You have used the big ENSO as help for misleading cherry picking to create something from nothing.
JCH | October 8, 2012 at 12:48 pm |
“The atmosphere is incapable of being permanently stepped up in temperature by a big ENSO. You are deceiving yourself. There is no way for it to retain it. It mostly all goes away in months. The sunlight comes every day. Every day the energy interacts with the atmosphere, which determines how much stays and how much goes. Because there is a growing enhanced GHE, GMT and OHC have gone up. As was predicted decades ago.”
______
Precisely. The oceans act as a buffer and storage of energy, releasing more or less to the atmosphere, depending on ENSO cycles, but resulting in a zero-sum long-term net gain to Earth’s energy system (i.e. ENSO does not create any new energy in Earth’s overall energy system). The Longer-term rate of ocean heat storage is modulated by the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which ultimately alter the net overall thermal gradient between ocean heat and space.
So if the thermal gradient is being reduced by the greenhouse gasses which raise the air temperature, the oceans should warm ?
Bated,
A warming lower troposphere results from increased greenhouse gases in the troposphere, with differing effects on other regions of the overall atmosphere (cooling in the stratosphere and mesosphere for example). But it must always be remembered that net energy flow is always from ocean to atmosphere, thus, it is not the higher temperatures of the lower troposphere themselves that are somehow (against the laws of thermodynamics) imparting energy to the oceans, for the lower troposphere is almost always cooler than the ocean on average. Rather, the warming lower troposphere acts a governor or control valve, reducing the rate of net heat flux between ocean and atmosphere. This is a fortuitous thing, for if there was not this alteration of the energy flow, with the oceans absorbing more heat being the excellent heat sink they are, we’d have a much faster warming troposphere as greenhouse gases increase.
Despite a modest level of uncertainty, we can see that the oceans have gained roughly about 25 x 10^22 Joules of energy down to about 2000m over the past 50 years. Arriving at this number involves looking at both hard data and extrapolations to consistent paleodata. The gain in ocean heat content has been remarkably consistent over this period, closely paralleling the rise in global greenhouse gases (we must not forget the rapid rise in both Methane and N2O as well).
Finally, the fact that both the oceans and the atmosphere are at their all time highest temperatures over the past 10 year average from instrument record and through extrapolation to near-term paleodata, we can see a remarkable consistent effect of what increasing greenhouse gases do to overall alterations in Earth’s non-tectonic energy storage.
RGATES
Your answer to my question
…“So if the thermal gradient is being reduced by the greenhouse gasses which raise the air temperature, the oceans should warm ?”
seems to be
…“the warming lower troposphere acts a governor or control valve, reducing the rate of net heat flux between ocean and atmosphere”
IOW, “Yes”. The result of a warming lower troposphere is a warming ocean. Is that your position ?
Bated,
Yes, the net result of a warmer troposphere OVER THE LONG RUN is that more heat stays in the ocean, as the thermal gradient between ocean and space is altered. But you need to be very clear NOT to infer that it is the troposphere warming the ocean, as net heat always flows from ocean to atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere simply slows down the rate of heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. In very simple terms, it is not any different than you putting on a jacket on a cold winter day. No net energy is flowing from the jacket to your body, but your body stays warmer because the heat flow is reduced because the thermal gradient from body to the space outside the jacket is made less steep by the jacket. The only difference in this analogy and the way the ocean-atmosphere heat flux works is that your body is warmed through metabolism, with the source of that energy being the food you eat. The oceans are of course warmed primarily by the sun.
RGATES
Yes your idea is mostly clear : Basically the oceans warm as a result of the atmosphere warming. Not because heat from the atmosphere warns the ocean, but because heat flow from ocean to atmosphere – which is the norm – is slowed down.
The part that isn’t clear at all, is that you stress this is in the longer term only. Why only longer term?
Bated,
Over short periods of time natural variability such as from ENSO for example, can create short term effects that run contrary to the longer term trend of increasing ocean heat content and higher tropospheric temperatures. For example, at the end of a very intense El Niño, we might see ocean heat content dip a bit while tropospheric temperatures spike. The reason is simple– a huge amount of energy, well above the long term norm, is leaving the ocean and moving into the troposphere. Related to this is the fact that many people get confused about sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content, and understanding their fundamental difference, how they are measured, and what they are measuring is important. SST’s are often, but not always, better gauges for how much heat is leaving the ocean on the way to the atmosphere rather than how much remains at depth to be measured as ocean heat content. Thus, the higher SST’s during an El Niño are an excellent predictor for seeing higher tropospheric temperatures a few months later as those higher SSTs are energy on the way out of the ocean.
R GATES
Yes, I can appreciate that sometimes the oceans may not be warming in line with the general longer trend.
But in times when they ARE warming, your idea is that this is down to a warmer atmosphere slowing down the rate at which the oceans cool into the atmosphere ?
Bated,
There are only 2 things that can increase the longer-term ocean warming– more solar reaching them and/or less energy leaving them. Solar cycles, aerosols, cloud cover and greenhouse gas concentrations each play a roll, and in general, increasing CO2, methane, and N2O in the troposphere will serve to reduce the net flow of energy from oceans to space.
R GATES
Yes that much was already clear from your earlier comments thanks. But you haven’t addressed my specific question from before though :
In times when oceans ARE warming, your idea is that this is down to a warmer atmosphere slowing down the rate at which the oceans cool into the atmosphere ?
Bated asks:
“In times when oceans ARE warming, your idea is that this is down to a warmer atmosphere slowing down the rate at which the oceans cool into the atmosphere ?”
____
Sorry, thought my answer was quite clear, but to be specific:
In times when the oceans are warming, there could be several factors that influence this, each with varying contributions based on natural and/or anthropogenic variability:
1) Greater solar output
2) Less aerosols in the atmosphere
3) Less cloudiness (especially of a certain type)
4) Increased greenhouse gases
So, for example, if we go through a period of relative higher solar output, and less volcanic activity, relatively less cloudiness, and higher greenhouse gas levels, these would all tend to increase ocean heat content. It takes actual research (much of which is ongoing related to these specific issues) to find out the relative contributions of each of these during any specific period.
Is this clear enough?
RGATES
Yes thanks, That much was already clear from your earlier comments though, and doesn’t relate to my question – which has I fear has itself become unclear due to my attempts to rephrase it… Anyway, so we understand that there can be factors other than greenhouses gasses warming the earth, but that’s not what I’m asking about.
What I am asking about, is your point about the greenhouse effect warming the oceans, indirectly, by warming the atmosphere, thereby reducing the ocean-atmosphere temperature gradient, thereby slowing the rate the oceans cool into the atmosphere, resulting in warmer oceans
The point here is, that the prerequisite and tell-tale sign of this particular ocean-warming process, is warming of the atmosphere. Agreed ?
Bated,
Filtering out all other factors and natural variability, yes, for the thermal gradient between ocean and space to change and the heat flux from ocean to atmosphere to be reduced, the atmosphere would have to warm over the diurnal period. That is, you would not have to see record daytime temperatures, but you would have to then see higher night time tempertures, such that the average diurnal temperature across the whole planet, at all latitudes would have to increase.
RGATES
Yes, that is what I was trying to work out – that for ocean warming to be a consequence of atmospheric warming – albeit an indirect consequence as you aver – you would still need to see atmospheric warming. (Sounds kind of obvious, now that I put is that way).
The problem I see though, is that for over a decade we have not really had atmospheric warming, and yet the oceans have been warming. Which suggests some factor other than atmospheric warming is behind ocean warming.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=CERES_MODIS-1.gif
Yah think?
David Wojick October 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm: “I have said repeatedly that there is a step function warming in the satellite record, coincident with the big ENSO cycle. This is real warming but it looks natural. Other than that the satellite record says that the warming shown in the surface statistical models does not exist….”
I totally agree. That is exactly what I said in my book “What Warming?” whose second edition has been out since 2010. Apparently the majority of climate scientists are too busy imagining what global warming will do to us to read that non peer-reviewed, non otherwise-reviewed, book that tells them what real climate is actually doing. The satellite model you refer to in fact tells us that actual global temperature from 1979 to 1997 showed only ENSO oscillations while global mean temperature at the same time stayed constant. The step warming itself was caused by the large amount of warm water carried across the ocean by the super El Nino of 1998. In four years it raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stopped. This step warming and not any imaginary greenhouse effect was responsible for the record warm first decade of our century. It was also the only warming recorded in the satellite era which began with the year 1979. Various ecological changes – population movements for example – are due to this step warming and not to an imaginary “late twentieth century warming” found on many establishment temperature curves. That fake warming is found in the time slot of the eighties and nineties. It neatly blots out the absence of warming and hides the existence of the step warming. These manipulated temperature curves include Hansen’s Land-Ocean of GISS as well as Müller’s of BEST, but strangely enough not GISTEMP itself.
Yes, how much warming is the prior question – the 2010s may not be that much warmer than the ~1940s as the consensus global temperature indices show (~0.5 °C?). It could be less or practically zero, but even if it is, it’s not necessarily a gain in internal energy of the system.
However, this is all somewhat irrelevant, since we’re trying to falsify the consensus (A)CO2(GHG)GW hypothesis. So, we don’t have to guess how much warming and how it is attributed. All the accepted global temperature indices and attributions are very similar so we can say that there is an official position and explanation. It can be represented by this for example:
http://climate.uu-uno.org/files/103401_103500/103413/temp-vs-models-spm4.jpg
Only further warming can save the warmists and I don’t see it coming, au contraire. Buy aerosols.
Yes, I agree that the consensus science doesn’t have a very good idea of how much warming is due to increased CO2, versus all the other potential causes versus natural variability. IMO, it’s all natural (non-anthropogenic), but I may be wrong. Some local warming (the so-called UHI etc) is for sure real and anthropogenic.
However, there is an officially alleged AGW and it’s to falsified. It started in ~1960 and it’s about 0.7 °C. It’s more than 100% anthropogenic. It looks like this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-5.jpeg
Edim | October 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply
“Yes, how much warming is the prior question – the 2010s may not be that much warmer than the ~1940s as the consensus global temperature indices show (~0.5 °C?). It could be less or practically zero, but even if it is, it’s not necessarily a gain in internal energy of the system.”
_____
Looking at the larger (and more consistent high thermal inertia) energy storage of the Earth system- the oceans- shows much more energy in the overall system than the 1940’s. The atmosphere has far less thermal inertia and is far more subject to short-term natural noise in the system.
It really matters to making policy how much of the warming is from CO2, and how much is from methane, land use changes, urban island (asphalt, concrete, air conditioning, etc.), carbon black, solar changes (sun activity lower and heliosphere at low level), or the catch all – natural variability.
If CO2 caused 50% of the .8C in warming, that has a very different policy implication than if CO2 caused 80% or 20%.
Spending trillions to solve a fraction of a 20% problem may not make sense.
Maybe it would to solve a fraction of a 80% problem?
Before we can act, we have to define the problem, and good solid estimates of how much warming is caused by the increased CO2 since 1850 seems to be the very first step in defining the problem, and am important step in doing a cost benefit analysis.
I don’t think we have a very good idea of how much warming is due to increased CO2, versus all the other potential causes versus natural variability.
RickA | October 8, 2012 at 1:24 pm |: “If CO2 caused 50% of the .8C in warming, that has a very different policy implication than if CO2 caused 80% or 20%.”
Quite true. And if it caused 0% of that .8C warming it would be another game entirely. I say that because there are several reasons for thinking that 0 is the correct percentage. First, take a look at global temperature. There has been no warming at all since the beginning of our century. But IPCC AR4 predicted in 2007 that greenhouse warming of the twenty-first century shall proceed at the rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. We are now in the second decade of this century and there is no sign whatsoever of this predicted warming. In science, if a theory makes a prediction that is false the theory itself is considered false and must be abandoned. The greenhouse theory used by the IPCC to predict warming has made a false prediction and therefore it must be abandoned. But that is not the only reason to doubt it. Ferenc Miskolczi used the weather balloon database going back to 1948 and discovered that the infrared transmittance of the atmosphere had been constant for 61 years. At the same time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of all this carbon dioxide to the atmosphere had no effect at all on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Specifically, this means that the enhanced greenhouse effect, the one we are told is warming up the world, simply does not exist. And with it all predictions of warming based on the greenhouse effect are proven to be completely wrong.
Judy,
That is certainly a good question, but I sincerely believe that the second best question is this one:
> All of a sudden, these normally gentle creatures are becoming agitated and making noises with their mouths! What is it, guys? Is Timmy stuck in a well?
http://www.theonion.com/video/nations-climatologists-exhibiting-strange-behavior,21009/
It’s obvious you don’t get out much.
w, Timmy who, mate?
Don’t have time to provide proper support, but I can summarize in one word: REMEDIATION!
That is, let fossil energy development continue without restraint, while concentrating on technology to independently remove CO2 from the atmosphere/ocean, or perhaps bicarbonate from the ocean.
Several reasons:
– We can’t be certain that atmospheric CO2 is really going to cause any substantial harm, but we can be reasonably sure that anything that raises the price of energy (e.g. mitigation, that is reducing emissions at the source) will impact improvements in lifestyle that most of the world wants. It will thus probably be politically infeasible.
– New technology of this sort tends to follow an exponential growth curve, so that if properly managed it could become mature within a few decades, being then able to balance existing emissions and start a drawdown process that could quickly make up for the previous century’s emissions. This means CO2 could be returned to pre-industrial levels without impacting the continuous improvement in lifestyle most of the world wants.
– We can’t be sure that dumping of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is the primary reason for increasing pCO2. Sure, the smart money will bet that way (I sure would), but there are a variety of human interferences with natural ecosystems that could plausibly be more important contributors. These include whaling and overfishing, swamp/wetland drainage, expansion of irrigated mechanized agriculture, deforestation, and a host of others I’m too busy to think through and list.
– We can’t be sure, now that the CO2 is in the atmosphere/ocean, that stopping mitigation will cause natural processes to remove it. Active removal (remediation) will remove it regardless of the source or other processes. It could directly balance emissions, as well as drawing down natural sinks/sources that contribute to the high pCO2.
– A variety of possible approaches to remediation exists. If active semi-original research is undertaken on all reasonable approaches, several of them will almost certainly become technically and economically feasible.
– Regardless of whether any specific approach works out, all that original research will pay for itself in spin-off technology, even if it turns out, by hindsight, that CO2 remediation wasn’t necessary.
– All that money spent on research will act as an economic stimulus, while supporting a larger base of literate, educated people.
AK,
Interesting post.
Can you give some examples of technology that developed the way you described?
No snark or gotcha’s intended.
I don’t know whether you’re talking about directed development or spin-off, but the former would include the space program and much of the military technology developed during the Cold War, while the latter would include, at least, the Internet, which AFAIK developed from military technology envisioned as producing a redundant communications network for battlefield use (ARPANET).
Note that I don’t have time to create a properly referenced position paper, this just summarizes my position in response to the question posed.
“We can’t be sure that dumping of fossil carbon into the atmosphere is the primary reason for increasing pCO2. ”
Wrong, its likely the most certain of the metrics we have.
Well, that about explains it.
A very popular lie, but still a lie. We don’t have any metrics beyond a rough correlation between emissions and increasing pCO2. Unfortunately, the increasing emissions also represent a rough proxy for any sort of increasing industrial development, including “whaling and overfishing, swamp/wetland drainage, expansion of irrigated mechanized agriculture, deforestation, and a host of others I’m too busy to think through and list”.
And please don’t quote isotope studies to me, those just indicate the proportion to current CO2 that comes from fossil sources, not the reason the rest of the system didn’t respond to increased pCO2 by increasing uptake. Obviously it did to some extent, since an amount representing under half of total emitted fossil carbon remains in the atmosphere, but why it didn’t take all, or why it took any, are lost in the details of the complex ecological interactions involved in the carbon cycle.
Still don’t have time for much research, but a quick Google turned up NASA spin-off technologies at Wiki.
Remediation introduces new external forcings.
While a system with one large and many small external forcings is unstable, one with two large external forcings tuned to one another is disastrous.
Ask your plumber about having two working pumps running at the same time in a recirculating flow system for an explanation of why. A competent hydrologist could also explain it.
No it doesn’t. CO2 is CO2. It’s a well-mixed gas, and differences in location between emission and uptake make no difference to any “forcing”, either via the Greenhouse effect or any other.
This is unlike dumping sulfur oxides or aerosols to produce a cooling to offset the proposed Greenhouse warming. That would be subject to the objection you’ve raised.
AK | October 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
We’re not in total disagreement. Clearly, dumping contaminants to offset CO2 increase is a second external forcing.
Clearly, remediating CO2 emission prior to well-mixing (at source, before emission), reduces the initial forcing without becoming a forcing itself.
In atmosphere, post-emission remediation? I’m a natural skeptic, so I’m uncertain I buy entirely the argument that it is not in itself an external forcing. I’d need more convincing.
@Bart R | October 9, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
OK, it seems obvious to me, the sort of thing I dismiss without wasting time on, but since you ask, I’ll try to make a clear intuitive argument.
The natural ecosystem produces enormous positive and negative CO2 fluxes, to use the correct technical terminology, differing by location in time and space (over the year). Inter-annual variation (usually attributed to ENSO) can be as great as the overall annual increase in the decade-scale average. The human contribution is a small fraction (~3% IIRC) of the total positive flux from all sources. The total negative flux almost balances this. (I don’t have time to provide references, but the requisite articles have been discussed here in the past.)
Variations during the year, and from one location to another, make only a very small difference in localized CO2 concentrations, thus to the Greenhouse effect as well as other forcings of the ecosystem. (I’m not convinced the “climate” threat is the most important potential risk of elevated pCP2. Nor ocean acidification. Direct effects on ecosystem balances IMO have a larger probability of causing significant harm to society.) I don’t have references to hand for this statement, but I researched it at one point when the subject came up.
Given that the effect of human emission (positive flux) and remediation (negative flux) is distributed over the entire planet and multiple years, small differences in spacial location or time within the year will make no more difference than differences in the larger natural sources and sinks.
Of course, this is entirely different from the delay I’m proposing between emissions (now) and mature remediation technology (2-3 decades). There would be an intervening period of higher pCO2 with increased Greenhouse effect and other (IMO more important) risks. (Relative to immediate drastic mitigation.) My point is that mitigation is politically and technically unfeasible in less than this time frame, and carries the risk that it might not fix the problem for the reasons I’ve mentioned.
We’re looking at a 3-5 decade maturity for any proposed solution. IMO the one I’m proposing is far superior than one based on mitigation for the reasons described. It also removes any concern about “centuries long” increases in pCO2, and offers the continually improving life-style most of the world demands.
And the risk is (IMO) smaller than trying to impose political solutions to drastically cut emissions at the source, which would almost certainly lead to higher energy prices, thus to reduced lifestyle and political instability. People just won’t stand for it, and shouldn’t have to.
AK | October 10, 2012 at 11:20 am |
Fair enough, and thank you for indulging my ab initio mania.
I’ll give it some thought, and let you know if I can find a hole in your reasoning, which thus far I can’t fault without seeking some hard data to confirm.
@Bart R | October 10, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
You’re welcome. I may have gotten a little impatient and if so I apologize. I’d certainly be interested in any holes you think may exist in the logic, or data.
AK | October 11, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
I’m always more interested in people’s written ideas than their written patience. Yours are notably interesting. I’ll probably make you impatient a lot. It’s the highest compliment I can pay.
Speaking of climate catastrophe… are the laws to prevent it the real doom? Modern science stands on the shoulders of giants. Why can’t societies learn from the past? We all should take to heart the the lesson of the Tower of Babel.
http://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/proverb.jpg?w=641
While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.
The first clause contradicts the second. If the first is true, then the long-term picture is unclear. The future will be as variable as the past.
Matt,
+1. You hit nail on head of the basic problem of the AGW community. They do not know what they are claiming as truth is in fact true, but they know for sure that it will be very bad.
@lurker
You are absolutely right to say
‘They do not know what they are claiming as truth is in fact true, but they know for sure that it will be very bad.’
but you forgot the qualifier
‘…and far worse than we thought. More research is needed’
The uncertainty is anything between 1C and 5C warming per doubling of CO2. We will more than double it. Either way that’s a profoundly changed Earth.
Profoundly changed Earth??? LOL- if a 1C change occured over the next 100 years would earth be profoundly changed? HOW????
Even 1 degree C may make the planet warmer than it has been for millions of years. But of course the warming won’t be limited to 1 degree C if we burn all the carbon.
lolwot,
there were Hippos in the Thames in the Eemian. Their bones are found in London today. That is a lot more than 1 degree warmer, a lot less than a million years ago.
Yes higher latitudes were warmer in the Eemian, but see
Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Further to Gareth’s and Lolwot’s posts: According to the British Geological Survey (BGS, a UK government agency) there were rhinos, elephants and leopards as well as hippos in the Thames basin during the Eemian period (130 to 117 thousand years ago). (BGS, Holiday Geology Guide to Trafalgar Square, 1996). There were humans in Africa at the time.
You left off a qualifier: “profoundly changed Earth.”
It is possible to be uncertain about the “most important potential impacts” (say, level of sea rise) and responses (say, effectiveness of a carbon tax) and still be certain that a “profoundly changed Earth” will result – at some point in the future – from BAU w/r/t ACO2.
If you don’t want to address his question, then don’t. If you don’t agree with his assumption that a “profoundly changed Earth,” is clear, so be it. Argue with that assumption.
Joshua
It is possible to make any number of claims without any of them being factually correct. Does it matter if the claim is factually inaccurate or at a minimum not supported by observable evidence?
Rob –
Of course that matters. If you disagree with what he considers to be accurate, so be it – and argue that point if you want. But it is important to clearly distinguish the lines of disagreement, not base arguments on logical inconsistencies that don’t exist.
If you don’t agree that a profoundly changed Earth is clear, then argue that point. But acknowledging uncertainties in itself does not disprove a belief that a profoundly changed Earth is inevitable. I consider making such arguments to be an invalid exploitation of legitimate expression of uncertainty. It seems invalid to me to on the one hand criticize a lack of acknowledgement of uncertainty at the same time as saying that acknowledgement of uncertainty contradicts concern about a clear profound change. This is one of the problems I have with “skeptics” (as opposed to skeptics) in their approach to “uncertainty.” That, along with a fairly ubiquitous mis-representation when climate scientists do acknowledge uncertainty (think of the bogus “they said the science is settled” meme).
Joshua
Is making a claim that sea level will rise at a greater rate than it is currently, but being unable to state when or by how much a relavant claim or simply spreading unsupportable propaganda? Is writing that there will be “profound changes” but not describing exactly what these will be by when ore than spreading propaganda?
“The first clause contradicts the second. If the first is true, then the long-term picture is unclear. The future will be as variable as the past.”
Actually it doesnt.
“While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.”
The first clause.
1. There is deep and persistent uncertainty about the most important impacts.
2. There is deep and persistent uncertainty about responses.
Both of these statements are about the state of human knowledge WRT
A) Impacts
B) Responses.
The second clause.
the long term picture of a changed earth is clear.
This is a statement about a projection of the state of the earth.It involves human knowledge. basically Revkin is saying that we know there will be pervasive changes, but the IMPACTS and our responses to those IMPACTS is uncertain.
So, long term, given the best science we have today, we can predict a world that is warmer in the future. In fact, it is very likely that if we continue to dump C02 into the air that we will see a earth that is warmer than any other human has seen, clearly warmer than any modern civilized industrialized human has seen. That will be a profound change. which means the change will be pervasive and intense.
What are the impacts of that pervasive change? lots of uncertainty there. Where will the warming happen? where will sea level rise be worst? what will be the impact on regions that are cold? what will happen to plant growth? the oceans? lots of uncertainty in these details. And the uncertainty of response is not even related LOGICALLY to the vision of profound change.
When somebody thinks that two sentences are in contradiction, they usually are not thinking or reading logically. Reduce the sentences to their logical form. Then show the contradiction.
Sorry, increased CO2 does not necessarily imply ‘profound’ changes to anything. Nonetheless, the plant kingdom seems to have profoundly responded.
===========
You care more about plants than people. I like plants, but I like people better. I should say I like most plants and most people. I don’t like weeds. Some people are like weeds.
Classic Max,
You like “people better”, except of course those people you consider to be weeds.
Love like yours I can do without.
At least you deserve kudos for reminding us what so many people advocating for action to address climate change truely are after – a world with less people. With the caveat that they are among those who get to stay.
I wasn’t implying kim is a weed. He just likes plants, including weeds.
Max,
I did not make any claim of you implying kim is a weed. I simply pointed out the irony, and probable hypocracy, of your statement about liking people.
Steven, why all the thinkin & writing, when you just wrote this…
he had nothing of relevance. basically a small number of records from NWS
the guru had nothing, What, me worry. Got my two shoes too.
Explaining ‘why’ all the thinking and writing is a far different question from explaining the facts of the actual case. Diversions into motives and speculations about internal states are entertaining but not instructive.
Our suspicion and ONE OF THE REASONS we asked for the data was that we supposed that Jones did nothing of value with the data.
Skeptics, of course, thought that Jones manipulated the data. baaad evil Jones. believers thought that jones performed some great feats of science with the data. Auditors suspected that he did very little with the data.
Now of course Jones has taken OUR position. he does nothing to the source data. he collects it. he runs his code. he outputs the answer.
Steven,
Will we ever know what the actual recorded data was, before being transferred to computer files for use once the written records had been compiled? How large was the budget to transfer all of this information? It must have been in the millions. What Reason, could Jones, have possibly had to just ‘dump’ (question yet to be asked it looks like) these records? It was a BIG decision and from what I read he did it on his own… adjusted numbers. House built on sand is more like it. Science is still trying to understand the trick but the magician ain’t talking. If obvious questions such as this aren’t asked and answered; there is nothing to debate. AGW science is irrelevant.
Phil Jones: wanted to ‘save space’…
How much ‘space’ (in cubic feet, or meters) did he end up saving?
He must have had some number in mind too.)
No, StevenI think the reason skeptics dislike Jones, and alarmists liked him, was because he hid the tax-funded data from skeptics and gave it to alarmists, in an attempt to suffocate science with politics.
Moser says
“Now of course Jones has taken OUR position. he does nothing to the source data. he collects it. he runs his code. he outputs the answer.”
Can you answer how to adjust/justify the shrinking/changing raw data set ?
You write a large amount of bologna.
There is not reliable evidence that there will be pervasive changes to the environment or that the net changes will be negative overall over the long term. There is also no evidence that a world that is slightly warmer over the next 100 years will be profoundly different for humans. You write unsupportable propaganda.
1. There can be no EVIDENCE that there will be pervasive change. There is only a prediction based on the best science we have. Evidence relates to the past. evidence of the past supports the science of the present whcih makes predictions about the future.
2. I made no claim about the net NEGATIVE changes. the impacts are uncertain.
3. If the prediction of 2C warming holds true, and there is NO Theory or science that suggests it is wrong, then the human species will see a climate that it has not experienced before. That change will be pervasive.
will it be good for all? bad for all? net positive ? net negative? dunno. thats much less clear than the science that predicts the warming
Steve
When you used the word “pervasive” you were indicating that there would be net negative consequences.
The definition from Oxford:
Pervasive- adjective
(especially of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout an area or a group of people:
Regarding the 2C of temperature rise that you believe is inevitable- over what timeframe to you believe this change inevitably will come about? There is most certainly differences of opinion within the science community.
As usual, Steven Mosher is right.
Chad Jessup |said on October 8, 2012 at 5:47 pm
” … people with an agricultural background point out that northern latitude areas that cannot grow certain temperature sensitive crops today, whereas in past years, such as the MWP, the same crops could be grown … ”
________
I’m skeptical. What crops would those be?
Trees Max, and berries,grasses
Grapes
I laugh every time someone brings up the MWP being so warm grapes were grown in places grapes can’t grow now.
Grapes aren’t very sensitive to cold. Grapes are grown in Upstate NY. Grapes are grown in Scotland. I doubt there every was a time in the past few thousand years that grapes wouldn’t grow in the NY and the UK.
I don’t know what kinds of berries and trees you are talking about, but some trees (e.g., coconut palms) don’t grow in NY and the UK now, nor would they have in the MWP.
Are you saying temperatures will be higher than those experienced by people during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period? Not a rhetorical question. Just asking.
“Are you saying temperatures will be higher than those experienced by people during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period? Not a rhetorical question. Just asking.”
They might already be higher.
lolwot – people with an agricultural background point out that northern latitude areas that cannot grow certain temperature sensitive crops today, whereas in past years, such as the MWP, the same crops could be grown in those areas disprove Mann’s hockey stick temperature reconstruction.
Tony B has commented previously on that subject.
Yes. Looking at the reconstructions i’d wager that at current temps there about a 50% chance that it was warmer in the periods you mention. Add, 2C to the temps we have today and we transgress a boundary that civilized humans have not seen. Our civilization is an adaptation to the environment. We will be changing the conditions of our existence.
1. we should not do this without some due diligence.
2. we should not react out of fear.
But, admitting that we are in fact changing the conditions of our existence is the key to having a fruitful dialog
@Steven Mosher
Can we “admit” that we are changing the conditions of our existence, when we don’t yet know it?
Steven Mosher
When you mention human-induced future warming of 2C, you are making a leap of faith.
Past warming has been 0.7C (since 1850), and a significant part of this has not been anthropogenic (IPCC, with an admitted “low level of scientific understanding of solar forcing, says 7%, other sources say 50%).
From this and the CO2 levels in 1850 and today, we can calculate the CO2/temperature response for 2xCO2 at between 0.8C and 1.5C.
It is unlikely that we will double atmospheric CO2 above today’s level (=784 ppmv) anytime before the next 150 years (figure it out), so this means we might see 0.8C to 1.5C warming over the next 150 years.
And added CO2 concentration from human emissions is constrained by the availability of fossil fuels to an absolute maximum level of a bit over 1000 ppmv, when they are all gone.
This means we could have an asymptotic absolute-maximum-ever AGW of 1C to 2C when all fossil fuels are gone..
And, since this would not occur for at least 150 to 200 years, we’d have plenty of time to adapt.
Max
TomCat
You ask Mosher
To nitpick, we “change the conditions of our existence” simply by existing, breathing, getting older, etc. So, in a nitpicking sense, Mosher is right by definition..
But the question is whether through the emission of GHGs (principally CO2) we are “changing the conditions of our existence” perceptibly, in a net negative or positive way and, if so, is this change likely to have dramatic results?
Perceptibly: Probable but not validated by empirical data
Net negative or positive (Judith’s “winners and losers”): Unknown, some general indication that higher CO2 levels and lightly higher temperatures will have a net beneficial impact on overall crop yields..
Dramatic results: Unlikely, based on past CO2/temperature response and results
Mosher may have an other assessment on this.
Max
“When somebody thinks that two sentences are in contradiction, they usually are not thinking or reading logically.”
It’s hard to be more wrong than that sentence, when taken as a general rule. And it’s not much better in this particular instance.
Generally, there is a whole lot of bad writing and poor logic, and not just on this blog. It’s everywhere. Mosher himself frequently complains that comments here contain contradictory sentences. So stating it as a general rule is a non-starter.
And in this particular case, I don’t think any of the comments, including Mosher’s, get the comparison right.
The first clause is “While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming….”
The second, allegedly contradictory clause is: “…the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.”
The uncertainty is to the “potential impacts and responses” to global warming, while the certainty is to the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear.”
Whether the two are contradictory depends on what Revkin meant in the second clause. If he meant merely that there would be profound changes in the Earth in the future, I don’t think that is contradictory, but it is also not terribly informative. Who doesn’t expect significant changes in the Earth over a long period of time, with or without CAGW.
But his use of the word “picture” suggests some understanding of what those profound changes will be. And that they will be “profound” suggests they will be intense, ie. negative. That would contradict his first point regarding uncertainty of impacts and responses.
On the whole, Revkin seems to be saying that we don’t really know what anthropogenic CO2 emissions will do to the Earth, or how mankind will respond, but the bet right now is that it will not turn out well. (Notice the last sentence of the quote “…to limit economic and environmental regrets.”) I just don’t think he said it very clearly.
very simple gary. reduce the sentences to propositional logic and show the contradiction. You cannot. That is why you blather.
GaryM
You are right and (this time) Steven Mosher is wrong.
Revkin contradicted himself.
No “blather” needed.
Max
Steven Mosher: So, long term, given the best science we have today, we can predict a world that is warmer in the future.
I have argued that the best science we have today is full of inadequacies; we can predict a world that is warmer principally by ignoring complications, and we can not tell now that the ignored complications do not matter. The state of knowledge that we have right now does not exclude the possibility of cloud feedbacks that limit any warming that might occur. The only way you can read the sentence so that the first part does not contradict the second is to construe the first part in such a way as to ignore many of the uncertainties.
Now that I have read the comments, I have construed that sentence in multiple ways. There is room for disagreement about what exactly the phrase ” uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to” includes and excludes. However, if there is uncertainty over potential impacts, then it can’t be clear that profound change will be caused.
1. the fact that the best science has problems is a near tautology.
2. profound MEANS pervasive. Our best science tells us that if we change the atmosphere it will have PROFOUND, PERVASIVE consequences. what happens in vegas stays in vegas. what happens in the atmospher effects the entire system. GET IT. pervasive.
Lets look at your last statement. If there is uncertainty over impacts, then it cant be clear that there will be profound change.
lets take something simple. I tell you you are going to win 500 million in the lottery. That will be a profound change. But I have a great deal of uncertainty over the impacts. What will you do with the money? blow it all on nonsense? start a foundation? spend sme and save some. ruin your life? So I have uncertainty over the impacts, but its clear that there will be a profound change. lots of change.
The best science is clear ( and imperfect BY DEFINITION) if we change the atmosphere the change will be profound. pervasive.
However, we dont understand all the details and the impacts.
Steven Mosher: lets take something simple.
Let’s not. Let’s stick with things at least as complex as the climate, with uncertainties at least as great as climate uncertainties. Uncertainties in climate science are such that pervasive climate change may not occur; we may have a continuation of the fluctuations within the range of the last 2,000 years.
It is not merely that there are uncertainties, as always with science, but that the uncertainties in climate science are of large enough magnitude that they can not be asserted to be too small to matter.
Steven Mosher
You are falling into the logic trap of defending Revkin’s “picture of a profoundly changed Earth” by equating the GCM simulation outputs cited by IPCC with “best science”.
Let’s go back to Feynman’s definition of “best science”.
“Profound” means “deep” – in this case it means “having strong consequences”. And the implication is that these are “negative” (so the future US President has to consider taking actions to mitigate against them, rather than rejoice that they are happening).
We (including you plus Revkin) have no earthly notion of whether or not human GHG emissions will result in profound negative consequences. It is pure conjecture. It is a counter-intuitive “best guess” (maybe), but not “best science”.
I could posit that we will have an invasion by extraterrestrials, which will “profoundly” change the Earth (adding Revkin’s disclaimer clause that we really don’t know whether this is true or not) but “the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear”, so the next US President should consider taking “no-regrets” actions to install anti-extraterrestrial invasion systems and devices (in the USA and possibly even all over the world).
I could even say that “best science” tells me there has to be life on another planet somewhere, that statistically it is obvious that at least one planet has intelligent life that has been around longer than we humans, ergo an extraterrestrial invasion is certain and could well occur imminently.
Just like the above argument, Revkin’s question was loaded (hence illogical) and contradictory. And the “best science” argument is weak.
Max
.
Let me reword Revkin’s loaded presidential debate question slightly
CNN Moderator Mr. President, Governor Romney, we don’t really know whether or not human activity has caused any substantial warming, but we do know from climate scientists that if whoever gets elected does not do something very drastic and costly about it we’ll all die a horrible death.
So what do you two see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
Obama: I have always been in favor of an “all of the above” climate policy, including a carbon price with cap and trade, crippling EPA regulatory restrictions on the coal plus oil and gas industries, fewer incentives for exploratory drilling, no further drilling on government lands, no Keystone pipeline, more taxes on the rich, etc. The science is settled, as my science czar has advise me. Under MY administration, temperatures have, indeed, sunk, as have the rates of sea level rise; I assume full responsibility for these fortunate trends and will continue my policies, which have led to them, including MY Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”. My opponent would lower taxes on multi-millionaires, even though this could have a dramatic impact on our nation’s budget and our war against climate change.
[The prompter shows a flat approval line among undecided voters, with women voters scoring slightly higher than men voters. The line moves up slightly when the President describes how his policies have stopped climate change.]
Romney I believe in an “all of the above” energy policy to ensure that Americans continue to enjoy reliable and readily available energy sources in the future. I do not know enough about climate science to make any real statements regarding my administration’s policy regarding climate. I do not believe that “the science is settled”, as my opponent does. I will not, in any case, raise taxes on anyone to fight against climate change, but if I am advised that there is a real and immediate danger to the welfare of US citizens from climate change or any other internal or external threat, I will look at all possible ways to avert this threat, using the means that are at my disposal as US President.
[The prompter shows a flat approval line among undecided voters, with men voters scoring slightly higher than women voters. The line moves up decidedly when Romney states that he will not raise taxes.]
An international agreement should be forged to place extraction caps on existing oil, gas and coal fields, to limit extraction. Also to mandate that any newly discovered oil, coal and gas fields shall be automatically locked until at least 2050, by which time there can be a reassessment.
lolwot
What would be the reason that the nations with these resources would agree to such a treaty? LOL- Try to be realistic.
That would be part of negotiations. There could be compensation of some kind for example. Locking away the fossil fuels don’t mean it will never be used, it just means it will be used more slowly over time, which from a finite resources point of view is more sensible anyway in my opinion.
lolwot- so who is going to pay the USA for not developing our fossil fuel resources today to the maximum extent possible???
Answer- nobody
Again, try to address the real world as it is in reality and not as you may wish it existed in some fantasy
As Ottmar Edenhofer, head of IPCC WG3 said in an interview: “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil…..But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
lolwot, this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer
Why would i believe what he says? The professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin? At a technical university?
lolwot
Again, you seem to be in some fantasy world. In the real world who cares what Ottmar Edenhofer wrote or said. In the real world it is a very, very small number who care about his opinion, yours or mine.
Nations will not restrict the use or development of fossil fuels unless there is a clear cost effective alternative that can be adopted OR unless there is clear unambiguous evidence to demonstrate that the world is being harmed by the use of fossil fuel.
There is no clear unambiguous evidence of this harm. There is fear of potential future harm, but nothing clear to demonstrate that science really understands the system. Look at the 3 questions I asked at 9:14 and try to honestly answer them. The fact that they can not by clearly answered is the problem with your position!
My proposal is realistic. A cap at source is the easiest and most efficient solution to reducing emissions. While negotiations would be difficult, they are by no means impossible. Nations have already in the past agreed not to extract from Antarctica and existing cap systems are already applied to resources such as fish.
An international agreement to place caps on existing fossil fuel reserves and lock newly discovered ones is an agreement I am sure the world could largely come to, especially if done in stages. Starting off with a low cap, eg 10% and increasing it slowly in subsequent meetings.
Even if some countries refused it would still be a useful to have widespread adoption. There could be further measures to sideline countries that disagree by placing restrictions on the purchase of fossil fuels from those countries.
lolwot
Your idea in completely unrealistic because there is no source of funds to pay countries to not produce the fossil fuel resources they have and there is every motivation for those countries to exploit those same resources in order to gain a source of funds.
It is much easier to gain an agreement to not exploit a place like the south pole where it is economically unprofitable to exploit the resources there anyway. Please lay out you case as to why Russia, the USA or even Mexico should produce less. Why do you think there was no agreement in Kyoto when people believed the information available at that time?
The compensation wouldn’t be “full”. It might even only be 5% of what the country would have got for not locking the resource. After-all the country still has the resource to use at a future date, eg post 2100.
Compensation means giving certain countries something to get the negotiations to succeed. Perhaps some short-term financial incentive, or perhaps something else.
“Please lay out you case as to why Russia, the USA or even Mexico should produce less.”
To reduce the risk from climate change. Eventually there may happen to be an alignment of leaders of such countries who have the moral courage to reach an international agreement.
Or more likely I expect this will all be prompted if or when a climate disaster happens. Going to be hard to do nothing about emissions if the population of somewhereistan consider foreign emissions an act of war.
lolwot
Whether the compensation is partial or full, you have no source of funds to pay anyone anything. Try to be realistic and either determine where the funds will come from or give up on a failed concept. The amount of compensation required would be tremendous worldwide and there is no funds to pay for such an idea.
You write that these countries should forego current sources of revenue so that they may “reduce the risk from climate change”. How would you suggest that they measure whether or not their sacrifices have been successful when you do not even know what the actual negative impacts of a warmer world will be?
Success is measured by the limitation of the CO2 rise.
Compensation would be paid via a levy on all countries in the agreement.
lolwot
Ok, so now we are taking a journey through lolwot’s Fantasyland. In Fantasyland independent countries who do not have all the resources they want for their citizens will agree to pay countries such as Russia, Iraq, the USA, etc. to not mine or pump fossil fuel reserves.
It the real world, countries will continue to mine and pump their resources as long as someone is willing to pay more for them than it costs to get the resources to them. I would seriously prefer Fantasyland however. Life would be so much easier. We’d have unlimited money and could alway spend whatever we wanted.
lolwot
RE “My proposal is realistic.”
you peg the laugh meter with that one. Seriously, what do you do in real life? What makes you believe that anyone involved in the discovery and extraction of natural reasources is going to agree to just stop? And exactly how are you going to convince the average taxpayer in any of the developed nations to agree to a transfer of their wealth to someone else?
I’m a taxpayer. Convince me.
Rob Starkey,
“Your idea in completely unrealistic….”
Well that’s just plain unfair. We aren’t talking about the real world here. We are talking about the world as it exists in the mind of whatever progressive in proposing whatever inane policy du jour happens to be most popular among them at the time.
There is no difference to a progressive between the real world, and the world in their fevered brains.
That is why “we can’t explain the warming without CAGW” is proof positive to them that CAGW is real. That is why Obama could say with a straight face that the day of his inauguration would be the day the seas began to recede. And Jerry Brown can by fiat make automobiles more fuel efficient in California by a date certain.
Reality? We don’t need no stinkin’ reality!
of course none of you understand, you all blindly dismiss the threat of CAGW.
World leaders however might think differently and therefore might come to an agreement to cap emissions.
lolwot and Rob Starkey
I have been following your exchange with interest.
Of course, the notion is hare-brained that any political leader of any nation would act against the immediate interest of its taxpaying citizens in order to do what a few egghead climatologists consider “the right thing to do to save humanity from a wholly imaginary long term threat”.
This is especially true of countries like China and India, who have totally different priorities than worrying about a “rich white man’s” guilt-driven obsession with CO2.
It ain’t gonna happen, lolwot, so stop dreaming.
Fossil fuels will continue to be used to improve the overall welfare of mankind (as they have since the Industrial Revolution), until something more cost competitive comes along.
Those nations with fossil fuel resources will extract and exploit these as long as this is the most economical thing to do.
And, as a result of human ingenuity and the free market (which got us where we are today), new technologies will come along that will eventually replace fossil fuels for many of the lower added-value end uses, such as electrical power generation or transportation. This process will not even require lolwot’s hare-brained scheme.
Max
PS Politicians may try to implement taxes on fossil fuels or anything else they can think of to increase their spending ability and power, but that is another story entirely.
lolwot (stating the views of many CAGW alarmists says):
Max (representing those people who understand how the real world works) says:
Max is absolutely correct. It is so obvious it shouldn’t be necessary to state it.
If the CAGW alarmists are genuinely concerned about CAGW (as opposed to using it to push other ideological agendas), they need to enthusiastically advocate removing the barriers to cost-competitive, low-emissions energy. It is those of ‘Progressive’, Left, Green ideological persuasion that have caused the barriers to be implemented. Therefore, if they are so desperate to reduce emissions, they should be leading the charge to allow them to become cost competitive.
Why can’t lolwot and those who share his views understand this?
lolwot,
What a dumb and ignorant comment. It’s the sort of rubbish CAGW alarmist write all the time. It reveals how it would be stupid to take any notice of anything they say.
warmer is better !! always has been, always will be (for man, that is). The earth could care less. don’t spend one dime of my money on Global Warming prevention.
The cost of adaptation versus the cost of (unachievable) co2 reduction.
All, the costs, that is. Not just financial but issues such as food security etc.
What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
The ‘best mix’ of achievable climate policies remain what they were before we began to consider climate issues, as policies flow from the general principle to the particular application of the precept.
What are the best policies to limit enviornmental and economic regrets in general? I judge ‘best’ by what in general removes the most misery and produces the most satisfaction for the most people, an Economist’s definition; in no particular order: Democracy, Fair Market Capitalism, Education, Scientific Research valued for its own sake, Moral Leadership serving personal Freedom, Minimal Government to achieve the necessary functions of governance, Separation of Church (or other institution) and State.
In particular but in no particular order, informed conservation of biological diversity, development of public taste for a thriving ecosystem, responsiveness of governments to the will of individual human beings not of corporate fictions, levelling the playing field by privatizing the carbon cycle, enlightened application of the principles (by which I mean from Newton’s Principia) of Science to questions of climate science, and payment for harms by those who cause them.
When it is asserted by biologists that we may expect to see a loss of a substantial fraction of the biological diversity of the planet in the next quarter to half century, and the biologists present substantial evidence for this proposition, we ought recognize this to be a serious issue, regardless of our conclusions separately about climate. Moreso, as we must recognize that climate change for the next quarter to half century is already committed, and we can do nothing to climate to avert its influence within this event. Our concern ought be the next millennium after the next half century, and the subsequent question of stabilization of biodiversity. That is, if we care about things more than 50 years in the future. But whatever else, we can assign fault in this, and we can demand penalties be paid for the losses, under the precept of fundamental justice. Why? Because a world where the only animals living in the ocean are jellyfish is a pretty pathetic place compared to what we once had, and we’re entitled to extract a pound of flesh from those who make it so.
When corporations or cults or foreign countries so overexploit a resource as to collapse it, invariably we know there were voices of individuals warning the world this was coming, and individuals making up the democratic majority expressing the will to avoid this collapse, and we see governments continue to listen to corporations or cults or their own inertia rather than immediately and democratically changing course. This failure of democracy, this demonstration that some governments are not so democratic as they claim, is an indictment, a finger pointing at the very incestuous relationship between institutions like churches and corporations and state. Even — and especially — religious people and businesspeople ought recognize there is no benefit ultimately in a government that has lost its democratic right to govern through serving too much a handful of religions or a handful of industries.
When substantial subsidies (implicit, explicit, through direct expenditure or tax expenditure, infrastructure favoritism or procurement favoritism) side-by-side with failure to price a diminishing resource, the economy is running under false metrics, and will crash over and over again until it ultimately fails. The Carbon Cycle has the properties of scarcity, rivalry and excludability that demand it be privatized to profit market players and stabilize the resource, just as happened with bandwidth in mobile communications. Moreover, the revenues of this privatization must go to private individuals fairly, per capita, ideally through something like a payroll entry reducing income taxes.
All of this can be achieved without additional command-and-control regulation; indeed, these measures would reduce the command power of the state and replace it with the democractic decisions of individuals. Would it not be best then to encourage the fullest possible information of individual players in the economy by the best possible factual and scientific education, with a sound grounding in logic and reasoning, mathematics and technology?
I cannot help but believe that from such policies, we would see a desire for more just outcomes and better results than we see now. And even if the democratic outcome of a fully informed populace expressing its will in a well-balanced Market led to increase in CO2 levels and in AGW, and led even to catastrophe, then at least it would be by the democracy of all the people, not the greed of the few.
What do you mean by privatization Bart? It appears to be double speak for confiscation.
johnfpittman | October 9, 2012 at 11:23 am |
I mean by privatization exactly what privatization means.
Here’s the first two distinct Google hits for “privatization dictionary definition”:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privatization
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privatize
The Taoist philosophy that the strongest government is virtually invisible, that so much function of an economy as possible remains in private hands, approaches the Capitalist ideal of the fair and open Market procuring maximum efficiency in allocation of scarce, rivalrous, excludable resources. This coincides with Minarchy, the ideal of minimal government for efficient conduct of state administration.
In the particular case of the carbon cycle, the closest and best argued proposal for privatization I’ve seen is the Fee & Dividend system as proposed by the Citizen’s Climate Lobby (http://citizensclimatelobby.org/node/398).
I should note, I don’t fully endorse all aspects of this particular proposal. It differs from how I would do it, as does the British Columbia Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (successful and growing in popularity for 4 years now), the Australian Pricing Mechanism, or any of the Cap & Trade schemes or various carbon taxes that return nothing to the owners of the carbon cycle. For one thing, I’d let the price of CO2 emission float to maximize returns to owners of the carbon cycle: every citizen, per capita.
In this sense, carbon cycle privatization ends the confiscation of the carbon cycle by the few who pay nothing for it from the many who own equal, undiluted and inalienable rights to it.
See? Simple Capitalism; the Market in action.
Bart, thanks. I do see wrt to US laws, you are proposing confiscation and nationalization of resources, since many of the fossil fuels are owned by individuals who have leased their mineral rights to corporations. The US does the same for fossil fuels, as well as land use for renewables. Those with leases to the mineral rights have the rights, say EXXON, and it is theirs as well as the infrastructure they installed. Citizens can and do buy these stocks and thus own these corporations. Your proposal would be seen as a communist or socialist confiscation of property (personal) rights, confiscation of rights and properties by the corporations, not as privatization, but nationalization. That they would pay for the infrastucture, etc, after the fact, would still be considered nationalization and confiscation by denying them the rights to their property and lease.
I will read the link when I get a chance to see if there is something I think merits consideration. But trying to redefine confiscation as privatization seems more than a stretch. It defies current definitions of property and property rights, at least for the US. I could see that if the US did it for unleased, and paid for the infrastructure and development, then did what they wanted; this could be done. However, this would be local change and not a world change. Thus it would accomplish little unless all subscribed to it. The concept of owning a carbon cycle is not one that is recognized that I know of, and does appear to be a method to re-define confiscation. That said, Citizen’s Climate Lobby may have a useful mechanism.
The problem with the British Columbia Neutral Carbon Tax (besides its inherent dishonesty, having as it does no chance in hell of remaining neutral), is what level to set it at. Which implies proper knowledge of the costs and benefits , which climate science is obviously not even close to giving us, mired as it is in alarmist propaganda efforts at the hand of governments, the IPCC etc. (This ignorance problem bedevils all approaches to “combating” climate change, not just this one).
It is also not the case that the carbon cycle has been “confiscated” by the few at the expense of the many. The many use carbon, hence the many would bear the fresh brunt of a carbon tax. If say only fossil fuel companies had to pay the carbon tax, this would simply push up the price of fuel to the many.
Memphis | October 10, 2012 at 2:56 am |
No chance?
It has written into it a penalty clause that claws back a large part of the salary of the elected member responsible if it isn’t proven to be neutral in any one year, by a fixed date.
And BC has — and uses successfully — a recall that allows voters to quash changes to taxes they don’t like.
What’s your argument for ‘no chance’? That you don’t trust democracy? Or that you like the sound of the voices in your head?
While I agree the level of the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax is too low, and should be set by the Law of Supply and Demand (see, that depends on exactly two experts: the expert who is buying, and the expert who is selling, democratically, at the level of each individual transaction), and that the dividends are mis-directed and should go to every citizen per capita 100%, it’s not like I’m saying they’re there yet. I’m just pointing out there’s more than one viable proof of concept that deflates objections of blowhards who spout opinion out the seat of their pants with zero understanding, experience, or knowledge of such things.
Also, how can you seriously claim the few don’t benefit disproportionately on the backs of the many from the current Commons treatment of the carbon cycle? How much CO2 do you emit personally on average for commercial enterprises? 70% of us emit less than half of what the other 30% emit in total. Two percent of us make money by emitting CO2, while 98% of us bear the cost. That’s confiscation without compensation. If the fossil fuel companies passed this cost on to the rest of us, we’d find the actual most economically efficient energy resource to use, or stop wasting so much, or conserve, or otherwise express our tastes economically.
Trying to game the economy by hiding the cost of a scarce resource will inevitably lead to economic collapse. How is that good?
Bart R
Revenue neutrality having no hope of holding up:
Seizing the salary of an elected member will never be enough to put right revenue excesses. No chance. Government has an agenda of its own, and voting acts only as a minor governor of government. Once a new tax is established, is will slowly and surely creep up due to “necessity” the politicians will say. And no, I don’t trust the voices in your head.
While I agree the level of the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax is too low
Agreeing with yourself ?
and should be set by the Law of Supply and Demand (see, that depends on exactly two experts: the expert who is buying, and the expert who is selling, democratically, at the level of each individual transaction),
So you are the “two experts” now, hence the agreement mentioned above ?
The claim that there is is disproportionate gain by the few on the backs of the many from the current Commons treatment of the carbon cycle, is pure bogus. How much CO2 a corporation emits is beside the point; the customers share the benefits too, by virtue of lower costs of the corporation’s products, due to lower costs to the corporation.
hiding the cost of a scarce resource will inevitably lead to economic collapse. How is that good?
It isn’t. But in this case putting it into common (not the commons) ownership is not so simple, with government inevitably gaming the system to favor itself – to the approval of those with totalitarian ideals. This though is a valid point (unlike the notion above that corporation benefit disproportionally).
Memphis | October 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
That’s an awful lot of assertion.
You sound like Ned Beatty trapped in Deliverance for eternity, just resigned to taking whatever the government is going to do to you.
The government isn’t the problem here. You are.
Bart
So you have no answer then. OK.
Memphis | October 11, 2012 at 2:19 am |
Ned Beatty was in therapy for years after playing the role of the victim in Deliverance.
If you believe you’re always the victim of a corrupt government violating you at every turn, that’s a level of martyr complex beyond any blog commenter’s power to answer.
Either man up, or seek professional help.
Right, so still no answer from Bart, who as a cretinous stalinist thinks governments do no harm. Talk about needing professional help…
Memphis | October 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
I’m beginning to suspect a sockpuppet. Who is Memphis sockpuppeting for?
I’m the one proposing measures to reduce government. You’re the one who rejects measures to cut government power because he’s so afraid of government power.
Burt Reynolds is not coming to save you.
Bart R | October 12, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
I’m the one proposing measures to reduce government.
No, you’re not. You’re just masquerading as one. You know as well as anyone that revenue-neutral will soon lapse into revenue-positive. It’s just a ruse to lull voters into trust. And even in the period before it collapses into revenue-positive, what government does this government inference “reduce” ? C’mon Bart, just be up-front about your loony-left motivation (hatred of corporations etc), stop trying to dress up as a friend of freedom.
You’re the one who rejects measures to cut government power because he’s so afraid of government power.
The only measures I recall rejecting here are your abovementioned attempts to expand government by phony revenue-neutral stealth tax.
johnfpittman | October 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
So now you’re an expert on US laws? Where did you go to law school? What state bar were you called to? Because you’re sounding awfully confident in using words you appear unqualified to utter.
Nationalization and privatization are opposites. Were I proposing nationalization, I might be proposing confiscation. However, I’m proposing privatization, so I’m advocating a reduction of confiscation.
Pricing the carbon cycle isn’t confiscating oil. Indeed, there are many uses of oil that don’t incur carbon cycle costs: manufacture of plastics or fertilizer, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals are all profitable uses of petroleum resources utterly not affected by carbon cycle pricing. Further, those who own fossil fuel rights have never alienated the owners of the Commons — by definition of Commons — from shared rights in the carbon cycle. They can’t claim therefore that something’s being confiscated from them, any more than the owners of telephone lines can claim mobile bandwidth auctions confiscate their property. (Well, they can argue it, they did argue it, they went to court on it and were slapped down hard by judges at every level.)
So you can stop displaying your ignorance in yet another field. Please.
I agree that I am not an expert on US laws, however, I do have training wrt to property and takings. I have read the Citizen’s Climate Lobby; it doesn’t have enough detail for me to comment except I note that even it recognizes that renewables need support because they are not economically efficient at this point.
From a CEI write-up “The Supreme Court held in Armstrong v. United States that the Constitutional prohibition on uncompensated takings “was designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Private individuals should not be forced to bear the costs of providing public goods desired by other people. Owning property should entitle the owner to the full use of that property, so long as the use of that property does not lead to the harming of other people or their properties. Ensuring compensation for regulatory takings will not only restore much-needed property protections, it also serves as the first step toward the development of a new generation of environmental protection.”
You have stated a shared rights to the carbon cycle. Please, produce the legal decision where this was decided for the US. You appear to be treading on ground you are not an expert in.
Otherwise, you are playing word games. You are proposing an unacknowledged right to the carbon cycle which you utilize carbon pricing that you are defining as privatization. I fail to see that a fee or tax, that is charged and then redistributed is anything other than just that a fee or tax redistributed.
And point of fact, such use as production of fertilizers in most applications produce CO2, as do pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. Not all of them, but many to most depending on the process and the chemical. Many of these facilities have quite extensive treatment systems, and many are biodegradable, all of which adds to the CO2 buden. Perhaps your expertise here is questionable. Or is it that your version of pricing is neither neutralnor transparent? Politically it would be advisable to avoid making enemies of the farmers and pharmaceutical companies, so that is understandable, but not if the carbon cycle is a right. In which case, this looks a bit like Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
One absolutely massive problem listening to the biologists etc who warn of CO2-driven misery : they are all state stooges (as are climate scientists), and the state has vested interest in promoting alarmism.
Bart’s noble suggestion that dealing with CO2 (ignoring whether this is actually justified) will not expand the state command-and-control, is sadly just pie-in-the-sky; mainstream politicians will shoot it on sight.
BatedBreath | October 9, 2012 at 11:39 am |
Pfft. Noble.
I’m for diminishing the size and power of the state. To do that, you privatize more to take it out of government hands. With command-and-control power over access to CO2 emission out of the government hands and in the hands of its rightful owners — every citizen, per capita — the power of the government, of bureaucrats, the invitation to corrupt them, is erased. All lucrative users of CO2 emission, of the carbon cycle, must pay the going rate demanded by the Market, and not some bribe to civil servants. This is the logical outcome of the Policy implicatons of what Science has observed and conclusively proven about Climate Change.
If you believe mainstream politicians will shoot it on sight, you may be right; but then you’d be recognizing the mainstream politicians as corporate communists, corrupt, or tyrants, and it would be time to call for the watering of the Tree of Liberty. Is that what you’re saying has come to pass in the USA?
The policy is just a bureaucratic verbiage. A VERY small reduction in human CO2 emissions might be possible, but the atmospheric accumulation is obviously governed by climatic factors so it will not result in a measurable reduction in atmospheric CO2. It’s no bang for plenty of buck. Why? Profiteering?
pretty sure it’s governed by human activity
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_history_1024.jpg
How pathetic. Splicing the highly questionable ice core records CO2 data with the ML instrumental measurements? No wonder you believe in CAGW.
Edim | October 8, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
You’re coming across as someone who acquired his understanding of policy, science and writing from comic book villains.
http://www.hark.com/clips/wlvkgqdbcs-how-pathetic
We see in you no evidence of foundation for your assertion of how much reduction in CO2 emission may be possible, and if you can construct a valid model for how climate factors determine CO2 levels then you’ve gone farther than all of science — an astounding feat worthy of a comic book supervillain indeed. How highly questionable are the ice core records, exactly? Be specific. Be precise. Demonstrate your ability to quantify your opinion.
Bart R, here’s a good summary:
http://robertkernodle.hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Records-Ancient-Atmospheres-Or-Geophysical-Artifacts
Edim | October 8, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
And how do you quantify Kernodle’s fingoist opinion?
We’re looking for your ability, not someone else’s, as you’re the one making assertions.
How much doubt exactly, in what terms and in what ways, applied to what scales and for what spans, do you percolate out of all Kernodle’s disparate disparagements of the ice core record?
And how do you then propose this doubt be used in context of the fundamental principle of Science that we hold as accurate or very nearly true the proposition that by parsimony, simplicity and and universality best fits the data until new observations require amendment?
I see nothing in Kernodle’s objections that amounts to an unsettling of ice core science.
Bart, I agree with that article, no need to add anything. Of course you see nothing in Kernodle’s objections that amounts to an unsettling of ice core science. That would dilute the message of the unprecedented CO2 levels, caused by humans. The doubt should be used to ask questions.
Edim | October 8, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
Nothing whatsoever?
Which demonstrates to us you have no credible ability to express any opinion on these issues.
No, it demonstrates my agreement with the article.
Edim | October 8, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
While dodging every question that sheds some light on your own understanding or the quality of your assertions. Which makes you out to be dodgy, of the dodgy sort who makes assertions then dodges.
I didn’t read through all the comments to see if anyone else suggested the same question, but mine is:
What does it take to falsify AGW theory? (Is it even possible?)
The question is what will the consensus accept as falsified. I think they will accept nothing as long as they can claim that it’s still warming. So, it will have to be global cooling, they will have to accept that.
With all due respect, most would believe that the basic theory of AGW is not subject to being refuted. The question is what the impact of the human component will be in the actual system over timescales of importance to the human population.
To make it clearer, some/many believe that the earth is in a long term cooling trend that will have short term fluctuations that will result in warming. They believe that the additional CO2 may result in a change or lessening of the long term cooling trend. Systemic trends regarding the climate are poorly understood by todays science, but that does not stop people from providing often incorrect answers
In proper science, everything is subject to being refuted. It may be very unlikely, but if the observations disagree, it’s refuted.
Not true. Observations could show that the net impact to the temperature is a slowing of the rate of temperature decline. Since we were unsure of the initial rate of decline, our observations could lead us to a wrong scientific conclusion.
I agree, but in time we will have more observations and sooner or later it may be completely refuted. At least the CO2-the-knob hypothesis will be refuted after some significant cooling in the next decade.
or confirmed?
The real system works on timescales inconsistant with humans desires for immediate answers.
Rob, I agree with that. Still, I think warmists have made their bed in such a way, it will be impossible to lay in it pretty soon.
Edim
You may be right, but it is also possible that we are both wrong. Personally I keep looking at the data and the thing I like to watch pretty closely is the rate of sea level rise. If we see a sustained trend of over 7mm per year my position will change.
How do you falsify the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun? (is it even possible?)
That’s not a theory. It’s a fact. Or at least a fact if you change that to the earth and sun orbit their common center of gravity (which happens to be inside the sun). Theories explain facts. The acceleration of gravity on the earth is 32feet/sec/sec. That’s a fact. We have no theory of gravity. Facts are independent of theory.
Got it? Write that down!
While I agree that there is a basic scientific importance to asking that question, I will point out that I have been told many, many times that “most” “skeptics” not only don’t refute the basic physics of AGW, they also don’t doubt that ACO2 is, to some extent, warming the planet (they only question how much). Judith has stated that she doesn’t listen to anyone who doesn’t accept those basic premises of AGW theory.
Yet I often hear “skeptics” say that a theory isn’t valid if it can’t be falsified, and that AGW as a theory is invalid in that it can’t be falsified.
So then, the question strikes me: Why do most “skeptics” accept an invalid theory?
I don’t accept it.
Have you been assigned your under-the-bus seat yet?
My point was to highlight the illogic of how some “skeptics.” In no particular order they:
Say that “skeptics” aren’t monolithic.
Treat “skeptical” viewpoints as if they are monolithic (by claiming that almost no “skeptics” believe as you do despite abundant evidence to the contrary on the very same blogs where they comment.
Say that AGW theory (or hypothesis, whichever makes you happy) cannot be falsified.
Say that theories or hypotheses that can’t be falfisifed aren’t valid.
Say that they don’t doubt that AGW theory/hypothesis is valid – they only question the extent to which ACO2 is warming the Earth.
don’t forget some of them claim it HAS been falsified
Yes, of course. Those “skeptics” are also speaking from under Judith’s bus (David W. being just one of many examples), but they certainly are out there.
They are not, however, part of the (self-proclaimed) larger group who simultaneously say that AGW can’t be falsified even as they say that valid theories/hypotheses must be falsifiable even as they say that they don’t doubt that that the basic AGW theory/hypothesis is valid (they only doubt the magnitude of the sensitivity and/or negative feedback).
There is no AGW theory. There is an AGW hypothesis.
Got it? Write that down!
David,
You might want to tell your friends at Heartland, and Roy Spencer, and The American Thinker, and Conservapedia to stop calling it a theory then…
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/7-theories-climate-change
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/the_last_days_of_global_warming_theory.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Anthropogenic_global_warming_theory
But no doubt they won’t listen to you as in fact it is a full-fledged theory and the bottom line is David, you are in fact the one is incorrect in this matter.
The Theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (which is far more robust than just “global warming”) is far beyond the hypothesis stage.
For a well reasoned and well stated explanation as to why it has long since progressed from hypothesis to theory, those who are reasonable themselves can read it at:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/313197
Calling something a theory doesn’t make it into one.
If we google “Theory of Relativity” we get this for top hit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
Farther down the list there is conservapedia, which you suddenly seem to respect since you cited it:
http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity
That’s a bona fide theory.
Now google “theory of climate” and you get a hodge-podge of hits none of which are climate theories but which are in fact competing hypotheses of climate change.
The word theory is abused enough by the unwashed masses. It’s inexcusable when those who know better do the same thing by promoting untested hypotheses like anthropogenic climate change into theories.
“There is an AGW hypothesis.”
au contraire
There is an AGW axiom.
There, fixed it.
Joshua
Start by distinguishing between higher temperatures from higher CO2 (not as controversial – based on gas absorption/emission)
versus the magnitude of amplification from water vapor feedback (very large range of values and highly controversial, depending on complex fluid dynamics etc.)
The greatest uncertainty in models is with the impact of changes to clouds – where even the sign of the feedback is disputed.
There is still a lot of physics to discover, model and validate. e.g., see:
Counterintuitive, models wrong – rainfall more likely over drier soil
Hi Daniel. In the absence of changes to other climate forcings and assuming continued rise of CO2 AGW would be falsified by falling/static ocean heat content or falling/static global average temperature. Complications in assessing such are measurement issues, uncertainty re energy accumulation in the deep ocean, uncertain aerosol impact and natural variability masking the underlying trend. Currently the underlying trend is ~+0.16C/decade stable across the last three decades (Foster and Rahmstorf). Expect the same for the decade to come.
If you for example show that the annual stellar parallax is not caused by the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, then it’s a start.
The question should be: should government emphisis be on technological research or implementation? I’d say it should be research. I actually see evidence that there has been some success. While these two links are from Joe Romm’s propaganda site, they do help make the case:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/28/433434/envia-gm-doe-lithium-ion-batteries-cut-costs-in-half-triple-energy-density/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/24/896151/how-decades-of-federal-support-spurred-the-natural-gas-boom-most-companies-would-have-given-up/
The implementation side is frought with typical top-down effects such as crony capitalism, subsidies for rich people, and environmentally dubious energy sources, such as flickering, bat lung exploding, wind turbines.
Let’s for a moment get into a time machine and back up this conversation 100 years.
Suppose the IPCC of the day had actually gotten the science right and was predicting a global warming of 0.8 degrees C for the next century – a prediction that had already been supported by a number of years of physical data.
Who here would have been agreed that this was going to be a good thing for the vast majority of future generations and who would have been forecasting doom and gloom and the end of civilization as we know it?
Who would have invoked the “precautionary principle” in support of more government spending and advocated for deindustrialization of the West?
So if I sticking my hand in a pot of luke warm water won’t hurt, and sticking my hand in a pot of warm water won’t hurt, sticking my hand in a pot of boiling water won’t hurt either.
IEEEEEE ….. OW …. OW…. DAMN… wooooo !
Political Junkie,
You make an excellent point. No one would have advocated wasting money on trying the prevent that warming would give future generations and did actually give us.
Your point makes it clear just how stupid we would be to damage the global economy when there is no persuasive evidence that the proposed policies would make a significant difference to the climate.
Quite obvious; a strong free market economy and a free people are clearly the most powerful tool of adaptation we know of.
A whole continent can be tamed in a geologic blink of an eye. From the lost colony at Roanoke to the completion of the transcontinental railroad took less than 300 years.
The entire geopolitical situation can be turned on it’s head; two world wars in the space of about 30 years. Destroyed the entire infrastucture of Europe. Twice.
Yet free market economies continued to produce the necessary goods and services for people to live. In good times and bad; a free market economy is best capable of rationing scarce resources and ensuring ample supply. It strongly encourages innovation and discourages waste.
Clearly communist dictatorships do nothing to protect the environment; time and again it is proven that ‘if everybody owns it, nobody owns it’. Private ownership provides the impetus for stewardship.
The Earth will change. There is nothing we can do to stop it. We best maximize our ability to adapt to it.
I love the free market when I’m selling, but I would prefer not to have the free market when I’m selling.
Everybody knows (or should know) the free market needs some regulation to work right. Unfortunately, individuals and firms acting in their own interests will sometimes do harm to society as a whole.
Ironically, an entirely free market eventually will not be a free market at all. Think monopolies and oligopolies.
Make that — I love the free market when I’m buying, but not when I’m selling.
Only blithering idiots and progressive (oops that may be redundant) think anyone is arguing that a free market is one without any regulation.
The absence of regulation is called anarchy.
This is how Obama got his hat handed to him last week. He mistook his misrepresentation of what Romney had said for what Romney had actually said,
No GaryM, the absence of market regulation is called “laissez faire.” The absence of law is called “anarchy.”
If you don’t know what words mean, don’t use ’em.
If you want to make up your own definitions of words, don’t expect intelligent people to take you seriously.
Laissez-faire (Listeni/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
or this
: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire
Get a dictionary.
I guess it’s now clear that Judith’s request that posts remain on-topic is pretty much a non-factor. Therefore, Gary, I will ask you, once again, this time in the most recent thread, to respond to the post I’ll link below.
Given that you called me a liar and claimed deliberately deceptive editing on my part – it does seem rather curious that you have failed to respond to my pointing out how you were flat-out wrong, despite numerous requests on my part that you do so.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-249251
Do you not see that your claims are completely false? Do you think that you should show some accountability in acknowledging your error?
GaryM, the definitions of “laissez faire” you cited are consistent with how I defined the term in a few words (i.e., “the absence of market regulation”). Why you think otherwise needs an explanation.
Joshua,
I had decided not to bother reading your comments or responding any more. But since I accused you of lying (again), I believe you are entitled to a response. (You did admit you had lied the last time I rightly accused you of it, so it is only fair that I respond here.
The article you quoted, but did not link to, seems to be comparing reported BLS numbers for August to the estimates of Bloomberg’s poll of economists, not the initial jobs report to the BLS revision. So I assumed you were just being dishonest. But on further reading that paragraph could be read differently. The estimate by the economists could refer to the first clause of the first paragraph, not the second clause immediately preceding it. Which would be poor writing, but in a government news release…. So I am prepared to accept that you just read what you wanted to read in the article, so I will withdraw my claim of lying, and attribute it to your motivated reasoning. My apologies for calling you a liar in this instance.
But the whole dust up began with my rightly accusing you of lying about me making claims of numerous conspiracies, rather than just noting widespread dishonesty among progressives manipulating statistics. And in that regard, I still consider you a liar.
As to the underlying statistics, I went to the BLS website to determine the answer, and the results are less than satisfying. The BLS press release you have read about elsewhere says this: “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from +141,000 to +181,000, and the change for August was revised from +96,000 to +142,000.”
The article I read stated: “The Department of Labor revised the change in the total nonfarm payroll employment numbers for June and July. The June numbers were revised down from +64,000 to +45,000. The July numbers were also revised down from +163,000 to +141,000.”
But what did the original BLS release say about the jobs increase in July? “Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 163,000 in July….”
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_08032012.pdf
So I suppose it is possible that, after revising the July figures down to 141,000 from 163,000, they could have revised them up to 181,000. But I remain…skeptical of when and how they did it.
My apologies to anyone whose time was wasted reading this, but I thought I owed a response to Joshua. I won’t waste my, or anyone else’s, time doing so again.
Max_OK
Because you said “No GaryM, the absence of market regulation is called ‘laissez faire.’” Which is wrong.
Oh, wait, do you need me to define absence for you? My bad.
Gary –
As always, Gary, you amuse. Apparently you missed the sarcasm that went along with my admission of “lying” previously. Not exactly surprising.’
At any rate – let’s just cut to the facts. I pointed out that your statement about downward revisions from the BLS was wrong. You claimed I was wrong. I gave you evidence of how you were wrong. You claimed I lied, and in one of your rather typical conspiratorial fantasies, dreamed up a scenario where I supposedly edited quotes from others with the intent to deceive. And then I proved you wrong once again – wrong not only in your original statement, but in your conspiratorial rant as well.
But please, do continue to invent “non-conspiracies” to prove that you aren’t a conspiracy mongerer.
Lol! Once again, you try to deflect from your sloppiness. I explained that you were wrong, and when you accused me of lying, I went on to once again show how a BLS statement directly contradicted your claim. “Less than satisfying.” Very amusing, Gary. Your did faulty and incomplete research to come to an incorrect conclusion.
Lipstick, pig, Gary. Lipstick, pig.
Ah yes. Yet another “non-conspiracy.” You have an endless supply, don’t you? ‘
Good folks like the Koch Bros. just want enough control of the “free market” to guarantee them a handsom profit, market dominance, and no constraints from those darn environmental regulations. How do they buy this kind of control? Get your candidate elected! The merger big money with government sanctioned and guaranteed control of the market is the worst thing to happen to a democracy…and there’s a word for it. Mussolini coined it…or yeah…fascism.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
If you don’t think the good old Koch Bros. want to expand their corporate power into the halls of Washington, you are quite mistaken.
Max,
on another of your “Out to prove you are an idiot” rolls I see.
Starting off with a demonstration of how little you understand the concept of markets, free or otherwise. Care to explain to the rest of us how a free market benefits only buyers and not sellers?
timg56, based on what I see as your lack of business sense, I wouldn’t trust you to run a lemonade stand.
But I will use a lemonade stand as an example to explain a concept you have trouble grasping.
If two lemonade stands are in a neighborhood, it’s good for lemonade buyers because the two sellers compete with each other by offering the buyers lower prices, better quality lemonade, or better service. On the other hand, if only one lemonade stand is in the neighborhood, it’s good for that lemonade seller, because he does not have to share the market with another seller, and therefore can make greater profits.
Old John D. understood the importance of not having competition. He bought ’em out or broke ’em. But then the government came along and regulated his monopoly out of existence.
Max_OK | October 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
“If two lemonade stands are in a neighborhood, it’s good for lemonade buyers because the two sellers compete with each other by offering the buyers lower prices, better quality lemonade, or better service. On the other hand, if only one lemonade stand is in the neighborhood, it’s good for that lemonade seller, because he does not have to share the market with another seller, and therefore can make greater profits.”
If by “Lemonade Stand” you mean that as code for “Environmental Protection Agency” then I agree. It handily explains why consumers are getting shafted by its crappy products, huh?
Old John D. understood the importance of not having competition. He bought ‘em out or broke ‘em. But then the government came along and regulated his monopoly out of existence.
Spinger, polluters are unanimous in their disapproval of the EPA. That’s not surprising.
Good citizens are unanimous in their disapproval of polluters. That’s not surprising.
Polluters need their own version of EPA, which could be called TEA for Trash the Environment Agency.
I imagine it would be a hit with the Tea Party.
CO2 is plant food. Name a single health hazard that’s been demonstrated by 390ppm atmospheric CO2. Go ahead. Make my day.
Yes, Springer, if Oklahoma’s wilted crops had just been fed more of that CO2 plant food, the farmers would be thanking God for polluting spewing coal power. Except maybe those with mineral leases in natural gas areas, who think burning dirty coal instead of clean natural gas is stupid.
I guess that “390ppm atmospheric CO2” must be a health hazard for global warming deniers, including the phony ones who like to call themselves skeptics. They whine incessantly about the harm they imagine from mitigating CO2. These sniveling little weenies make chicken little look daring.
Max_OK,
If you can’t demonstrate a health hazard from 390ppm CO2 then you should just man-up and say so.
Every other pollutant targeted by the EPA from abestos to xylene has a known human health risk from exposure to it. There is no such risk for atmospheric CO2 at this time posed by emissions from power plants. Designation as a harmful pollutant was completely arbitrary and constitutes an end-run around the legitimate legislative process where such useless and expensive measures were not able to surmount the barriers to becoming law.
Max,
While the technology based MBA I earned may not necessarily have made me a good “businessman”, it at least acquainted me with basic concepts. By which I can easily recognize your lack of understanding. Not to mention the fact your lemonade stand example doesn’t address the qustion I asked you – how to explain how only buyers and not sellers are benefited by a free market.
Can you answer the question or do we get another “lemon” of a response?
timg56 said on October 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
Max,
While the technology based MBA I earned may not necessarily have made me a good “businessman”, it at least acquainted me with basic concepts. By which I can easily recognize your lack of understanding. Not to mention the fact your lemonade stand example doesn’t address the qustion I asked you – how to explain how only buyers and not sellers are benefited by a free market.
Can you answer the question or do we get another “lemon” of a response?
_____________
You need a lemon up your kazoo for trying to pull a fast one on me by putting a question to a statement I never made. Didn’t your MBA cover ethics?
Let’s review the conversation.
I said: “I love the free market when I’m buying, but not when I’m selling.”
In reply, your question was: “Care to explain to the rest of us how a free market benefits only buyers and not sellers?”
My statement was from the standpoint of a seller(me), but your question refers to all sellers. My example, the lemonade stand, ignored your sneaky attempt to change the subject, and elaborated on my statement.
I think you already know the answer to your question, but just in case you got a mail order MBA from some phony baloney school, I’ll answer it anyway.
A free market is supposed to result in competition among buyers and sellers to the financial benefit of both groups, but an individual seller usually does not benefit from competing with other sellers, nor does an individual buyer usually benefit from competing with other buyers.
John D. Rockefeller maximized profits for Standard Oil by driving his competition out of business. Ironically, he used the free market in oil (it was unregulated at the time) to kill the free market in oil.
When old John D. was building his monoply imagine what his reaction if you had said “No, No, Mr. Rockefeller, you need more competitors, not fewer competitors. We must preserve the integrity of the free market.”
I think Rockefeller would have laughed his butt off. If he were alive today, he might be amused as I by the naivete of the free marketers who post here.
So Max,
Lets see if I am understanding your point. You say you like free markets as a buyer, because you benefit from the competition, but as a seller you don’t like a free market because you either don’t want to deal with competition or you simply want to monoplize the market and squeeze it for as much as you can.
What I am still not getting is how this has any value in a discussion on economies and markets. Off hand I cannot think of any examples where markets operate freely in one direction but not in the other. There is also the part about how a market impacts all buyers and sellers. You don’t evaluate the benefits or faults of a particular system based on only one or the other, nor do you evaluate as it applies to a single buyer or seller.
Your not wanting a free market system as a seller is a strong indication that you lack confidence in your ability to compete. Or maybe you are just lazy and don’t want to put forth the effort. Under those conditions you are 100% correct in wanting to stay away from a free market.
The fact that you make a sloppily worded statement and then try to place after the fact restrictions on what you said – i.e. I was only talking about me as a single seller, not all sellers – has no bearing on my ethics. Starting with my parents and continuing on with some outstanding public school teachers, the Christian Brothers, my time in the service and more than one good parish priest, I have a well grounded foundation in ethical behavior. Take all the cheap shots you want Max.
Max_OK
I love the free market when I’m BUYING.
I have seen in the old USSR, Communist Czechoslovakia and former DDR how a state-run (i.e. non-free) market works for buyers.
There is nothing to buy.
Even when some articles exist, there is no alternate supplier.
Viva el mercado libre!
Max_not from OK
But then the Chinese came up with a better idea, State- directed capitalism in a world free-market, much to the chagrin of those who preach against State involvement in the national economy. I guess the Chinese figured State direction works for the military, so why not make it work for the economy.
I visited Czechoslovakia in the late 1970’s. Prague was dirty from burning coal. I didn’t do any shopping so I don’t know what goods were available. Restaurant menus were very limited and the food was worse than food in the UK, but the beer was excellent and inexpensive.
In the 1970s we had a terrible time finding good plywood for an aircraft product we were building. Jimmy Carter got some sort of deal with the commies and suddenly we had the best plywood ever seen on the face of the earth. 9-ply birch, not a knot or defect on either side. Sanded smooth as a baby’s butt. So for whatever reason, Ivan could make plywood.
Years later, when the wall went down, the guitar shows were flooded with Russian vacuum tubes for guitar amplifiers. Amp heads overran those booths.
Spruce Goose?
Max_OK
Yep.
The Chinese have re-invented “communism” the new Chinese way – a mixture of free-market economics and totalitarian politics that works for them.
But the pollution is still staggering compared to the USA and Europe. [Don’t go to Xiamen, for example, if you have asthma.]
Max_not from OK
manacker,
There is nothing new about what the Chinese are doing. The Soviets called it perestroika. The German, Italians and Japanese had another name for it in the ’30s and ’40s. It didn’t turn out any better for them than it will for the Chinese paper economic tiger.
Gondolas.
I would not envy the Chinese version of capitalism. They still mis-allocate massive amounts of capital. They just have more capital to waste……………..for the time being.
Re manacker’s comment on October 8, 2012 at 7:32 pm
I agree. China must pollute to replace the U.S. as the world’s #1 economic power, and I don’t doubt that’s China’s goal.
What I don’t understand is the tacit approval of Chinese policy on the part of those here who call themselves global warming skeptics. While the skeptics don’t come right out and say it, they are implying it’s OK for China to surpass the U.S. because it fits with the skeptic notion that economic development is good and pollution in the name of development is OK.
Manacker,
Another example is Zimbabwe. Most will recall seeing the empty shelves on the supermarkets after President Mugabe imposed a price control policy. Rhodesia was once a rich and prosperous country. Look at it now as a result of incessant government intervention in free markets.
GaryM said on October 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
Oh, wait, do you need me to define absence for you? My bad.
——-
Your bad is failing to answer my question.
Bob Kutz
Your observation regarding the environment in communist dictatorships is spot on.
I was in East Germany shortly after the “Wende” in 1990 and saw how the environment had been raped in places like Bitterfeld, where there were large, state-owned chemical plants.
A real mess – even though “officially” East Germany had tighter environmental regulations on paper than West Germany before the re-unification.
Max
Your observation regarding the environment in communist dictatorships is spot on.
Yes, in the United States heroic right-wing environmentalists worked tirelessly to prevent just that sort of toxin spewing commie environmental disaster from happening here. Plaques and statues are in order.
When it comes to the environment, the right-wingers are as bad as the commies.
JCH
The United States is an environmentalist’s paradise compared with what went on in the totalitarian communist countries before the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Is this because they were “communist” or because they were “totalitarian”?
Who knows?
[Who cares?]
Max
Max,
I was stationed in Germany in ’91. I remember driving across the border, with the guard towers and much of the barbed wire still in place. Going from the autobahn to highways made of brick was a trip.
The walls of the ugly industrial style apartment houses were stained black from whatever they were dumping into the air while still a socialist paradise.
I later married a woman I met who lived her whole life in that world of East German “social justice.” I remember her telling me – “we knew it was terrible, but at least we were all in it together.” Then I showed her articles on the special shops available to the communist party apparatchiks, and pictures of the dachas enjoyed by their elite. She literally wept.
Of course, those perks for the elite were nothing compared to the lavish lifestyle lived by UN (including IPCC) kleptocrats. Or say Tom Friedman or Al Gore. But still, her sense of betrayal was heart rending.
GaryM thanks for sharing that. Comments like that cut through.
Bob Kurtz said:
“Quite obvious; a strong free market economy and a free people are clearly the most powerful tool of adaptation we know of.”
____
Sure would be nice if such free market economy actually existed somewhere, wouldn’t it.
Excellent comment.
Why don’t the ‘Progressives’ understand this?
Because Progressives and Conservatives both feed at the trough of lobbyist money, and that money guarantees that the markets will never be free, but slanted so as to assist the biggest and richest to remain so.
Given the lack of any effort to assure quality processes in science, what minimal quality control should we require of scientists before we pay any attention to their efforts to dictate policy?
Good question. We could also ask what minimal quality control should we require of skeptics before we pay any attention to their efforts to discredit scientists?
Not more than you require of warmists, for a start. That would be almost zero.
Can you site something specific or are you just throwing mud on me?
No one has to throw mud on you Max when you come running down the path at full speed and dive head first into the puddle.
Max,
It’s called Show me. Ask a Missourian about the concept, if you don’t understand.
Well, people identifying themselves as skeptics don’t show me much. Indeed, some of them seem, as my old grandpa would say, “nutty as peach orchard boars.” But I’m not the one to impress. The skeptics can’t show the major scientific organizations, such as the NAS. Why do the skeptics fail to show?
timg56
Max_OK didn’t understand your “show me” remark.
I did.
Max_not from OK
That’s because you think the same way as timg56, which is the wrong way. You two believe you can out-science the biggies, like NAS. What a joke ! If you were fleas, you would think you could trample elephants.
I come here for entertainment. You and tmg56 seldom let me down.
The usual ‘sceptic’ twaddle.
The facts are simple: there is no scientific case for this ‘scepticsim’. There is no large and growing body of published work demonstrating that ACO2 is not a climate forcing. There is no large and growing body of published studies demonstrating the existence and efficacy of ‘mystery forcings’ capable of explaining modern warming.
There is just noise, mostly about the Mannean hockey stick, which is an irrelevance to the radiative physics underpinning the greenhouse effect.
Despite the intensely competitive nature of science, a worldwide scientific consensus has emerged on AGW.
Meanwhile, the ‘sceptics’ gibber away in blog comments.
manaker,
seeing as you and I “officially” think the wrong way, we likely are among the group of people Max considers as “weeds”. Wonder if that also means we should be eradicated?
BBD,
How about finishing your point? As in listing all of the evidence pointing to any sort of harmful impacts from a warming world?
Can you even list one? One documented fact demonstrating warming is harmful?
So far the best anyone can do is point to Arctic summer ice extent and say “Ooooh, look at that! Scary!” I have yet to see anyone demonstrate who or what is being harmed.
You don’t have anything on rising sea levels.
You don’t have anything on increasing storms or extreme weather effects.
You don’t have your 50 million refugees.
Still no extinct species due to climate change.
Just one piece of evidence. Everytime I ask this question I get silence.
This was what I was referring to with Max – Show Me. He appareently can’t grasp it.
timg56
Making silly demands like ‘show me future damage before it has happened’ reveals a weak, confused mind.
BBD
Telling people that they need to implement actions to avoid great harms, but being unable to tell them when the harm will happen, exactly what harm will happen, and to whom it will happen seems sensible to you does it????
BBD– you need to send me 10% 0f you income each week or it is extremely likely that you will die a horrific death.
BBD,
Quantifying risks and their probability is something that gets done in the real world all the time. Your response is a far better indicator of weak and confused.
Also, please note that I asked not for examples of future damage or harmful impacts, but for any that have already shown themselves. Misrepresenting another’s statement intentionally or not being able to comprehend it in the first place is also one of those “weak and confused”.
As an aside, I recall coming to your defense more than once over at BH when commentors would step over the line regarding civility. How is it you’ve become such a dick head? The way you are commenting over here has me reconsidering your name on my whom I’d drink scotch with.
JCH
Sea level rise “might be less, might be more”.
Duh!
The tide gauge record since 1900 (Holgate 2007) shows:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
– SL has been rising in decadal fits and spurts
– the average rate of SL rise has been around 1.7 mm/year.
– the decadal rate of SL rise has fluctuated dramatically (from a net SL decline to a rise of 5 mm/year)
– there has been no increase in the rate of SL rise over the 20th century
– the rate of SL rise was higher in the first half of the 20th century (around 2 mm/year) than in the second half (around 1.4 mm/year)
– the most recent rate of SL rise has been around 1.6 mm/year
Most recently, SL is also being measured by satellite altimetry. This method measures the level of the entire sea (except polar and coastal regions that cannot be measured by satellites), rather than selected coastlines.
This method gives a higher value than the tide gauge record , i.e.3.1 mm/year (IPCC AR4) or 2.5 mm/year (Scharoo + Miller 2004) for the decade 1993-2003, compared to 1.6 mm/year (Wunsch et al. 2006).
However, the accuracy of this method is under question by the NOAA scientists performing the measurement (Scharoo 2004) as well as others (Mörner 2003, Wunsch 2006).
Most recently, it appears that the rate of SL rise is again declining, “the same type of variation that has been going on for at least 100 years.”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/
So, yes indeed, the rate of sea level rise “might be less, might be more”.
(Always has been that way.)
Max
Max, we can show that Mann’s work is garbage, Rahmstorf’s “worse than we thought” relied on pretend data, Monnett’s polar bear study is beyond stupid methodology, Briffa’s magic tree, Jones’ fake Chinese data, the SST wild ass guesses, the Steig Antarctic smear, the ‘quality’ underlying Harry’s Read Me, the repeated refusal by the hockey team to share data or engage in any transparency, and the underlying fraud of Climategate. And that’s just a start.
The incompetence is staggering. No one with any pretense of concern for quality science can defend it.
You can show me Mann’s conclusions are wrong?
OK, stan, I’ll bite. Which of Mann’s conclusions are wrong, how do you know these conclusions are wrong, and what are the right conclusions, and why is Mann’s work an issue with you?
Also, why did Mann win that award for his science, and if you haven’t won awards for your science, why not?
Max_OK, two quick examples. In both the original hockey stick (MBH) and the followup hockey stick ten years later (Mann 2008), Mann claimed his results were robust to the removal of tree ring data. In both cases, that was shown to be untrue. In fact, Mann has since admitted it was untrue for his original paper (I can find the page number he says so in his book if need be). He acknowledges he published results that were entirely dependent upon a small amount of tree ring data, something that directly contradicts his paper.
And while he isn’t Michael Mann himself, Mann’s friend and frequent defender, Gavin Schmidt, acknowledged Mann’s 2008 hockey stick was in fact dependent upon tree ring data if you remove uncalibratable data which was used upside down, directly contradicting the paper’s claims.
Unless you’re going to say Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt unfairly criticized Mann’s work, there’s no denying his results were extremely sensitive to the presence of a small amount of data, something that directly contradicts what his papers claimed.
Results are not conclusions.
No willard. One uses results to draw conclusions. Mann concluded his results were insensitive to the removal of tree ring data, but he was wrong.
Who cares about Mann? You have to pull down radiative physics.
This is what is so pitiful about ‘sceptics’. They focus on all the wrong things because this handful of trivia is *all they’ve got*.
It’s like a child throwing pebbles at the Hoover Dam and genuinely expecting to breach it.
@bbd
Are you throwing one-time poster boy and Nobel Prize Winner Mike Mann under a bus?
Wise decision!
But you should have done it at least five years ago, when it became apparent to us all that Mann and his deeply unpleasant coterie of homies and hoods bore a ‘name-only’ relationship to the practices of science and statistics.
And the problem you face if you do so is that you lose access to that scary word ‘unprecedented’. And the essence of the scare lies in that word. ‘Unprecedented’ is supposed to frighten us – and that is why it is used. But if the radiative physics you so rely on shows only that the world will be warmer – but not by how much, then all the doomsday hand-wringing flies out of the window too. There are good historical contemporary records that show that climes were likely as warm – if not warmer – than today – at least in some parts. We survived…and many records suggest that we prospered in those times..especially in the MWP.
It’d be very very difficult to ask people in the UK to make big sacrifices because if we don’t the climate will revert to that of the prosperous 13th century. Most would instead vote to bring it on ASAP.
So chucking Mann and his ‘idiosyncratic’ methods under a bus – though an extremely wise, if somewhat tardy decision – gets you into a bigger pile of doodoo than you might imagine. And radiative physics ain’t going to get you out of it.
LA
You understand so little.
The unfalsified radiative physics, paleoclimate behaviour, observations of modern climate and modelled studies are enough to place ECS within a range of 2C – 4.5C for 2xCO2 with a most probable value of ~3C (AR4 WG1 ch 10).
You don’t need Mann for this, just a brain and a general knowledge of the *basis* of the scientific consensus you reject on apparently emotional or political grounds. The *basis* of your rejection is clearly not scientific.
I repeat: there is no scientific case supporting ‘scepticsm’. Why are you acting as if there was?
@bbd
‘ there is no scientific case supporting ‘scepticsm’
What form of scepticism do you imagine that I adhere to? Unless you can give a decent definition, your remark is pointless
LA
Nobody cares what exact form your emotionally/politically motivated contrarianism takes. It is irrelevant. The point here is that there is no coherent body of work challenging the scientific consensus on AGW.
Hence all the noise and gibbering but a complete absence of a large and growing body of published studies demonstrating that the scientific consensus (decades in emerging) is wrong.
You ‘sceptics’ need to acknowledge the facts. Chief among which is that you have *nothing*.
BBD, I disagree. They have spatula chaos.
What skepticism has is that the politically-motivated and politically-funded alarmist ‘consensus’ favoring an increase in politics, and rooted in dishonest methods like hiding data, is no firm basis for the lurch into totalitarian is asks for.
This is the nettle you need to grasp : government-funded climate scientists as a whole are not trustworthy.
BBD,
Latimer Adler challenges you:
> What form of scepticism do you imagine that I adhere to?
Would you agree that his skeptikism (in his case, with two ks) seems to be based on his overall lack of satisfaction?
Re Brandon Shollenberger’s comments on | October 9, 2012 at 12:01 am
Brandon, thanks for the reply, but you didn’t answer my questions. I’ll eliminate some of the questions and rephrase the others. Please focus on Mann’s conclusions.
1.Which of Mann’s conclusions are wrong?
2. How do you know these conclusions are wrong?
3. What are the right conclusions?
4. How do you know these conclusions are right?
willard
No comment. Perhaps it’s a vocabulary thing ;-)
@bbd
The world has moved on a great deal since IPCC AR4 five years ago, but you are clearly unfamiliar with recent works by Lindzen & Choi, Gillett, Lewis and Asten. All of them place climate sensitivity well to the lower end of that scale,
To a point indeed, where any putative changes struggle to pass the ‘so what’ test. I really cannot get my knickers in a twist if the temperature in 2100 is 1C more than it is today and if the sea level is two feet higher, These are trivial changes.
Which is like much of ‘climate science’. Lots of brave over-inflated claims, but when a few harder questions are asked, much of it collapses into ‘so what’ stuff.
LA
The problem with claims for a low CS is that it doesn’t actually fit with known climate behaviour.
Even if ECS to 2xCO2 were ~2.5C, the global changes would be huge. As everybody bar denialist loons readily grasps. So the *intellectually honest* lukewarmer is never heard to make contradictory and foolish remarks like this:
So you aren’t an intellectually honest lukewarmer. But then I’ve known that for a long time.
It’s predictable that your pick of references includes junk like L&C, Nic Lewis’s mischief-making and Asten’s work which you don’t understand because you don’t know what Ol-1 is. To save you the bore of having to do any work, Ol-1 was when the Antarctic ice sheet formed ~34Ma. Asten explicitly acknowledges that different feedbacks likely play a major part in his estimate for CS right at this massive cooling event. Why? Because hugely increased ice albedo feedback from a brand new Antarctic ice sheet might be expected to offset CO2 forcing. But that was then, and this is now.
Don’t get your paleoclimatology from Watts. He doesn’t have a clue but he does have an agenda, which is a nasty combination, as you so eloquently demonstrate yourself.
Yet more tenuous, agenda-driven pretentious insult-hurling from BBD. Gosh what a surprise.
Do you actually have anything worthwhile to say? About anything at all – needn’t be climate.
Max_OK, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your 1 and 2 are directly answered by my comment. Your 3 and 4 are just inversions, so they’re answered as well.
@bbd
You say that my remark of
I really cannot get my knickers in a twist if the temperature in 2100 is 1C more than it is today and if the sea level is two feet higher, These are trivial changes.
is ‘contradictory and foolish’.
Please explain where you see the contradiction, and why you see it as
foolish.
We can return to the point of ‘intellectual honesty’ later if needed.
LA
Why this is contradictory and foolish:
Global average temperature during the Eemian interglacial (MIS5e) was ~1C higher than the late Holocene. Mean seal level was ~5m higher than the late Holocene.
As if that were not contradictory and foolish enough, there’s the amplifying effect of storm surges on increased MSL. This will have knickers in a twist from London to the Netherlands to NYC to Bangladesh.
Brandon Shollenberger said on October 10, 2012 at 1:14 am
“Max_OK, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your 1 and 2 are directly answered by my comment. Your 3 and 4 are just inversions, so they’re answered as well.”
__________
Brandon, I asked you which of Mann’s CONCLUSIONS you thought were wrong, not what you thought about his methods. What do I mean by a conclusion? The same thing the NRC meant when it addressed Mann’s work. The same thing statistician Richard L. Smith meant when he spoke about Mann’s Hockey Stick at a Congressional briefing sponsored by the American Statistical Association. Neither the NRC or Smith said Mann’s conclusions were wrong (see excerpts below). So why do you think they are wrong?
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium….”
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
“Richard L. Smith of The University of North Carolina presented a statistician’s viewpoint during a May 11 congressional briefing, titled “Climate Science: Key Questions and Answers.” The briefing, sponsored by the ASA and 12 other science organizations, was organized to address questions raised recently on the science of climate change.”
“Addressing the hockey stick controversy—a critique of the statistical methods in the 1998–1999 analysis of Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes showing the temperature time series from tree ring proxy data having a hockey stick shape—Smith said subsequent authors showed the basic hockey stick shape to be valid. He illustrated this using the “principal components analysis,” in which the hockey stick shape emerges as one includes higher components, which are necessary for proper application of this technique.”
http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2010/07/01/congbriefingclim710/
@bbd
Lets take your propositions in reverse order.
1. Storm surges.
I work in London and live by the Thames a bit upstream. I’m delighted to say that I wasn’t alive when a dreadful storm surge hit the East of England and the Netherlands in 1953. Many people died.
As a direct result, we built the Thames Barrier to protect London from just such an eventuality. You can read all about it here. or if your plane is landing to the west it will be directly underneath you as you turn on to the Heathrow landing approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
In 2009 a review concluded that the existing Barrier would suffice to protect London at least until 2070.
http://londonist.com/2009/03/good_news_for_thames_barrier.php
Maybe we’ll look again in about 2040, but that’s good enough for me already. My knickers remain untwisted. I know that in the Netherlands they suffered even worse fatalities in 1953 and are equally well prepared for the future.
You also say ‘the amplifying effect of storm surges’. What effect might this be? I do not see that storm surges do any amplifying at all. If they add a few feet to the existing high tide, they do so whatever the level of the high.
In other words a storm surge of height c on top of a high tide of height x produces an overall height of c+x. There is no ‘amplification’. A small effect on average MSL is not ‘amplified’ at all by storm surges. Your remark is wrong.
2. Temperatures and Sea level.
You state
‘Global average temperature during the Eemian interglacial (MIS5e) was ~1C higher than the late Holocene. Mean seal level was ~5m higher than the late Holocene’
That may or may not be true. Since you have stated it merely as an assertion without providing a reference I cannot judge.
But whether it is or not is irrelevant to the discussion of what will happen by 2010. AFAIK there is no proven function/relationship between global temperature and sea level. You cannot with confidence say ‘if we have global temperature x the sea level will be y’.
It ain’t like that. At least in part because of the long delay in melting large chunks of glaciers and ice sheets. So brandishing your Eemian interglacial at me is a weak and ineffective argument.
The IPCC predict 2 feet of sealevel rise by 2100. Since the current rate is 3 mm/annum (only half that of the IPCC) I’m cool on either. If I have to lay two bricks on my sea wall to protect me from a one foot rise, its just as easy to lay four and protect myself from two feet..or six and make it three feet/1 metre. It is still a pretty trivial exercise.
Finally I note that to get to a rise of 5 metres by 2100, the sealevel would need to be rising at an average of 56 mm /annum. That is nearly twenty times the current rate. A change to such a regime would certainly be very noticeable very quickly, and we’d still have the best part of four generations to react.
If and when it does, I’m happy to revisit this conversation. But until then, no twisted knickers, no damp underwear, no boyish screams to terror. Sorry.
Now – what were you saying about my intellectual honesty? You teetered on the edge of accusing me of dishonesty last time. Which way you going to vote this time around?
And then what? Will SLR just stop magically? What about the rest of the global coastline?
By the way, you are aware that the SLR projection in AR4 WG1 is incomplete? It is based on thermal expansion; non-linear contribution from the WAIS and GIS is *not included*. This has considerable bearing on the likely rate of increase in MSL particularly later this century. To call the IPCC conservative on this point is a considerable understatement.
So you do apparently see the amplifying effect of storm surges. In your own words, they add a few feet to the existing high tide. This is what makes storm surges so damaging. If you raise MSL by 3ft and then apply a storm surge, the low-lying coastal area subject to inundation is increased. This is the amplifying effect of storm surges on elevated MSL.
Only you think the change in MSL will be ‘small’: current best estimates are 2.5 – 6.5ft (0.8m – 2m) by 2100 and what I said is fine; the problem lies in your interpretation of it.
A fine demonstration of the ‘sceptic’ habit of pretending to great enough knowledge to dispute the scientific consensus on AGW while at the same time demonstrating poor topic knowledge and a flat refusal to do any work. Check, if it bothers you.
So heat does not melt ice? Really? And global ice sheet volume does not affect MSL? MSL was not 120m lower during the LGM than the present (- 5C vs late Holocene)? Or 5m higher during the Eemian (+ 1C – 2C)? 20m higher during the Pliocene (+ 2C – 3C)? 70m higher during the Eocene (+ 4C – 10C)?
What do you know about this topic? I know that there is now widespread disquiet about the potential for rapid ice mass loss from the WAIS and the GIS (century scale). This is relatively new – complacency reigned until around 2005/6 – just too late for AR4, which is why AR4 rather misleadingly bases its SLR projections on thermal expansion. Why do I have such a strong feeling that you don’t know any of this? Could it be because you say things like this:
Which informs highly revealing nonsense like this:
Trivial is it? Tell the population of Bangladesh next time you exit your solipsistic bubble.
And, sea level rise is not uniform. If there is 3 feet of SLR by 2070, that does not mean London’s little barrier has to deal with exactly 3 feet. It might be 3 feet; it might be less; it might be more.
Max_OK
You have asked Brandon Shollenberger:
Brandon has already answered your questions, but let me amplify.
In addition to the basic errors in the methodology used by Mann et al., there are several independent studies from all over the world using different pale-climate methodologies, which all confirm that the MWP was slightly warmer than today, thereby falsifying Mann’s conclusion that the current warm period is unusual in at least the past 1,300 years.
Several studies using different methods versus one study using an already discredited method gives me confidence that the conclusion of these many studies of a slightly warmer MWP is correct, and that of Mann’s study is wrong.
Max not from OK
PS If you would like links to the many studies, to which I refer, I’ll be glad to post them
@bbd
Wow
Let’s start with ‘amplification’. Amplification is what the Sainted Keef uses at a Stones gig to turn the very small power output from his pickup into the stadium filling noise that we hear. It is not taking the original same power output and adding another small constant to it. Mathematically amplification is a multiplication sum, not an addition sum.
I think what you were trying to say is that storm surges make things worse. But only by the amount of the underlying sea level rise. They do not amplify the effect.
I’ve carefully read the rest of your petulant remarks. I can see little there other than ‘I think its worse than that’ or some snarky remarks about your supposedly superior knowledge of the literature (unreferenced). Childish in the extreme.
And I note that your ‘scary’ stories are entirely based on unverified predictions. I am not a gambling man, so I’m not going to bet the farm (nor even wet my knickers) about any sort of ‘might be/could be/expected to/possibility of’ speculative narrative from professional alarmists.
As I said before, I’m happy to revisit this conversation if and when there is tangible evidence of all the bad things happening that you are so scared about. But so far zip, zero, nada, rien, nichts.
BTW Bangladesh is on a river delta. Like the Nile and the Mississippi – and coral reefs – geological processes (silt deposition) mean that the land stays pretty much just above sea level…whatever that level may be. The sealevel has changed mightily in that country since the last Ice Age, but people have somehow continued to live there. The silt deposition makes it a very fertile area, and this outweighs the disadvantages of regular flooding, I see no reason to believe that this risk/reward equation will change much in the future.
Klownherder Kloor gets my goat because he censors bad, bad kimrambam, but he did let one of my bleats through, just as Gavin gave up the ghost, er, I mean the Crook’d Hockey Stick’s preternaturally straitened shaft earlier than 1500 AD, back during his special, spectacular, Judy & Gavin Show.
====================
LA
Pedantry and not worth the bother except to note that you can’t get round the fact that the negative effects of SLR are ‘accentuated’ by storm surges. Strike one.
I see you have nothing at all to say about the IPCC *underestimate* of SLR. Strike two.
The usual silly argument: ‘show me the effects of things that haven’t happened yet and then I’ll believe we have a problem’. Strike three.
*Ding!*
But there’s more…
True during millennia of relatively stable MSL. Not at all true when SLR accelerates rapidly over the course of a century. Ding!
That’s because you are a climate change denier who is also denying paleoclimate evidence and modern studies of accelerating ice mass loss from both the GIS and the WAIS. Which of course means that your opinion is worthless. Ding!
What’s it all about Latimer? Why the denial? Is it politics, stupidity, fear or what? I used to do denial (I dressed it up as lukewarmerism) because of fear. What’s your story?
@bbd
‘That’s because you are a climate change denier who is also denying paleoclimate evidence and modern studies of accelerating ice mass loss from both the GIS and the WAIS. Which of course means that your opinion is worthless’
Says it all about your ‘thought’ processes, BBD.
Hugely helpful as an insight into the alarmist ‘mind’. I’m sure that within your own dwindling band such stuff plays well, but out of the kindergarten it just shows your intellectual immaturity. Losing an argument?…throw stones and call the other guy names. Pathetic,
Luckily your (collective) influence is dwindling everywhere one looks (great news in the UK recently as sanity returns to our energy policy) so we can treat you as (mostly) harmless eccentrics rather than the dangerous ideologues that you almost became a few years back.
manacker said on October 10, 2012 at 9:05 am
“Brandon has already answered your questions, but let me amplify.
In addition to the basic errors in the methodology used by Mann et al., there are several independent studies from all over the world using different pale-climate methodologies, which all confirm that the MWP was slightly warmer than today, thereby falsifying Mann’s conclusion that the current warm period is unusual in at least the past 1,300 years.”
_______
Well, those studies are trumped by NRC and Smith. See my post on October 10, 2012 at 4:52 am for what NRC and Smith say about the Hockey Stick.
No, Brandon did not answer my questions, but I appreciate that he tried. I’m afraid he didn’t understand what I meant by Mann’s “conclusions,” so posted again (October 10, 2012 at 4:52 am) and told him I meant the same thing NRC and Smith meant.
LA
Lost an argument? Retreat still further into denial!
;-)
> Mann concluded his results were insensitive […]
Cherrypicking much among Mann’s conclusions.
> One uses results to draw conclusions.
Indeed, but one can use other results to draw the same conclusions.
Think penicillin
Max_OK, Mann concluded a number of things in his papers. I gave you examples of conclusions that were wrong. The fact I discussed conclusions you may not be interested in doesn’t change the fact they are conclusions.
This is what has happened. You asked for examples. I gave you examples. You rejected my examples because they weren’t examples you wanted. If you cannot admit even the most basic of points, points admitted by Mann himself and his close friend and supporter, Gavin Schmidt, you’re obviously never going to admit more complicated points.
Here’s where we stand. You can admit what I said is true. You can admit I showed several of Mann’s conclusions were wrong (and perhaps ask for information about other conclusions). Or, you can refuse to admit I did exactly what you asked me to do, and was right about it, thus making yourself a denier.
Honest discussion or close-minded idiocy. You get to choose which.
In discussing the question: “What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?”
If you are serious, you have to know what it is you are facing in terms of “environmental and economic regrets”. How can you possibly discuss policies until you know what the range of those “regrets” might be, with associated probabilities attached to the different scenarios in that range. Policies must be driven by scenarios and related probabilities.
The adjective “achievable” then becomes the true variable, as what one defines as “achievable” can have a great amount of flexibility depending on what the consequences may be if that policy is not achieved. Certainly a guiding principle is the Precautionary Principle in all cases. So to move forward, some consensus (true consensus) should be reached related to both potential scenarios and their likelihoods. From there, policies can be developed. It will take a balanced mix of scientists and policymakers to develop policies that both observe the Precautionary Principle, have the greatest likelihood of being successful, and expend the least resources and cause the least societal disruption.
+1
The total amount of carbonates stored in sedimentary rocks (about 0.75 x 10E24 g, correspond to a partial pressure of CO2 of about 60 bars. So the Earth did find ways of getting rid of this huge amount of CO2, as to leave us with a balance of about 350 ppm of CO2 in our contemporary air at 1 bar pressure. The problem is complex. It might be that the faint early Sun and the early (or late) heavy bombardment did rule this odd balance. In this case my conclusion would be irrelevant.
The rock-carbon cycle is actually quite interesting and very relevant to our high levels of CO2 today. The primary natural way the Earth removes carbon dioxide from the atmopshere is through rock weathering, which pulls the CO2 from the air and eventually sequesters it in limestone at the bottom of the ocean. The natural acceleration of the the hydrological cycle that occurs when CO2 levels rise, increases rock weathering and is the key to the negative feedback that eventually pulls the atmospheric CO2 levels back down. Problem being that the huge influx of anthropogenic CO2 has pretty much overwhelmed this negative feedback process as it occurs over thousands and tens of thousands of years, and we’ll have doubled CO2 in just a few hundred years.
For Attention of JCH
I have provided a fair answer for you on RC but Gavin removed it. The difference between RC and Climate etc and WUWT is more than obvous;
I shall repeat it here, but I am still puzzled why Gavin would find it objectionable (both of us got degrees from the same university after all)
I am clearly referring to the North Hemisphere’s natural variation, which you will find is different to the South Hemisphere’s and hence the global, although I would question validity of adding two. Here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
you can see that red line peak in late the 1880s is at exactly same value as in 2005.
NASA is hinting at something which I have worked out some time ago and in some detail, identifying the sources, providing numerical confirmation, details of viable mechanism will be shortly published.
vukevic – went to the borehole and read your response. I’ve seen you use CET, but there you say NH, so I assume that is other than CET.
Can you expand a bit on Geo-Solar? In the NASA graph I assume solar is included in the red line.
NH data is available from both Hadley and GISS, and yes it is other than CET.
If Gavin is to ask he would get all the relevant info, but that is not likely.
vukcevic – sorry for misspelling your name. I suppose because of the comment about professional climate scientists, but I don’t know.
I would still like to know if Geo-Solar is a combination, or a subtraction, or whatever.
What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
A. do more climate research, starting with verifiable experimental physics
B. encourage R&D in technologies to reduce man’s impact on the earth
C. encourage R&D in technologies to reduce earth’s impact on man
D. ignore long-term predictions, which are all wrong
OK, except A and D.
Re A, I believe that’s been thought of, but if you can recommend something specific of merit, science would be grateful.
Re D, you can’t in advance know all long-term predictions are wrong, nor can policy ignore predictions. A “do nothing policy” is predicated on a long-term prediction of no change.
A. have already suggested elsewhere experimental physics experiments eg: repeat Tyndall’s work including quantification of thermalization vs reemission/scattering vs “backradiation”; measure thermal effects of 3.7m thickness of 100% CO2 on IR absorption of sunlight in daytime; IR emission to night sky
D. to clarify is not a “do nothing” policy, because B and C should be givens. But show me some historical long-term climate predictions which have turned out right…..
Hansen’s projections turned out closer to right than a no-change extrapolation.
Max_OK
You keep shooting yourself in the foot with remarks like
See:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/5738998081_b3b3e55049_b.jpg
Hansen’s “no further GHG” Case C came out almost exactly right (warming rate of 0.16C per decade).
But “no further GHG” emissions is not what actually happened.
Hansen’s “business as usual” Case A was off by a factor of 2:1 (warming rate of 0.32C per decade), despite the fact that the actual rate of CO2 emissions (the principal GHG) was slightly higher than Hansen’s estimate.
So your statement is wrong.
Hansen’s projection was exaggerated by a factor of 2, because his models used a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity that was exaggerated by a factor of 2.
Quite simple, actually.
Max (not from OK)
Re manacker’s comment on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 am
manacker, your problem is you don’t know what good is.
If forecasted rises in the prices of three stocks were as accurate as Hansen’s three temperature projections have been, you would have made money investing in these stocks. That’s what you call “good.”
Suppose, instead, you had confidence in a forecast of no change in the prices of those three stocks, so didn’t invest in them, and therefore lost out on money you could have made. That’s what you call “not good.”
When I say historical long-term predictions, I am talking about predictions hopeully for more than one climate cycle. One climate cycle is 30 years of statistics. Two should be 60 years of statistics. So I want to see someone who predicted what the result would be 30-60 years before the fact. The real problem is we are talking about verifying the predictions of people who are probably dead so nobody even knows they made a prediction in the first place.
Beyond that, I can’t even say I’ve been shown a proper description of what a global mean/average/whatever temperature is. (G&T say it’s a nonsensical concept and I am inclined to agree). The best idea would be a global heat energy content distributed through the thermal mass of the earth/atmosphere. So averaging thermometer mins and max’s doesn’t really cut it.
If climate is defined as 30 years of weather statistics, I think long term should be at least 60-90 years. So where are the long-term predictions and appropriate statistical analysis.
My response would be to throw out a question with so many embedded conclusions.
You ask us to consider that there is some warming, but the original question is already loaded with “…a profoundly changed Earth…” and “…to limit … regrets.” I accept your assessment of some ACO2 warming, but I am a long way from being convinced of either of Revkin’s gloomy premises.
How about an alternative question, such as “Mr. Candidate, how will your administration assess the existing scientific basis for policy actions based on the AGW hypothesis?” Just for the record, if the answer is “Ask Stephen Chu” then my vote goes to the other guy.
My second question is more of a plea: “If elected, will you (please) shut down GISS?”
It shouldn’t be a problem… but, it is:
–e.g., I ask you to ADMIT as a matter of science that, at least in part, the facts as adopted suggest humans cause global warming or CO2 causes global warming.
You will say, ‘Correct,’ right?
And, that’s the problem: the science of AGW theory is to use some facts to tell a lie.
8888
The question for debate is:
“Do the known immediate benefits of higher atmospheric CO2 (longer growing seasons in the north, faster plant growth, and increased drought tolerance) outweigh the imagined risks many decades in the future (sea level rise, ocean neutralization, and climate disruption)?
A reasonable question, and with a few more summers like this one and food prices skyrocketing, we’ll have even a better answer.
Ah, the wonders of instantaneous attribution.
Could be fools gold.
Nitrogen is generally not a limiting factor in modern agriculture as it widely and cheaply available in bulk soil fertilizers. Sunlight is a limiting factor in that there isn’t enough of it in higher latitudes for crops which requires longer growing seasons and/or for getting more than one crop cycle per year. Water is also limiting factor as there isn’t always enough rain or stored water available for irrigation. Higher CO2 reduces the amount of water a plant needs regardless of other limiting factors. And CO2 itself is a limiting factor. It’s a terrestrial plant’s only source of carbon and at 280 parts per million in the atmosphere a plant must work very hard to extract what it needs out of the gases it does not need. In other words higher CO2 isn’t always beneficial but it’s never detrimental.
What’s the best climate question to debate?
Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of:
a) how much climate will change under business as usual,
b) what the impacts of those changes will be,
c) the cost of those impacts,
d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future,
e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change,
f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts,
g) whether other countries will negate our efforts,
h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half-century or more in the future?
Choice 2: Why would anyone support cap-and-trade when it creates emission permits of great value are to be given away by legislators?
Choice 3: Can we devise a carbon tax flexible enough to deal with the above uncertainties that:
a) is fully refunded to every citizen and exporters,
b) collected from importers,
c) rises exponentially with future temperature change,
d) responds to the willingness and effectiveness of other nations to limit their emissions, and
e) provides reasonable economic incentives to reduce emissions if the IPCC’s central estimates are correct?
Choice 4: Why would we want to limit future temperature increase to 2 degC above pre-industrial temperature when:
a) we don’t know what pre-industrial temperature was,
b) the most recent pre-industrial temperature occurred during the LIA,
c) temperature rises representing a significant chunk of the remaining allowed increase have happened in the past without anthropogenic forcing, and,
d) we really don’t know how to achieve this goal?
Choice 5: Does the fact that life on this planet has survived a billion years of climate change caused by orbital mechanics, asteroids, the evolution of photosynthesis, plate tectonics, the variable star we call the sun, chaos, plagues, and possibly supernovae.
Frank,
Good questions.
When will journalists do their job of being skeptical when media-hungry, new-age shamens claim to know things without any data or theory to support them? What now would falsify the hypothesis of AGW now that the AGW fingerprints are obviously missing yet nobody cares? How do so many academics win prestigious and lucrative prizes and jobs despite a long history of being wrong all the time?
Actually all the no_regrets policies are simple and already out there but Andy doesn’t care to read them because they are all written by skeptics. Even writing a no-regrets tract gets you Lomberged because clearly the only solution for the angst-ridden, enviro-hypocrite is to stop burning fossil fuels completely and anyone who disagrees is surely evil.
In the spirit of bi-partisan consistency, I will note that Pew has a poll out showing Romney ahead by 5%. The problem with the poll, the internals show a sampling of +5 for Republicans. Meaning that the poll is based on an assumption that 5% more republicans than Democrats will vote.
Since that has never happened in my lifetime, I suspect this poll should be ignored just as much as the other recent polls.
Oh, and on another recent issue, of the miraculous increase in jobs reported by the administration,it seems Gallup, hardly a hot bed of conspiracy theories, doesn’t think much of them either.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/08/gallup-economist-fridays-job-numbers-should-be-discounted/
Now back to our regularly scheduled progressive straw man arguments.
I think that the most important question is: What is the transient climate response to a doubling of CO2 over approximately a 70 year period? Anything beyond 20 years is hard to imagine, and anything beyond 70 years is harder still. A really good estimate of the transient climate response will give us a good handle on how things might be different 50 years after the technologies of the next 20 years have been developed.
However, that may depend on the answer to the question: What are the cloud feedbacks that will follow from increased CO2? If so, then this is a more important question than the former.
“What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?”
If we are to leave scientific aspects out of the mix of potential regrets, why am I bothering to write this? We scientists are going to look awfully silly when we have to admit that we got climate all wrong in our explanation of 1940.
Did the Royal Society refuse to discuss climate science?
Both the US and Australia are large exporters of coal and this can only increase when Germany, and potentially Japan, close their nuclear power stations. There are lots of votes in the coal mines. Climate is a can of worms best not opened before an election. Rivkin is right there.
How about,
“While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is UNclear.
Should we put a team of leading academics together to nail this once and for all? If so, who should make up this team”?
Two questions I know and I accept the first could be worded more carefully!
All the food that I eat has been specifically and painstakingly breed by peoples in the past; all the common fruits and vegetables, also all domestic meats.
I have some kitchen furniture that is about 125 years old, and it is just possible that the Oaks were deliberately planted for harvesting as wood about 300 years ago.
I will pick up some jewelery that belong to my deceased mother (and her mother) that probably contains gold mined >1,000 years ago.
That it as far as what the people from 3 generation plus have given me in physical terms. Everything I own or work with is younger than my birth. Most modern buildings are only constructed so that they will only last around 20-40 years. A car and passenger plane lasts for about 15 and a modern ship 15-20 years. A computer chip factory last for 10 years.
However, the great mass of humanity from before my birth has given me information. Art, literature, music and science are the things that enrich my life and just forms of information.
All that counts in my life from the peoples who lived in the past is information, how things work and how to make things being rather important, but art, literature and music also being important.
Surely, the most important thing we pass to our great-grand children will be information too. As so the best thing we can do is structure of societies to generate as much information and technology as possible?
The best climate debate question:
How many people at the EPA should be fired in addition to Lisa Jackson?
Dvid Springer
Let me reword that:
How many people at the EPA should NOT be fired?
(Let’s keep the list short.)
Max
Your question doesn’t ask for a list as answer.
Please try to get your head and ass wired together for once.
Good questions from Stan and David Springer.And I’ll add, like the song says,”What the world needs now is ‘… luv, sweet luv, sure, but also, what the world needs now is abundant cheap and efficient energy, reduction of particulate pollution and local initiatives to improve soil fertility and water quality.
Oh the inhumanity of you Beth.
Ignoring the harm to unborn generations – i.e. non-existent people – just to benefit people that are alive and breathing today. Can’t you accept the fact that all of these people will die eventually? Why not help them along in the name of our precious future generations?
Ok, back to being serious. You highlight my biggest issue with folks who insist action is needed to address climate change – stealing attention and resources away from real problems that have real solutions.
OK. Everybody has had a crack at it – and there are some real weird answers out there.
What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
Inasmuch as I see that climate science has reached a dead end, largely as a result of mismanagement by IPCC, UNEP and UNFCCC and that there are serious energy supply problems and resulting economic pain especially for middle-class Americans as a result of a poorly conceived national energy strategy and policy, I would:
– Put the “science” back into “climate science” by stopping all US support for IPCC and proposing a resolution to shut it down permanently
– Establish a small group of independent scientists and engineers (not under the UN), representing all opposing scientific opinions on AGW, to take over the function of IPCC; expand this function to include natural climate change and its causes; eliminate political appointments to fulfill national quotas; eliminate the “consensus process”
– Replace the management of the EPA down to the operating level with clear instructions to stop all activities to punish companies whose operations generate CO2 and to eliminate at least two-thirds of all EPA regulations within one year
– Retire James E. Hansen and replace him and other senior NASA climate scientists, who have become advocates, with objective scientists; cut NASA budget for climate science; put this money back into space exploration instead, on a “must have” basis
– Cut government funding for “climate research” by 90% to include only “must-have” programs, with an equal balance between research of natural and man-made climate change; use a portion of the savings to encourage basic research into new energy sources
– Instruct State Department to immediately reverse its ban on the Keystone Pipeline project
– Grant permits for increased oil and gas exploration on federal lands and offshore, including fracking permits for shale deposits, which have been blocked so far.
– Instruct the new Energy Secretary to work with oil and gas industry to put together and implement an energy independence plan, with the clear goal of making the USA a net exporter of energy products within four years, at the same time creating millions of new jobs
– Instruct the EPA Director to work with coal burning companies to encourage “clean coal” projects (eliminating pollution), by offering tax incentives for those who invest in these projects
– Instruct the new Energy Secretary to set up a special task force to encourage the expansion of nuclear power and ease the permit procedure for new or expanded plants, with the goal of increasing nuclear power generation from 20% to 25% within four years
[Did I leave anything important out?]
Max
“Would you agree to a policy that requires US government agencies to validate all models used to conduct climate change and to publish all model modifications and tuning efforts deployed since 1988?”
Comment on free market got swallowed, try again.
At the communist dictatorship village fair, near the maypole a woman sells her wares:
‘Apple cores fer sale, who’ll buy my apple cores?
Can we fix it? Maybe, in the long run, if it doesn’t prove to be due to natural cycles.
Can we live with it? Of course, we are inventive and adaptable humans not dumb beasts.
Are those predicting doom and apocalypse cognitively challenged and\or shysters. Without a doubt.
Why is the phony GLOBAL warming put in the same basket as the big / small climatic changes?!?!?Those two are not related. Climatic changes are necessary / natural phenomena – GLOBAL warmings are a phenomenal lie. CO2 absorbs much more heat than O&N, during the day – CO2 also absorbs much more coldness during the night. those two factors cancel each other.
WHAT, coldness doesn’t exist?! How come in cold winter, wood doesn’t stick to your skin, but metal does?! CO2 cannot absorb coldness? Why is CO2 used to make dry ice, instead of O&N?!?!?! Com-on Kelvinist, why is your fridge and stove calibrated in Centigrade of Fahrenheit, , http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
time is against you guys. Climate will keep changing, but the phony GLOBAL warming will become your milestone, not a cash-cow!!!
stephanthedenier said:
” CO2 also absorbs much more coldness during the night…”
____
Please do tell us..what is this strange new substance, force, or radiation called “coldness”? Where would it be in the EM spectrum?
R. Gates | October 8, 2012 at 8:10 pm said: ”stephanthedenier Please do tell us..what is this strange new substance, force, or radiation called “coldness”?”
Gates, It’s new to you and the rest of the extremist, from both camps; but is not new to the other 7 billion people. People that use Centigrade and Fahrenheit – people that are not desperate to make crap to sound scientific – only Desperadoes like you, use Kelvin in empty talk… I’m just going to cool couple of bottles of beer – for them to collect some ‘coldness” by that coldness, it will cool me, in the tropical afternoon…
I’ll tell you something, in secret: during the phony Big Bang – the universe was very, very hot – that was THE starting point – then lots of units of ”COLDNESS” was created and that cooled the universe… my fridge is good to me, creates lots and lots of ”COLDNESS” to cancel the extra heat. Happy now Robert? You are desperate to complicate things; as a smokescreen; but only you can succeed with few nutters – nothing to be proud of… only will give you more chances, to bit the record jail-term by Bernard Madoff, lucky you. If the jury believes that you are so stupid and don’t know what ”coldness” is; they might let you free / ignorance is not a crime. But, if you had any kind of marking in your house where it states: ”cold” but it wasn’t ultimate zero Kelvin… then you will be in trouble…
Apparently, you are operating under few names; but the people that collect evidences for court of justice; for the time when the ”Truth and Reconciliation” comes – they told me that: your real name is ”Baron von Munchhausen”
You do realize that you refrigerator is little negentropy machine, with energy required to keep the heat from averaging out between the inside and outside of it. Now, depending on where you live, that energy likely comes from the burning of fossil fuels, and those fossil fuels are of course stored sunlight. So stored sunlight is being used to keep your beer cold.
You recognize of course that no “cold units” exist, for cold is simply a relative term of something that has less average kinetic energy. In the end it is all just energy. To keep you beer cold in the tropics you’ll need to expend real units of energy to remove heat from your refrigerator, but if you live in the Arctic (at least in the winter) you’ll need to expend real units of energy to keep your beer from freezing solid, so it can be just the right temperature for drinking.
The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates) | October 8, 2012 at 11:26 said:
You do realize that you refrigerator is little negentropy machine, with energy required to keep the heat from averaging out between the inside and outside of it. Now, depending on where you live, that energy likely comes from the burning of fossil fuels”
Bobby, if you want to make me feel guilty for having a cold beer; you need to put much more effort into it.
1] when i prove to you that CO2 doesn’t produce any GLOBAL warming – no need to for you to leave in fear == instead of rejoicing, you don’t like it, you prefer catastrophe – otherwise you would have being studding every post on my blog.
2] whoever was the clown who told you that: 149 years ago was the best amount of CO2 for the trees and crops… he told you a sick lie; it was always more CO2 than 150y ago – plants love more CO2; why you should denye the plants CO2, what they need?! there are more people now and they need more trees and food.
Gates, you are made 23-25% of carbon – do you really, really hate big part of yourself?
You are inhaling oxygen, but exhaling CO2 – to make it even more pathetic – by exhaling the CO2, your vocal cords are using that CO2, to badmouth CO2…?! I’m not going to call you a ”self-centered hypocrite”..
but, if you want to impose guilt factor on others 1] stop exhaling CO2, stop eating food. made of carbon… I love those bubbles of CO2, coming out of the beer. You should find something else to blame, not CO2, because is essential for life.
i told lolwot, you should use it too; too many satellites in orbit – all of them spread lots of solar panels – intercept lots of sunlight, not to come to the ground, that is ACCUMULATIVE, every day a bit less sunlight -> it will become cold, and all of you will die from freezing, or from old age, or from something else; how am I doing? You see, if you start ”saving” the planet from those satellites and other junk in outer space – at least you wouldn’t be doing any harm, and would have made yourself lots of loot money. By blaming CO2, you are committing terrible crimes, think about it
Folks,
Let me re-phrase the question in the light of what is actually going on in, for example, New York State. New York is part of RGGI so there already is a tax (auction proceeds) on electrical generating unit CO2 emissions, there is a Climate Action Plan goal of an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, and the State’s draft Energy Plan is about to go public. In other words there is no recognition whatsoever by anyone in New York regulatory agencies or the Administration that there is any uncertainty whatsoever, period. Get over it, swallow your bile and suggest policies to use the RGGI money that will not be a complete waste of money.
The original question: While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear. What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
Rephrased question for New York State: New York State policies presume that greenhouse-driven global warming could lead to a profoundly changed Earth. What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets that should be funded with the RGGI funds?
I
f you really get into this you can submit comments on the New York Energy Plan when it comes out for comment later this year.
My answer to the narrowed question:
• Identify adaptation policies that can be implemented to reduce impacts of extreme weather events (which will happen with or without greenhouse driven global warming)
• Research on nuclear energy to reduce the stigma of nuclear generation, e.g., fast reactors (Generation 4 reactors) or thorium fueled.
• Determine what would actually be required by society to achieve the 80% reduction Climate Action Plan goal
• Calculate whether the change in greenhouse-driven global warming as a result of New York’s actions could be measured
Uhhh…vote for politicians who aren’t dumb as a box of rocks?
I offer the same solution to California and my own state of Illinois.
Europe has its PIIGS, we have our INCs (incompetents).
I don’t disagree but suggest that being politically correct is the problem. Corporations cannot even suggest that this is all lunacy lest they be accused of being the same as Tobacco companies and deniers of the holocaust.
rogercaizza,
Oh I agree 100%. You can’t rely on corporations to safeguard capitalsim. The temptation to engage in rent seeking, particularly with progressives (of either party) in control of the government, is just too much for many to resist.
It’s like Warren Buffet or George Soros, having made their billions, advocating all kinds of taxes and regulations for those who have not, in return for their “seat at the table” of power.
In summary there are two angles – don’t speak up lest you get slammed by negative public relations and don’t speak up so you can take advantage of the largesse of government.
Why settle for a lesser evil?
Clearly we need to maintain cheap and abundant energy in order to sustain our current economies and provide opportunities for humans to thrive across the world. At the same time, unmitigated consumption of fossil fuels to power our energy needs is problematic from the perspective of both fuel sustainability and potential damage to the environment.
Taking to heart the idea that continued buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to more planetary warming which may not all be good, we should not simply take a wait and see attitude. Similarly, imposing a strict mitigation strategy curtailing fossil fuel use without suitable cheap and abundant alternative sources would likely lead to economic disaster.
One way forward would be to increase nuclear energy production. Perhaps large multi reactor power plants are not the optimum choice. Perhaps nuclear power facility design should become more standardized. Perhaps much work in reclaiming and reusing spent fuel is needed. Perhaps the consequences of nuclear accidents need to be faced in a way where improved engineering is the solution rather than mothballing. Perhaps nuclear power plants can’t be an option for earthquake/natural disaster prone sites.
But
If adding gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere could be a non trivial problem for future generations, then at this time there really is no other choice. We can’t start to stop using fossil fuels as our primary energy source without a viable alternative. Nuclear emits exactly zero CO2. However it does come with a lot of ‘other’ responsibilities. But as an energy source we can develop now that has the capability of producing the required energy at a cost that is somewhat competitive, there is no other clear alternative.
I don’t mean to suggest that solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal etc… sources should not also be considered and advanced, they should. However, they alone do not have the power capacity needed now or in the future.
I don’t mean to suggest that we should not continue to improve energy efficiency everywhere possible using technology advances that allow such efficiencies to be implemented cost effectively. We should.
If mitigating CO2 is necessary to reduce future environmental risks, nuclear energy has to be a part of the solution.
I am not an alarmist, but I can recognize potential problems with unmitigated CO2 emission. I can recognize we have a limited supply of practically usable fossil fuels. We need to use our democratic systems of government to implement solid energy policies that address the need for abundant cheap energy while being good stewards of our planet. Shifting our energy production away from fossil and more toward nuclear sources would buy time for new and alternative energy source development to mature that one day would supplant nuclear sources. We need energy evolution.
John –
Are you thinking of a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis there, considering what the full price of current energy would be with a full accounting for costs including: subsidies (of one form or another), known environmental and health impact of current energy sources, “opportunity cost” of not directing resources elsewhere/developing other energy sources, and geo-political costs of “maintaining cheap an abundant energy.”
I take arguments about the importance of “maintain[ing] cheap and abundant energy” seriously – but I don’t know of any comprehensive attempts to cost-out what that looks like based on a full cost accounting for the current energy sources we currently have.
Not that it suffices as a counter-argument to looking to nuclear as a part of a way forward, but I don’t see how to evaluate this statement:
w/o a full-cost accounting. How do you assess the likelihood of disaster without such an accounting?
The full accounting arguments presume that there are all kinds of negative externalities but tend to ignore positive externalities. If fossil power is cheap enough that there are only x% households in fuel poverty (Wiki: In the UK, fuel poverty is said to occur when in order to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth a household needs to spend more than 10% of its income to maintain an adequate heating regime), but the alternative carbon-free power increases the percentage of households by 10% there are negative consequences to not using fossil power. If you want to play that game then everything should be on the table.
I’m not arguing for any “presumptions.” I’m not advocating that anyone “ignore” positive (or negative) externalities.
I don’t think it’s a game to say that you can’t argue about the cost of fossil fuels without a full accounting.
Along those lines – that statement would be only be comprehensive contingent on whether you account for the reversal of any negative externalities associated with that 10% reduction in carbon-free power; (say 10% less harm from particulates), or positive externalities associated with the development of alternative fuels, (say the economic growth or employment associated with increased non-carbon powered public transportation).
The problem, as I see it, is the abundance of facile arguments on both sides. It’s similar to the facile association of increased fossil fuel usage and increased standard of living w/o accounting for the influence of other factors that directly affect development such as increased civil rights, spending on education, etc.
Joshua says “The problem, as I see it, is the abundance of facile arguments on both sides.”
I agree with that and suspect that may complicate the attempt to fully account for costs too much for it to be practical.
No doubt it complicates the situation. I agree that the complexity of a full cost accounting is enormous. I agree it is unrealistic to expect a perfect accounting. But i am “skeptical” about arguments that an attempt is impractical; that argument seems to me to fit too nicely with a pro-fossil fuel agenda. Highly complex analysis is unavoidable in examining these issues. Seems to me the alternative to imperfect and more comprehensive is imperfect and less comprehensive analyses.
I give you credit that at least you admit that full accounting is preferable but I have discussed this with others who won’t admit that there is another side to the externalities.The problem for pro-fossil fuel folks like me is that it is very likely that there won’t be a full accounting attempt only a one-sided agenda driven demonization of fossil fuel that will capture media attention. I agree that the cost benefit approach is necessary.
Joshua, speaking as a US citizen, clearly we have had almost no new energy policies since the 1980’s. Neither party has advanced creative new energy policies when they were in power. Currently, Obama has done nothing new of note, other than throw a lot of ‘stimulus’ money at ‘green energy’ companies. What has this to do with your question? Comprehensive cost/benefit analysis needs to be part of effective energy policy. I don’t know of any comprehensive cost/benefit analysis performed by any administration that is readily available… though I’m sure some have probably been done. I haven’t looked.
“w/o a full-cost accounting. How do you assess the likelihood of disaster without such an accounting?”
I said ‘likely’ for the reason that I can’t fully predict it to be so. Having said that, I don’t see how an aggressive CO2 mitigation strategy aimed at eliminating fossil fuel sources in a short time period wouldn’t have a noticeably negative economic impact if a suitable cheap abundant alternative is not ready. I don’t think it is unimaginable to believe energy prices would skyrocket if energy sources were reduced without replacement, that seems like simple supply and demand economics.
Regardless, cost/benefit analysis has to be done.
Joshua,
Utility companies do these analysis all the time. In fact they are usually required to do so by state regulators. That doesn’t stop politicians from short circuiting the process. Here in Washington we have mandates percentages for “renewable” generation, reaching 20% by 2020. Hydropower has legislatively been redesignated as “non-renewable”. The legislation ignores state least cost requirements that would otherwise apply. Even provides tax breaks.
One result is that PUD’s who are already meeting their load needs with hydropower are being forced to “buy” wind generation in order to meet the “renewable” standard, even though there is a cost difference to them of 59 cents/kwh compared to 23 cents for hydro.
It has also resulted in complaints to FERC and lawsuits by wind generators against BPA over curtailment during high flow periods, which generally coincide with high wind periods. So who exactly benefits from lawsuits and federal regulatory intervention? That is an externality that is quantifiable. Where are the numbers that quantify the cost of producing CO2?
John Carpenter,
Excellent, balanced comment.
A plan to open up science journals
Cambridge’s Labtiva applies the iTunes sales approach to often costly research
By Karen Weintraub
October 08, 2012
Science publishing today is much like the pre-iTunes days of music sales, when customers who wanted just one song from an artist had to buy a whole album.
University libraries and companies have to buy yearlong subscriptions, called site licenses, to give researchers access to a handful of articles. But at several thousand dollars or more per subscription, even the richest libraries can’t afford to buy every scientific journal that’s published. And most researchers can’t justify the $30 to $50 single-article fee or the wait of weeks or months for an interlibrary loan.
So, libraries pay for material they don’t need, researchers are unable to access scientific papers they do need, and publishers produce content their audience can’t afford.
“I don’t think I’ve ever met a researcher who said they did not have an access problem,” said Sinisa Hrvatin, a PhD candidate in biology at Harvard University. “The market is not optimized.”
Hrvatin and his college roommate, Robert McGrath, think they can solve the problem by incorporating an iTunes model of single sales. Reducing the cost of individual articles — with some restrictions to protect the publishing business — will help scientists keep up with research and help libraries hold down costs, say the pair, who have named their product ReadCube Access.
So far, the two entrepreneurs, who are founders of a Cambridge company called Labtiva, have sold the ReadCube Access idea to the industry giant Nature Publishing Group and to the University of Utah’s library system, which started implementing it this fall.
Researchers at the University of Utah can get access to individual journal articles in one of Nature’s 80 or so subscription-based publications, many of which Utah cannot afford to buy. The library is charged under $6 for articles researchers decide to rent for a limited time and $11 or less (depending on the publication) for articles they buy. Researchers cannot yet print out the articles, and much like with iTunes, they cannot share the content with colleagues.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/10/07/start-readcube-program-uses-itunes-payment-model-for-access-scientific-articles/1UopCX1qfEE3uO2UEzuM7L/story.html?s_campaign=8315
Apologies – the journal article article should have been in week in review.
“the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear” ??
A profoundly changed Earth is NOT clear, profoundly change relative to when ?
I want to acknowledge and extend my deep appreciation to NY Times’ Andy Revkin for having the courage to publish both my comments.
1. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/?comments#permid=75
2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/?comments#permid=86
His actions in ending censorship of unpopular scientific opinions may speed resolution of this tiresome debate about matters already clearly answered a hundred times by precise experimental data and observations.
Thanks, Andy! All inhabitants of this water-covered planet are in the current mess together, and it is now in everyone’s best interest to decide transparently and promptly if Earth’s heat source is:
a.) A stormy pulsar whose force extends out >100 AU from the Sun, or
b.) The stable H-fusion reactor of post-1945 consensus science.
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
Judy,
Andy Revkin links to Michael Levi’s post, which ties the knot quite well:
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/10/05/how-can-we-cope-with-deep-climate-uncertainty/
Hey, Willard, What has happened to “The Curious Case of Jim Cripwell”? I have looked at Isaac held’s blog and haven’t seen anything yet.
Jim Cripwell,
Here was his reply:
> Doing this through an intermediary seems very awkward. He can always send me an e-mail with an exposition of his ideas and I will respond directly to him. I am not sure from skimming your links whether what he is getting at is semantic or physical. I talk about the arbitrariness in the definition of the no-feedback response on my blog in post #24.
This was mine:
> Of course, this is awkward. And the reward is quite thin. But that
would be nice if you show up there and tell him so. Or if you email
him directly. If you prefer not, I would understand. In that case, I’ll simply post your last email.
So here I have.
It’s easy to find his emain, ya know.
Willard. Thank you very much indeed for trying. I have never had any lick peersuading any blog owner to print my ideas, so I have pretty much given up trying.
But it was very kind of you, indeed, to try to get publicity for me, and present my ideas to a wider audience.
Jim Cripwell,
Grateful to obliged.
You know, this is not about promoting your idea. This is to promote how to do science and how to settle scientific questions. You seem to claim that your interest lies on the side of science. I am at loss why you think coming up here and challenging patzers will help you settle anything.
There is no need to have a formal definition of what science is to do science. All it takes for wants to play the science game play like scientists. You’re not playing like a scientist by coming up here: even Senior looks more like a peddler than a scientist when he comes to post his almost irrelevant drive-bys.
Think of science as a game. I believe there is no accepted general definition of what a game is for human beings. That lack of definition does not prevent anyone to play games. Anyone can provide an existential proof of that statement, more so if are we playing a game right now.
In my opinion, playing the scientific game entails seeking challenges for your theory by yourself. If you don’t have access to the publication process, the only strategy you have is to contact scientists and hope to get their interests.
Even Girma tried it with Trenberth. I’m not sure where else he tried, and why really, but let’s not digress. Your theory can’t be worse than Girma’s curve fitting, can’t it?
Let’s not that there is the scientific game and the scientist game. Here’s how to play the scientist game:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13157516404
Let’s hope David Springer won’t spill any coffee by reading this.
David Springer’s dogs ate some words from this sentence:
> All it takes for wants to play the science game play like scientists.
It should read:
> All it takes to play the science game is to play like scientists do.
Or something like that.
Let’s hope Latimer finds this sentence not too gnomic for his own satisfaction.
+1
My short list of debatable questions:
1. Can we at least agree to pick low-hanging fruit wherever we can? For example, decouple lighting from heat production as much as possible (passive solar is good for this). Promote heating homes and water heaters with solar as much as possible, wherever it is cost-beneficial to do so? Make uses of carbon-based energy as efficient as possible, because no matter what you believe about the urgency of CAGW we are nowhere near to being able to give up on carbon-based energy sources even if everyone agreed that we should?
2. Should we increase nuclear power? If so are we aware of the terrible costs of effing up (and are we capable of managing these risks?)
3. Are we prepared to make large public investments in R&D for non-carbon based sources of energy? Private corporations which live or die on their quarterly financial reports can’t be expected to do this on the scale that it needs to be done. Are we capable of making a sustained, rational effort without letting politicians pervert it to favor their special interests? No more Solyndras? No more corn ethanol cronyism?
BobK,
Your questions demonstrate an example of the thought process that are blocking progress. In effect, you are advocating “every little bit helps” and government intervention to make it happen.
Well, no!. Both are wrong headed. “Every little bit helps” puts the focus on doing thigs that will have negligible effect. By so doing we do not focus on “every big bit helps”.
Tackling light bulbs, energy efficiency and renewable energy are next to useless policies. They can have negligible impact. If you want to make an impact you have to make a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels available to the whole world.
The technology that can have by far the greatest impact is nuclear power. But your Q2 shows you oppose that. Therefore, you are opposing progress to cut global GHG emissions. Can it be any clearer?
Judith asks:
The question asks us to accept the premise and to keep answers on topic. It also suggests the answer should be framed in the context of the US presidential election. I interpret the question is about what the USA could do to mitigate ‘greenhouse-gas driven global warming’. Therefore, the question is not about what some sort of idealistic but unrealistic global agreements could do to cut global emissions. It is not about Kyoto type agreements or what could, idealistically, be achieved from Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban and Rio+20 type meetings. So we are not talking about world agreements to price carbon or mandate renewable energy. We are just talking about what USA could do?
I believe the USA could do more than any other country. Not by imposing bad policies that damage its own economy, but by leading the innovation of solutions for the world.
Furthermore, I believe pragmatic solutions to cost effectively cut global greenhouse gas emissions are not blocked by technological limits. They are blocked by ideological beliefs and politics.
Therefore, the US President, if properly informed and properly motivated, could lead the USA to provide the solution for the world.
The solution requires, as a first step, removing the impediments that are preventing nuclear power from being a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels.
Once the USA removes the impediments that are preventing nuclear power from becoming a low cost, clean supplier of a large component of global energy, then the world can replace fossil fuels. It will take decades.
The next US President could be more effective than any other person on this planet at starting the process.
Peter Lang
I agree with your conclusion that the next US President can set the tone for the rest of the world by lifting all the hurdles and restrictions that new nuclear power generation plants in the USA face today. He could even set a goal to increase nuclear power from 20% of the total in the USA to 25% by the end of his term (a very ambitious goal IMO).
This does not mean that those nations, whose populations and governments have already been scared out of their wits by decades of fear mongering against nuclear power by green lobby groups, etc. will follow suit right away. This conversion in places like Germany may take decades, possibly generations.
So much for that premise.
Your answer is correct.
But the question as stated is NOT.
As you write: “The question asks us to accept the premise and to keep answers on topic.”
But it is a loaded question. IOW it is not a logical one. Therefore, it is not possible to give a logical answer.
It’s just like if I asked you:
No logical way to answer that by accepting the premise and keeping the answer on topic, is there?
Max
Manacker,
I agree with all you say in this comment. However, perhaps I need to state my agenda for the benefit of other readers.
My agenda is to find a way to make progress on improving human wellbeing world wide while accepting there are irreconcilable differences about ‘greenhouse-driven global warming’ and its consequences.
The reality is that the skeptics of CAGW will not convince the alarmists they are wrong and nor will warmists convince skeptics they are wrong anytime soon. Another reality is that ‘ Progressives’ (CAGW Alarmists mostly) have been delaying progress on energy matters for 50 years. One important example of how ‘Progressives’ are delaying progress is they have been and still are delaying the world from having the benefit of an energy source that is 20,000 to 2 million times more energy dense than fossil fuels, and much safer. It is needed if the world’s standard of living and human well being is to improve as fast as possible.
The world can have what the alarmists say they want – reduced CO2 emissions – and have a vastly more energy dense, and safer, source of energy. This will provide the world with the opportunity to make another leap forward in standard of living and human wellbeing as happened each previous time the world found a more energy dense source of energy. Previous times were when man learnt to control fire, domesticated animals to pull a plough and pump water, learnt to use wood and charcoal to smelt and later to drive engines, then coal, then oil and gas. These previous increases in energy density were small compared with the leap from fossil fuels to nuclear power.
So, my agenda is to advocate an economically rational policy that should give the CAGW alarmists what they say they want, as well as give the world an opportunity to improve its standard of living and human wellbeing faster than will happen with the economically damaging policies being advocated by the CAGW alarmists (such as carbon pricing and renewable energy).
Max, I would like to clarify one thing were I’d advocate a slightly different approach than you wrote in your comment. You said:
I agree with all that, but it is not what I see as the most important thing the US President could do. I suggest the most important things the next US President could do to promote a leap forward that will benefit of the whole world most are:
1. Make it very clear in his speeches that nuclear power is good for the world – lead the US citizens to agree they need to support development of nuclear power.
2. Direct that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) be changed from top to bottom. A revolutionary change is needed not an evolutionary change. The NRC needs to change its focus from being only on safety to being first and foremost on providing low cost energy (the cost of energy includes the cost of safety just as it does in any other industry). I suspect it is near impossible to change the culture of a bureaucracy like NRC to the extent required so the practical solution might be improve it for regulating the Gen 3 (water moderated) reactors and establish a totally new NRC for Gen 4 reactors.
3. My most important point is that making it easier to build the current generation of nuclear power plants in USA is of limited hep to most of the rest of the world. The Gen 3 nuclear power plants are too big for most electricity grids in the world. What I would like to see USA do is to focus on making small, modular nuclear power plants cost competitive with fossil fuels. Below I list some reasons why I advocate the USA should focus on developing small nuclear power plants that are suitable for use throughout the whole world.
Here is how we could get to low cost nuclear:
We need as much competition as possible. Competition improves the technology and reduces costs. We need competition from companies in the manufacturing countries – USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China. Korea, Japan – building small modular nuclear power plants on production lines like aircraft. Small is essential for several reasons:
a. only small power plants can fit easily into most electricity grids around the world
b. small units can be ordered ‘just in time’, once demand is assured
c. small can be constructed and installed quickly, thus reducing investor risks
d. small can be built in factories, shipped to site, returned to factory for refuelling
e. small can be manufactured on production lines like aircraft, turned out rapidly and with good quality control
f. small leads to faster rate of improvement because more are manufactured and lessons learned are built into the next model more quickly.
g. More competition between more manufacturers leads to faster rate of improvement
Examples of small modular nuclear reactors here (see also the ones accessible from the left margin):http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html
Yikes, me reply ter Climate Weenie,8/10 11.30 am posted on wrong thread,
‘Weak’ in Review (
The best question to debate ?
It depends who with. With the climate deniers on CE it doesn’t really matter. It’s a bit like fighting Zombies. You can’t kill them – they are already dead and if you do succeed with one, there’s always another of the undead climbing out of the grave to have a go at you.
They’ll shift from one argument to another, and then right back to the first one again, even when their argument has been shown to be incorrect.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8177/8069906661_d34796f648.jpg
temp,
killing zombies is not a particularly challenging task. The tools are readily available and with proven capability.
well, I guess that is no longer the case down under –
Life affirmation Tempterrain, is about celebration of human creativity, freedom, human development of critical thinking and impartial rule of law, by human ingenuity and laughter. It’s expressed through the Greek chorus in Antigone, a play about freedom of choice, through Socrates’ questionning of entrenched authority and by the mores of the *open society,* parliamentary and market economy system, tempterrain. It is most certainly not yer ‘zombie undead’. I would not even wish ter label authoritarian followers of oracle shamen on the hill ‘zombie undead’… the term is repellant. Tsk.
Beth Cooper
Aw, c’mon Beth. Take it easy on poor tempterrain.
He’s got an overactive imagination coupled with an underactive sense of logic.
Plus, he’s basically a scaredy-cat, who sees hobgoblins, bogeymen and (yes) even zombies around every corner, all working against his vision of a socially just world.
Try to cheer him up with one of your poems.
Max
Do nothing except what local conditions warrant. Basing anything on predictions with the miserable qualifications of the GCMs is inane.
You Have $75 Billion To Save the World
How would you spend it?
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/copenhagen_consensus_2012/2012/05/copenhagen_consensus_how_to_save_the_world_on_a_budget_of_75_billion_.html
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html
Chief
The list compiled by Bjørn Lomborg makes sense (on a global basis).
The US President might see some other higher US priorities, but neither his list, nor Lomborg’s has “cutting GHG emissions to avert climate disaster” on it.
Interestingly, even the UN Development Programme list does not include mitigation of AGW. Wonder what happened?
Max
It’s been combined into general mitigation of fossil fuel use, driven by he growing difference between the haves and the have-nots. And the haves have a lot to be concerned about.
manacker
Per Springer’s reproof, my apologies for my rudeness and missing the forest for the first tree on your “there ain’t no mo” response at Rebuilding Public Trust. Please see my detailed reply to your substance.
On the Copenhagen Consensus, one year’s interest on Obama’s $5 trillion more debt would have paid for ALL the top 16 global humanitarian projects – and what did we get for that enormous sum into government with the debt on our children?
Time to restore ethical stewardship in government.
Note that Lomborg et al. document how research into sustainable energy will likely be the most effective way to invest in the future, with mitigating greenhouse gases at the bottom of the list. See their publications on Climate.
According to the administration what we got for our $5 trillion was avoiding a collapse of the world financial system so we got a severe recession instead of circa 1929 global depression.
Entirely speculative of course. We can’t go back in time and see what the consquences would have been if our government had not borrowed $5 trillion and spent it like a drunken sailor. So don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just giving the stock answer you’d get if you asked a liberal economist.
The mitigation strategy is exactly the same for replacing fossil fuels as for reducing greenhouse gases ⇶ reduce reliance on fossil fuels by going to sustainable energy!
Can it be any more simple than this?
Of course it can’t get any simpler, yet this is not within the realm of the fake skeptics world-view, who have a different underlying agenda at their core.
I wonder what that agenda could be?
Whatever the agenda, mitigating greenhouse gases by association goes to the top of the list ⇶ ⇶ reducing reliance on fossil fuels !
I like logic.
re; Lomborg
Completely agree with you. CO2 mitigation shouldn’t even be on the list of things that need to be done until it can be demonstrated that the known benefits of higher atmospheric CO2, as well as the lower cost of energy production when CO2 emission is not subject to constraint, are outweighed by the imagined negatives. In other words the maxim “If it isn’t broken don’t try to fix it” is apt. We know plenty of things that are actually broken and the cost/benefit of fixing them. Lomborg lists many such known problems which should, in any sane analysis, have priority over CO2 mitigation.
David Hagen
No problem – no offense.
I just replied to both you and David Springer on the other thread.
Don’t think our views on this are that far apart.
Max
PS Agree that the US needs a change of direction before it goes down the same path as Greece. This will most likely require a change of government – but that will be up to US voters.
Web Hub Telescope
Reduce dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers, high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint):
– encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)
– encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)
– encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)
– encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)
– encourage local oil and gas exploration (“drill, baby, drill”)
– encourage “clean coal” projects (tax incentives)
– set goal to become energy independent within ten years
This course will have the side benefit that it will result in a long-term slowdown of fossil fuel combustion and CO2 generation – and a continuation or even acceleration of the current improvement rate of the “carbon efficiency” of the USA (GDP generated per ton of CO2 emitted).
Are we on the same track here?
Max
Yep!
The US committed to the Millennium Development Goals and increasing aid to 0.7% of GDP. Not even close. Nor is Australia’s aid btw.
There are many carbon mitigation outcomes that emerge from development – reducing population pressures, greater capacity to invest in better technology and in ecosystem conservation and restoration, improved farming techniques.
But the great improvements come not from aid but in fostering free markets supported by democracy, the rule of law and good governance. One of the problems is that energy is not cheap or abundant enough from conventional sources to meet global development aspirations. We need new and cheaper sources of energy (and not limits and higher costs) to meet development goals – and there are dozens of potentially viable technologies.
The most effective – and certainly the most cost-effectve – means of taking carbon from the atmosphere is also the best means of feeding the world, conserving and building the soil resource, conserving water and conserving environments and biodiversity.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/components/7402_02.html
‘The problem’ is not a problem of carbon in the atmosphere as such but in seeing ‘the problem’ in such a narrow focus that solutions are limited.
Part of the solution to be forged this century is in new ways of managing the global commons – ways that go beyond the business/government duality to inclusive and informed networks.
It is a geo-political neccessity for the US.
http://csis.org/files/publication/twq10julydenmark.pdf
Yesterday, I posted a question to be considered which I thought was reasonably provocative.
@@@
Should the world commit economic suicide by reducing our consumption of cheap fossil fuels on the basis of the hypothesis of CAGW, when we know that there is absolutely no empirical data whatsoever to support this hypothesis?
@@@
I was very pleased to see that this idea received quite a lot of aupport. However, I notice that none of the denizens of Climate Etc. who are proponents of CAGW have challenged my claim that “we know that there is absolutely no empirical data whatsoever to support this hypothesis (CAGW)?”
Putting this another way, are there any proponents of CAGW who have the scientific integrity to agree that this statement is correct? I suspect not.
willard (@nevaudit) | October 8, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
David Springer,
Once we establish the physical basis of what CO2 does, we could follow up by looking at its biogeochemistry, one of the chapter Latimer Adler might have glimpsed, if only because his alleged background in chemistry:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html
Online bitch-slapping does not hurt much. In fact, I see no reason for you to motivate me to drop citation after citation of documents you’re supposed to have read. Quotes will soon follow.
—————————————————————————————-
I’m waiting for those quotes. What’s the hold up?
David Springer,
Please follow my owngoing exchanges with Latimer. They’re all over this page. I’m sure you’ll be able to find them.
Get yourself an RSS reader!
Curry writes: “This [What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?] is a very good question to ponder, its at the heart of the climate policy debate.”
It’s a bogus question as it presupposes regretful consequences. The classic illustration of this logical fallacy is “Do you still beat your wife?”.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
David Springer,
While trying to find a good page for the expression “for argument’s sake”, which you seem to conflate with a petitio principi, I stumbled upon this essay which seems meant for you.
The title is For Argument’s Sake; Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?
A random quote:
> Smashing heads does not open minds. In this as in so many things, results are also causes, looping back and entrapping us. The pervasiveness of warlike formats and language grows out of, but also gives rise to, an ethic of aggression: We come to value aggressive tactics for their own sake — for the sake of argument. Compromise becomes a dirty word, and we often feel guilty if we are conciliatory rather than confrontational — even if we achieve the result we’re seeking.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/argsake.htm
As if the author knew your act.
Which CO2 physical properties can warm the atmosphere?
My question for what it’s worth is as follows: ‘what is the optimum global temperature required to support a population of 9bn in thirty year’s time?
Okay, Max, I mean Max _at not OK, lol,
I’ll send tempt one of me short poems, that’ll do him… Hope yer don’t find the last line too worying tt ?
Showers came,and the web became
A tiny galaxy strung with crystal spheres,
Filaments of light in suspended orbit
Around the lurking shadow at its hub.
Beth
I love it (and I’m sure tempterrain will, too)
Should soothe.
Max
what about…
” where is the evidence that the warming since the LIA is not wholly or mainly natural, given that the earth’s temperature is well within its centennial behaviour?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
or “how does current temperature compare with the last 12000 years and is current warming anomalous statistically?”
or
“why do we suppose several degrees warming would be bad rather than good?”
“if there is no ‘best’ temperature, can the earth’s population just take a vote on which direction they’d be happiest with temperature moving in?” – i vote warmer summers and colder, more snowy winters (UK)
Revkin writes: “While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear. ”
Clear to whom? Utterly without foundation except in the most general (hence meaningless) ways…which is to say that the earth is always changing in profound ways. The connection between any long term change and Co2 emissions is far from established. How do these people get away with this stuff?
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model
predictions
We have tested the proposition that greenhouse model simulations and trend observations can be reconciled. Our conclusion is that the present evidence, with the application of a robust statistical test, supports rejection of this proposition. (The use of tropical tropospheric temperature trends as a metric for this test is important, as this region represents the CEL and provides a clear signature of the trajectory of the climate system under enhanced greenhouse forcing.) On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.
In summary, the debate in this field revolves around the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface. What is new in this article is the determination of a very robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations which disagree with trends from the models.
The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf
On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface.
Translation:
The suite of climate models that Western academia provide to us have been made de facto fortunetellers depicting what many of us believe to be a failed forecast of disastrous climate change calamity caused by industrial man in general and America in particular and I think such global warming fearmongers, really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”
To put Web in the picture, the root cause of most climate skepticism was the dawning realization that most climate alarmism was driven by agendas other than the actual climate – typically a desire for a more totalitarian society with more taxes and so on. Or, in his own case, apparently some anti-fossil-fuel-corporation mania, which then pushes forward his reams of motivated logic here.
As with most of the denizens here, Vassily, you appear to fit well with the conclusions of Lewandowsky et al:
interestingly
Looking forward to you treating us to the rest of your oeuvre of rejectionism.
VTG fits the description of a warming alarmist that advocates implementing ideas with no knowledge what the proposals he advocates will accomplish except that they will cost more for many people alive today.
Try to be realistic and practical and to not be untruthful in your generalizations
Rob, interested in what is untruthful? I would generalise that most denizens here are very strongly free markets driven. Lewandowsky predicts rejection of science as a result, and we certainly see most people here reject the science. Where’s the lack of truth?
Rob –
In reading comments here and other locations around the “skeptosphere,” do you doubt that there is a strong correlation between rather extremist libertarian (or libertarian-like) ideology and climate “skepticism?”
I’m not saying that it is a causal relationship (I suspect that both attributes are attributed to a different “cause,” although libertarian ideology may be a moderator or mediator in the actual causal relationship). And the correlation isn’t as strong outside the blogosphere (although there, also, there is a strong correlation between political ideology and views on climate change), and the existence of a correlation doesn’t really say anything about the science, but surely you see that there is a correlation.
Don’t you?
VTG
Attempting to link the positions of people on policies towards the climate and the positions of other people regarding the cause of AIDS or yet other peoples position regarding smoking is untruthful.
Joshua
I would personally not think it is appropriate to generalize the beliefs of all people who might describe themselves as libertarian.
To play a thought game with you, if you accept the definition of a libertarian as someone who generally favors as small and efficient of a government as is reasonably practical to do the job that has been assigned to it, then I would agree that those with this viewpoint would be skeptical of increasing the size, roll, or cost of the government unless or until there was clear evidence that there was a need for the government to take action.
In the case of climate related proposed actions, I can understand that those who might call themselves libertarians would feel that there is very poor fidelity regarding what harms (for the USA) we are trying to stop, and what benefits will come to the US taxpayer in the event the actions sometimes proposed are implemented. What I have difficulty understanding is why everyone, regardless of political viewpoint; does not ask these same questions before advocating implementing an action.
Rob –
I agree. I’m not talking about generalizing the beliefs of “all people” who have any particular self-identified ideology.
I am not a libertarian, yet I share that set of beliefs. The difference between me and many of those who self-identify as libertarian lies in how we reach conclusions based on that set of beliefs. For example, I have met many libertarians who object to progressive taxation to pay for various services, who think that there should be basically no federal spending on infrastructure like roads or public transportation, or public education. Although I favor a small and efficient government, I do not think that it entails such extreme measures w/r/t federal spending.
Just because someone doesn’t share your conclusions about those questions does not mean that they don’t ask the questions.
It seems to me that you framed your answer in such a way as to avoid directly answering the question I asked. Please read my question again, and if so inclined, provide a more direct answer.
Joshua
You write that you “have met many libertarians who object to progressive taxation to pay for various services, who think that there should be basically no federal spending on infrastructure like roads or public transportation, or public education.”
Interestingly, I am in Texas today and discussed what you wrote with several people here who consider themselves to be libertarian. None of them felt those were libertarian viewpoint generally held and they considered people taking those viewpoint as extreme (one used the term nutcase). I do not consider what you wrote to be other than an EXTREME libertarian position. A high percentage of extreme positions are unsupportable upon closer review.
Rob
It might be offensive, unpalatable, distressing even, but it’s not untruthful. It’s backed up by measured evidence.
Also, specifically on smoking, you’ll note that the same organisations and in some cases, even the same people, fought the war against tobacco science that are now engaged in the campaign against climate science.
VTG
You appear to be acting untruthfully by writing that people who are skeptical that proposed climate mitigation actions make sense are the same as people or of the same type who did not believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, or that smoking did not cause cancer. It is an unfortunate attempt to wrongly generalize people’s positions and thereby somehow to strengthen the support of your beliefs. It is untruthful, because you have little to no objective data to support your stated conclusion and you know that.
The evidence in each of the situations was completely different and people’s positions should be evaluated based upon the evidence upon which they based their conclusion. I challenge you to answer the 3 questions I asked earlier in this thread. Maybe we can actually address specific issues
Again, no, it is not untruthful. I referenced a scientific paper which shows clear evidence that both positions are predicted by an attachment to free market economic ideology.
This does NOT mean, of course that everyone who is a free market libertarian automatically rejects climate science, tobacco science or AIDS science. But it does mean that is is more likely that they will compared to the general population.
An inconvenient truth.
Rob –
As just a few examples, Ron Paul – probably the most prominent libertarian in the country – wants to eliminate income taxes. He says that government-funded research (e.g., the money spent on AIDS research) is a “waste of money.” He opposes anti-trust legislation. He would overturn the Civil Rights act of 1964. He’s against the licensing of doctors. He said that recent hostilities between North and South Korea were possibly orchestrated by the Obama administration to to “boost the dollar.”
Ask your libertarian acquaintances about those views also. Now maybe they think that Ron Paul is a “nutcase” – but he’s probably representative of a fairly large group of libertarians.
” …endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science…”
That’s what Lewandowsky says, but McIntyre suspects a lot of free-market endorsers are actually sneaky greenies just pretending to be free-marketers and saying outrageous things so they can make the public think climate science skeptics are fools. There may be a few of those posting here at Climate, etc.
The only people sneaky greenies are likely to convince that free-market endorsements are foolish, are other greenies ever more stupid and ignorant than themselves.
And I don’t think McIntyre takes that view of free-market endorsements in general, even though he himself is not particularly freedom-oriented. That’s probably just another Lewandowski pal-reviewed ‘fact’.
Bated,
you misunderstand the research entirely. It says nothing of the foolishness or otherwise of freemarket libertarianism, it merely points out that following that ideology is a predictor scientific rejectionism.
Max
I wasn’t commenting on Lewadowski’s ‘research’, but on what what you (wrongly) said McIntyre said about it.
Max_OK
‘Fess up, Okie.
U one of them guys that’s tryin’ ta make climuht a-lar-mists look stoopid?
If so shame on U.
Max_not from OK
Very Tall Guy
Does that mean that “anti-libertarian” (i.e. “socialistic”) mindset is a predictor of scientific gullibility?
Just checking.
Max
manacker said on October 9, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Max_OK
‘Fess up, Okie.
___________
Damn ! Where’s my check from Fartland ?
Not that you are likely to take it Max, but a piece of advice.
Relying on the Lewandowski paper in any discussion is a sure fire way to classify yourself as either gulliable or of an idiological bent that is highly susceptable to believe in any report that supports your preconceptions, no matter how badly done or of such low scholarly standards.
If Professor Lewandowski had any professional integrity he would be back pedaling as fast and as far as possible from his paper. Eating a little crow is a small price to pay for one’s integrity, assuming one has some in the first place.
VTG,
How about rejection of these “theories” or threats:
ALAR,
Killer Bees,
Acid Rain,
SARS,
Ozone hole
Time has shown how deadly and harmful these all were. Uh, wait a minute. Time hasn’t shown this at all.
VTG,
Kudos for coming up with the funniest comment of the day.
I’m referring to this gem:
“I referenced a scientific paper which shows clear evidence that both positions are predicted by an attachment to free market economic ideology.”
I’d have been lucky not to get a D from the Brothers back in High School had I submitted work the quality of Prof Lewandowski’s recent paper, let alone at a college or grad school level.
Go ahead and refer to it as often as you want. It’s only your credability at risk.
btw, do you guys know that Lewandowski’s faked results were so bad, it turns out that actually CAGW *believers* are actually more prone to dispute the lunar landings etc. Not by much, but still.
This would be the Lewandowsky report that was fabricated from start to finish.
Vassily,
Lewandowsky prediction: you would reject scientific findings.
Your summary of his peer reviewed scientific paper:
Priceless.
VTG
Do you “believe” in “peer review”?
(If so, see my previous post.)
Max
Indeed Lewandowsky himself fits the model exactly. His parade of lies is rooted in his position as state employee and statist ideologue.
I suggest an automatic weapon. Shooting yourself in the foot is much easier that way.
Indicates a lack of familiarity with weapons.
What else do you like to comment on without having any substantive knowledge?
Pacific eases further away from El Niño thresholds
The chance of El Niño developing in 2012 has reduced over the past fortnight. The tropical Pacific continued its retreat from El Niño thresholds for the second consecutive fortnight (i.e., ocean temperatures cooled), remaining within the neutral range (neither El Niño nor La Niña). Other ENSO indicators such as the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and tropical cloud patterns have persisted at neutral levels since late July.
Given the rate of ocean cooling, and the continued neutral conditions in the atmosphere, the chance of an El Niño developing in 2012 has reduced further over the past fortnight. However, some risk still remains while the trade winds in the western Pacific continue to be weaker than normal. Climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology have increased their chances of sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean remaining at neutral levels, though still warmer than average, for the remainder of 2012.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
This current “head fake” with the rather weak to non-existent El Nino is consistent with the continuing cool phase of the PDO. However, one should be very careful in thinking about what this means for overall ocean heat content. El Nino’s are periods where in general more heat is tranferred from ocean to troposphere. A weaker or ENSO neutral period simply means the oceans are keeping more of their energy, and in fact, ocean heat content has been growing in the central to western Pacific at depths below the surface as shown in the latest ENSO weekly report:
[IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/qz2bye.jpg[/IMG]
1. “Mr. President, how much funds were spent in all different departments of government to limit global climate change under your administration, and how much change in global temperatures did you achieve?”
2. ‘Mr. Romney, how much funds will you spend in all different departments of government to limit global climate change, and how much change in global temperatures do you expect to achieve?”
tempterrain
You were kind enough to post a cartoon.
Let me post you mine.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8314/8071288241_100fe82a9d_b.jpg
Cheers!
Max
“Global warming and Mann have been worth millions of grant dollars and lots of publicity for Penn State. But one would think the institution’s integrity is worth more.”
~Steve Milloy
I’d never heard of Steven Milloy. To me integrity is very important and skepticism is vital. Let’s apply both to Milloy via the magic of google, shall we?
refs sourcewatch, wiki
Integrity my arse.
Steve Milloy got paid to do science and policy analysis regarding the second hand smoke issue and CAGW. Penn State did a cover up. There is a difference.
Penn State has an Integrity Crisis so you attack Steve Milloy, founder and publisher of JunkScience.com. Shocker.
You chose to quote him. I’d never even heard of the guy. Doesn’t sound very rational though.
That Penn State’s. integrity you’d thing woudl be worth more?
Steven Mosher | October 9, 2012 at 2:08 am
Oh, please, your nastiness is uncalled for, particularly when you are simply making things up. You claim that the issue was that Jones lost the data, which was never the problem:
Learn to read, Steven. As I said above, the issue is not that he lost data. That’s just your puerile claim. You keep trying to pretend that data loss was the problem with Jones’s actions. Data loss was not the problem, you know it was not the problem, and yet you still are claiming it was. Fortunately for us, repeating your ludicrous claim doesn’t make it true.
The problems were that a) Jones lied about losing the data and gamed the FOI system to avoid revealing the data loss, b) his friends lied to cover it up, c) when the lies were discovered, very few mainstream scientists were willing to say anything negative about his actions, and d) the investigations of his actions were a pathetic joke.
Or to quote my exact words from above, which you seem incapable of either reading or responding to:
So how about you deal with the real issues, and stop your unsustainable pretense that the issue was Jones losing data? You lose data, Lucia and I lose data, everyone loses data.
But not everyone lies to avoid a Freedom of Information request.
w.
“You keep trying to pretend that data loss was the problem with Jones’s actions.”
But we were told repeatedly by climate skeptics that the lost data was a big problem: that the basis of “global warming theory” had been lost and other such nonsense. As one example of thousands here is Patrick Michael’s take at NationalReview:
“Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels
Funny how you and your pals have not a whisper to say about the actions of those such as Patrick Micheal’s on the subject of this lost data. There’s never an audit of their articles is there….
Even though from what you’ve said you must agree Patrick Micheal’s claims about the significance of the lost data are hideously wrong and so by extension the VERY dramatic conclusion he spreads will misinform anyone reading them. That’s whether Patrick Micheal’s is aware of what he’s done or not.
All your efforts are trained on Phil Jones, despite you admitting the lost data was irrelevant.
So what did Phil Jones do then? How did he misinform people? Well he didn’t did he. All he did was not admit some irrelevant data was lost. The only substantial thing that did is prevent Patrick Micheals and co from “using” that fact as they did. So if say Phil Jones did it precisely for that reason, it would fall under “white lie” category.
In comparison I wonder what category Patrick Micheal’s actions on the matter fall under.
iolwot
You missed out the next crucial sentences.
‘Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.”
The rest of the article then provides context. I quite like Phil jones’s work, in fact one of his books is on my Christmas present list (hint)
The basic point as I understand it from Willis was that Jones deliberately avoided responding to a FOI request.
tonyb
Willis.
was responding to a poster who claimed that Jones had lost the data
OF COURSE I will discuss the data loss. like DUH!
“The problems were that a) Jones lied about losing the data and gamed the FOI system to avoid revealing the data loss, b) his friends lied to cover it up, c) when the lies were discovered, very few mainstream scientists were willing to say anything negative about his actions, and d) the investigations of his actions were a pathetic joke.
A) he didnt game the FOIA system to avoid revealing the data loss. We have no evidence that is why he gamed the system. Its far more likely that he decided to game the system BEFORE HE EVEN CHECKED for the the data.
B) His friends lied to cover up? And this says what about Jones?
You best be careful about friends lying to protect friends. It will
not end well.
C) Agreed. And this says nothing about Jones or his data “loss”
D) Agreed. And this says nothing about the data loss.
The OP asked about the data loss. I answered. You cited lincoln because you have no words or ideas of your own on the issue at hand.
get it. you used a simple question to get on your soap box and crow bar your issues into the subject. I hit you with your crowbar. Next time, leave it in the toolbox
Climate is an extremely complex and a poorly understood system. Our best course of action today is NO ACTION. Rather. let’s attempt to understand the climate better. Here the action is: better computers, better software, better data.
quote
What do you see as the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets?
unquote
Policy one: get the science right, or at least as right as possible, certainly righter than it is at the moment. To this end, try to ensure that the ‘handwaving adjustments’ of AR4 are addressed: it is not good enough to leave the error bounds so wide on clouds and aerosols that they provide a get out of jail free card for sloppy modelling. This will reduce the number of climate models which can be tweaked to fit the data and will mean we have a better idea of the crisis, if crisis there is. The IPCC system is not adequate as it fails to direct climate science to where the puzzles are.
Policy 2: we will eventally need non-fossil fuel power generation even if the CO2 bogeyman turns out to be a will o’ the wisp. Research and pre-produce new technology so that we are ready when the time comes.
Policy 3: suspend all manipulation of the price of power. This will encourage development in the 3rd world and bring up their standard of living, the surest way to limit population growth. Fewer people in the future will ensure that the problem, if it exists, will be more controllable.
Policy 4: wait. Wait until you know what’s going on before e.g. introducing mercury lighting or hacking down the rainforests for biofuels, Wait until you know you are not storing up greater problems in the future.
JF
Oh, yes, try some blue sky research. Fill a tanker with oil and/or surfactant and spill it on the ocean. Watch the water warm… measure oil spill down the rivers… quantify the extra warming around polluted runoff… etc rave froth.. Kriegsmarine effect… burble…
Julian
I would like to amplify your point 2. We need renewable energy if only to ensure energy security in both senses of the word.
The world funded CERN which has a fairly nebulous concept at its heart. Far more useful would be to fund an energy CERN whereby all the advanced nations come together in an Apollo type mission to create new/more efficient/cheaper forms of renewable energy within 10 years. The desirable end results would cater for slightly different needs, for example solar power will be a solution to some countries but not others whilst wave/tidal would work well in those countries with an appropriate coastline but be pointless for say switzerkand..
In the meantime watch and wait and see if there is a climate problem. If there is we have created the solution, if there isnt we have created new sources of much needed energy
tonyb
Tonyb,
Have you made any attempt to do the maths. Renewable energy can make very little contribution to global energy needs. Its a waste of time, resources and an enormous waste of money.
Pete Lang
Yes I have, I wrote a peer reviewed artcle on wave/tidal energy.
For a country such as the UK surrounded by often stormy seas and powerful tides and where nowhere is further than 70 miles from the sea it probably makes sense. Solar doesnt here but might do in Spain if it were developed better than today.
Wave/tidal technology is currently 20 years behind wnd which in itself is woefully inadequate Thats why I suggest a collective effort is required, but in the meantime I cant see any alternative to fossil fuels as a mainstay.
However pesonally I worry about energy security (we dont have enough of it here) and in the other sense I don’t like the idea of being in thrall to fossil fuel suppliers who basically don’t like us.
tonyb
Peter Lang
I wrote Peter in my post but it got truncated to ‘Pete’. Sorry if you don’t like the shortened version.
tonyb
verytallguy | October 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Reply
verytallguy, how about you demand some integrity from and apply some skepticism to your sources? You quote from Sourcewatch, so I thought I’d see how good they are. I looked up Anthony Watts. They say:
Let’s start with the word “denier”. This word is only in there to scare you. What is it that they think Anthony is “denying”? They don’t say. The use of the word merely shows they have taken a side. Which is ok, but it also means you can’t take their word for anything, they have an axe to grind.
Second, Anthony has done scientific work, work that is published in the scientific journals, so he is assuredly a scientist.
Third, while Anthony did get one grant from the Heartland Institute for a particular research study, he is not a “paid AGW denier” in any sense. That’s simply not true. Anthony (like myself) gets nothing for the work that he has done and continues to do. He’d love to be paid for it, but he is not, and your site is either ignorant or lying when they make that claim.
Fourth, Anthony organized a project which has successfully surveyed, mapped and photographed nearly every weather station in America … and they have the balls to say he has “no climate credentials”?
Fifth, he is not “on the payroll of” the Heartland Institute, that’s a joke. He got grant money for one project.
Sixth, they say Heartland is “funded by polluting industries”, by which I assume they mean a bit of money Mobil Oil gave Heartland some years ago … but since Mobil also gives money to Stanford University, many times the money that Mobil gave to Heartland, is Stanford University now suspect because it is “funded by polluting industries”?
Finally, their only citation for their claims is to an early report of the forged Heartland document circulated by Peter Gleick. The report treats the forged document as though it were real. Stupidity, laziness, or dishonesty are the possible explanations for them citing a document which is known to be forged. Your choice.
This deceptive, shabby, false characterization of Anthony on Sourcewatch is nothing but vindictive venom. verytallguy, you say that you want to apply some skepticism … I’m skeptical of Sourcewatch, they have an axe to grind, they haven’t done their homework, they rely on a forged document, they are telling porkies …
In closing, the issue is not Milloy and what he has or hasn’t done. The issue is whether some particular claim of his is true or not. Milloy could be a believer in pyramid power, he could have been on Che Guevara’s payroll, he could be the janitor, none of that makes any difference.
The only valid question is whether a specific scientific claim is correct. It has nothing to do with the history, style, or attributes of the person who is making the claim. The real question, the question worth pursuing, the only scientific question, is whether the specific claim is true or not.
So let me invite you to forget about Milloy, drop that question, and concentrate on whatever claim of his you think is wrong. That way, you might get some traction.
w.
PS—And for goodness sakes, don’t be so trusting of random information that comes to you by what you call “the magic of google” …
The global warming fearmongers have long been little more than ad hominem attack dogs of the Left.
Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more
In a strange way, I admire your tenacity, your sheer determination to fall into the elephant trap
Determination? It has been determined that sufferers of Hot World Syndrome are far more likely to be egalitarian communitarians and not the scientifically literate who are skilled in numeracy and who respect the teachings of the scientific method as the only rational means of ever hoping to escape the superstition and ignorance of trusting in the magic of witchdoctors.
Waggo,
keep digging
Would you like a spade?
Do you consider yourself a contradiction or are your beliefs really very predictable? For example, Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.
Willis,
I took the liberty of using sourcewatch and wiki for Milloy because it was easy. I provided the references so you could check them. You don’t seem to have found anything there to disagree with, you’ve rather diverted into a dissertation on Anthony Watts, which I hope you will forgive me for not responding to.
If you don’t like the secondary sources I used, you could try and follow the references there. If any of what I said is proved wrong thereby I will immediately retract it. I hope you would characterise that as showing integrity in my commenting.
Now, the comment I was responding to used Steve Milloy to question someone else’s integrity. If you use a quotation to do that then I think it’s reasonable to check up the integrity of the person quoted.
Said integrity appears very obviously sadly lacking, on the basis of what I could find. I find that relevant. It informs me as to the intentions of the person commenting. It allows me to form an opinion as to how likely their claim is to be true. It allows me, indeed, to ignore the claim if I find the person making it lacks credibility.
In my opinion, on the basis of my very limited research, Steve Milloy lacks integrity. I therefore find it very unlikely that his claims are worthy of note. I will not be wasting my time investigating them.
If, of course, you can provide evidence that Steve Milloy is in fact trustworthy, truthful and worthy of taking seriously, then I’ll look into his claims.
Good luck with that.
Dear verytallguy,
for your private usage it is OK to use any source that is easy to use, without bothering to check its accuracy. But this forum is not very private. Either don’t post questionable data, or try to do it right.
What are you questioning exactly?
If you think what I sourced was wrong the references are there for you to follow and prove it. That’s why I provided the reference.
If you can’t be bothered, I’ll assume the information is correct, if that’s OK with you.
There’s plenty out there on Milloy. None of it is pretty. That’s the value of skepticism see.
Dear verytallguy:
It is not my responsibility to check the quality of your references. It is YOUR responsibility. I don’t have to disprove your crap. YOU have to prove it.
Dear George,
I provided you with the references. You don’t like them – debunk by all means, provide better ones or accept mine.
Put up. Or shut up. Simples
Dear verytallguy:
Willis showed you that how your “source” – sourcewatch – treated Mr. Watts. That’s enough to prove that it is not impartial. You call it a diversion, I call it a debunking.
VTG,
so much for integrity.
In my opinion, on the basis of my very limited research, Steve Milloy lacks integrity.
If it isn’t crystal clear that sourcewatch is a slanted, biased, ridiculously partisan hack job site, then clealy you have zero reading comprehension skills. Who the f* cares what you have to say?
“Second, Anthony has done scientific work, work that is published in the scientific journals, so he is assuredly a scientist.”
I think a citation is called for on this point. Do you have a reference?
tempterrain | October 9, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply “Second, Anthony has done scientific work, work that is published in the scientific journals, so he is assuredly a scientist.”
_____
Maybe in a generic sense only. Show me the PhD or at least some advanced graduate level coursework completed and then we can talk. My son doing a Science Fair project could be considered a “scientist”. What matters is the advanced studies. Does Anthony even have a Bachelors?
R. Gates,
Congratulation on your son getting a peer reviewed paper published.
Not visiting here often makes the deterioration in your reasonableness more apparent.
I think a citation is called for on this point.
No, peter martin, it’s up to you to fail to find a paper written by watts or fail to find one somehow based on his work. You cite game is tiresome idiocy.
Willis and Randomengineer,
I suspect that you both are just too embarrassed to tell me that Watts’ “scientific work” , “published” by the Heartland Institute in their “scientific journal” is:
http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/SurfaceStations.pdf
Am I right?
Willis,
Willis,
You comment “The issue is whether some particular claim of his [Steve Milloy] is true or not.” Well , yes of course it is, and it doesn’t matter, whether it’s “his” or “hers”, or who’s actually said it.
So that’s where having some qualifications does come in handy. Neither Steve Milloy nor Anthony Watts have any, so, they don’t know what they are talking about. Period. (as Americans like to say).
Furthermore if we look at other comments by Steve Milloy we can see he has other problems with consensus science.
On Evolution
“Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way – i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study – for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.”
On the partial ban on DDT
“Infanticide on this scale appears without parallel in human history,” writes Milloy. “This is not ecology. This is not conservation. This is genocide.”
On Air Pollution
air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem in 1970. That is even more the case today
On Second Hand Smoking
“the vast majority of studies reported no statistical association [to adverse health effects].”
There are others relating to asbestos, food safety etc. He’s not a scientist, just a right wing ideologue who applies the term “junk science” to anything that doesn’t align with his right-wing concept of reality.
There are some questions above I find quite interesting.
One is the issue of the atmosphere being a “commons”. It is owned by everyone and by no one. Anyone can dump just as much of any gas into the atmosphere as they please, and there is no cost or liability to doing so (except for some but not all short term harms).
A free market solution would be looking for ways to convert the atmosphere into private property, or at least some parts of the atmosphere. CO2 for example. Increase CO2 level enough, and much of the world is too hot for humans to live. Decrease CO2 level enough, and the world goes into a snowball, with the oceans frozen. There is geologic evidence that both have happened in the distant past.
So under what conditions should the atmosphere be converted to private property, and under what terms?
LOL–when someone had the power and will to enforce their view?
Phil Hays,
Its good you should recognise ” the issue of the atmosphere being a ‘commons’. It is owned by everyone and by no one”.
I’ve tried to engage some of the more rabid libertarian types to discuss the economics of common property but they don’t seem too interested. They don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that something which isn’t owned by anyone can possible have any value.
If it will help, I’ll volunteer to ‘own’ the atmosphere. Or maybe head up a not for profit trust. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one. Maybe an election to choose the most suitable option? I can hear the denialists screaming about UN controlled world government already!
So in your view, if the atmosphere is owned by all, then there could be a law under those guidelines to install a requirement to gain approval prior to allowing an additional human from being created who would consume so much of the shared resource? If not why not? Humans pump out alot of CO2
I have heard of people eating coal, but providing fossil fuels are only a small part of anyone’s diet then there’s not really a problem from CO2 exhaled from the human body.
I personally am reasonably happy that the atmosphere is owned by no-one, or everyone depending on which way you look at it, but if it helps the Libertarian types to get over their hang-ups on the question of communally owned property, it might be an idea to at least consider how it may be privatised.
“I personally am reasonably happy that the atmosphere is owned by no-one, or everyone depending on which way you look at it, but if it helps the Libertarian types to get over their hang-ups on the question of communally owned property, it might be an idea to at least consider how it may be privatised.”
Oh, let’s begin with definition of privatize:
“to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privatize
So to privatize anything first requires the public or government to own something.
So air doesn’t require of investment to deliver it to you- like say the water which comes from your kitchen tap.
If had settlement on the Moon which had some big dome in which air was put into it, and needed the air managed it start off as privately owned or could start off publically owned than at some point it could be privatized.
But on earth we don’t want someone [or government] owning the air- similar to idea we don’t want government or other people owning our bodies.
tempterrain
Your philosophical musings about who “owns” the atmosphere are interesting in an abstract way.
Let’s say that we move from the abstract to the real and apply the “commons” philosophy.
Does this mean that the “state” owns the air we breathe?
In the case of an autocratic dictatorship like Zimbabwe, does this mean that its leader, Robert Mugabe, owns the air everyone breathes, and could exact a per capita breathing fee from everyone, depending (for example) on lung capacity?
Or should this be “owned” at a supranational level, such as by the UN or possibly by a “World State”? Should this body have the right to charge each human on Earth a per capita breathing fee?
Should this fee be based on a “graduated” scale, so that wealthier nations (and individuals) pay a higher fee than poorer ones?
And, if such a graduated fee scale were introduced, should it be so structured that extremely poor regions (and individuals) pay a “negative: fee, i.e. receive a breathing rebate, which is paid by the wealthier nations (and individuals)?
Should there be a penalty for regions consuming larger quantities of air for industrial uses (primarily combustion of fossil fuels)?
And, if this is all implemented, who should calculate, collect and redistribute this money?
The mind boggles (shades of “Brave New World” squared).
Let’s leave it an abstract philosophical musing, rather than something “real”, OK?
Max
Who owns the climate?
Suppose North Korea starting pumping huge amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere. If done at a large enough scale, would cause the same cooling as a massive volcanic eruption. This might cause the failure of crops worldwide, much as Tambora did after the 1815 eruption. See the “Year With a Summer” or 1800 and “froze to death”.
Or if you don’t want to deal with international issues, suppose some corporation in your country did the same thing.
Do you have a right to complain, as you freeze and starve to death?
Phil Hays
If North Korea were a) foolish enough and b) able to do what you indicate, it would be a suicidal act.
But, fortunately, North Korea is not able to dramatically affect crop growth by polluting the atmosphere with SO2 (outside possibly Korea itself and maybe parts of eastern Siberia and Japan). The alternate of “shooting SO2 into the stratosphere” (John Holdren’s idea) is way too expensive for NK.
Figure it out.
And when you’ve calculated the amount of sulfur needed, the cost of this sulfur, the prevailing winds, precipitation along the way, etc.(or in the case of the stratosphere the cost to get the SO2 there in massive quantities) come back to me.
Max
PS If NK wanted to screw things up they could much more easily do so with dirty nuclear bombs, but even then the impact would be limited and the result suicidal.
PPS You apparently argue against “national ownership” of the atmosphere, but rather “global ownership” (by the UN or a “World State”?)
PPPS Why would “a corporation” want to do this? Don’t be silly.
Phil Hays | October 9, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
Who owns the climate?
Suppose North Korea starting pumping huge amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere. If done at a large enough scale, would cause the same cooling as a massive volcanic eruption. This might cause the failure of crops worldwide, much as Tambora did after the 1815 eruption. See the “Year With a Summer” or 1800 and “froze to death”.
Or if you don’t want to deal with international issues, suppose some corporation in your country did the same thing.
Do you have a right to complain, as you freeze and starve to death?
_____________
Interesting question. First of all, the atmosphere and oceans should be considered as part of the “global commons”, owned not by any single country, or in fact, by any single species. Certainly, any country, corporation, or individual attempting to disrupt or destroy the global commons would be committing an act of violence against all individuals, countries and even all species.. Any means necessary to stop such an action would be justified. Even if N. Korea’s actions had no reasonable chance of actually succeeding, if their attempt was done as a deliberate attempt to destroy the global commons, any means necessary to prevent them is justified. So you don’t just have the right to complain, you have the right to take any action necessary to prevent such actions. I would argue that, even in the case of supposed “beneficial” geoengineering efforts, it will take extreme certainty that such efforts will do more good than harm before such efforts are justified. Without that certainty, individuals and nations are justified in preventing such geogengineering efforts by any means necessary.
Phil Hays question is excellent.
I’ll alter it slightly though. What if a nation decided to pump out greenhouse gases to make their country warmer?
Could they? Well no country alone is going to be able to pump out more CO2 than the world is already, but there are far more stronger greenhouse gases than CO2. Sulfur Haxafluoride (SF6) is an artificial molecule (man-made, doesn’t occur in nature) and is the strongest greenhouse gas known at present. Just 30 million tons of SF6 would have the same global warming potential (GWP) as all the CO2 added to the atmosphere by man in the past few hundred years.
If a country such as Iran were to put as much effort into SF6 production as nuclear enrichment, how long would it take them to produce 30 million tons? 100 million? (they don’t even have to store it, they just release it). SF6 is inert and stays in the atmosphere for a loonnnng time.
Currently the world produces about 8000 tons of SF6 per year, but man isn’t really trying to produce it in volume, it’s just used in small and specific applications and the EU has heavily restricted it’s production. Even so levels of SF6 are slowly rising in the atmosphere: (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/insitu/cats/conc/mlosf6.html) and
If a nation was to embark on such a geo-engineering program, how would climate skeptics respond? Presumably they would dismiss the danger because a) no-one could prove how much exact warming would be caused and b) they’d argue a warmer world is better and of course c) countries are free to inject anything they want into the global atmosphere.
????
Or would we see a massive sudden dawning of realization as skeptics came to understand what CAGW is all about?
1) You apparently argue against “national ownership” of the atmosphere, but rather “global ownership” (by the UN or a “World State”?)
Who owns the climate? That is a question. Feel free to answer.
2) Why would “a corporation” want to do this?
Profit. That is why corporations do almost everything. Don’t ask me for the business plan, if one existed I would deny that it existed.
“Who owns the climate?
Suppose North Korea starting pumping huge amounts of sulpher dioxide into the stratosphere. If done at a large enough scale, would cause the same cooling as a massive volcanic eruption.”
First North Korea incapable of doing anything of such a significant effect- in terms of pollution.
So for N Korea have any chance, they would need to [somehow] focus their efforts emitting sulpher dioxide not as pollution as a weird weapon. And so, as any kind of act war, we would attack them using [better] weapons. So making so much sulpher dioxide could regarded as just a very stupid weapon. And if not deploying against anyone, they making so much it would kill them.
Let’s look at the scale of things:
“The results indicate that from 2000 to 2006, total SO2 emission in China increased by 53%, from 21.7 Tg to 33.2 Tg.”
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei19/session5/lu.pdf
So Tg is same as a million tonnes.
“The climactic June 15, 1991, eruption of Mount Pinatubo injected a minimum of 17 Mt (megatons) of SO2 into the stratosphere–the largest stratospheric SO2 cloud ever observed.”
So in 2006, China was almost doing two Mount Pinatubo eruptions quantities of SO2. And was doing at least one Mount Pinatubo eruptions of SO2 for many years.
N Korea population: 22 million
China: 1300 million
But you wanted Tambora eruption:
“The first eruption, ranked a 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), released two hundred million tons of sulphur dioxide and 100 cubic km of rock. ”
http://freepages.school-alumni.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~florian/the-rockdoctor/earth/volcano-1815.html
So 200 million tonnes is about 15% more then China 2000 to 2006 accumulative total SO2. Or less than 10 years of China’s emission during around this period.
Hmm, something during search:
Mega-colossal eruptions
Even more extreme eruptions have occurred in Earth’s past–eruptions ten times more powerful than the Tambora eruption, earning a ranking of 8 out of 8 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI). These “mega-colossal” eruptions occur only about once every 10,000 years, but have much longer-lasting climatic effects and thus are a more significant threat to human civilization. According to the Toba Catastrophe Theory, a mega-colossal eruption at Toba Caldera, Sumatra, about 74,000 years ago, was 3500 times greater than the Tambora eruption. According to model simulations, an eruption this large can pump so much sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere that the atmosphere does not have the capacity to oxidize all the SO2 to sulfuric acid aerosol. The atmosphere oxidizes as much SO2 as it can, leaving a huge reservoir of SO2 in the stratosphere. This SO2 gradually reacts to form sulfuric acid as the OH radicals needed for this reaction are gradually produced. The result is a much longer-lasting climate effect than the 1 – 2 years that the magnitude 6 and 7 events of 535, 1600, 1815, and 1991 lasted. A magnitude 8 eruption like the Toba event can cool the globe for 6 – 10 years (Figure 3), which may be long enough to trigger an ice age–if the climate is already on the verge of tipping into an ice age.”
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/volcanoes.asp
Anyhow, the ref above last one said first eruption did 200 MT of SO2,
did not say the total of all the subsequent eruptions of the Tambora eruption.
Btw, since talking about scale, 100 cubic km rock is about
200 billion tonnes- so SO2 is about 1/1000th of the total, which is the typical abundance of sulfur in the earth’s crust.
And not sure why the climate guys always are obsessing on a thing which are in trace quantities. Why the 1/1000 rather than the 999/1000 of anything.
To review, China already put a Tambora eruption amount in the atmosphere over a 10 year period. But it should noted it did not put it into the stratosphere.
Mostly it’s in troposphere and irritating the breathing of Chinese and smelling bad.
Again China: 1300 million and N Korea: 22 million
N Korea is dinky country and China is rather large. China using lots sulfur rich coal and doing a splendid job choking it’s people with all kinds of pollution, if did 5-10 times better job, they would be dying like flies.
Or if N Korea did the 10th of the job of the Chinese, the N Koreas would be killing themselves. And it took the Chinese 10 years to equal the amount of SO2 emission as Tambora eruptions. And you want the poor N Koreans to try to put it into the stratosphere. Probably halfway to implementing this coyote scheme, we bomb the hell out of them- just for fun.
So short answer is we would end the N Korean nation.
We should do that anyhow, but no nation would be on their side if they tried to do this, particularly since it probably would effect China as much as anywhere and China is the only reason N Korea exists.
It’s interesting what Saddam actually did- in terms the Kuwaiti oil fields, and the Left’s reaction [birds chirping].
But then again the left are always wonderful supporters or any and all totalitarian states. And the left seem constantly irritated when it’s about hundreds of millions of free people who are wealthy and fairly happy.
R gates,
I found this bit interesting:
“First of all, the atmosphere and oceans should be considered as part of the “global commons”, owned not by any single country, or in fact, by any single species.”
Are you arguing that ownership rights can be granted (for lack of a better term) to species other than humans?
I seem to recall there being case law on this, from when some from the environmental fringe tried to argue in court for trees to have standing before the law.
Phil Hays
So a “corporation” might want to destroy our planet for “profit”?
Huh?
Get serious, man.
That a self-destructive psychotic despot might want to do it for a warped concept of “revenge”, “hate”, “religion” or “social justice”, makes more sense.
Remember that Adolph Hitler said in the waning days of WWII that if the German people could not win the war they deserved to die.
Guys like that are still around in this world.
And they are NOT corporate CEOs.
Max
Phil Hays
“Who owns the atmosphere?”
Two answers, both correct.
1. Nobody. CERTAINLY NO political body or government, national or global.
2. Everybody. Every individual plant and animal on this planet, who benefits from it (plants from the CO2, animals from the O2).
Max
manaker,
I think some of the commentors here are missing an opportunity. Between Max and his alternate “green energy” history and Phil and lolwot with scenarios of rogue nations committing climate terrorism we have some possibly interesting novels. Phil’s in particular might be pretty good. I can see Mitch Rapp in North Korea.
I would note where such novels can be found. In the fiction section.
So under what conditions should the atmosphere be converted to private property, and under what terms?
This is a good question. One way would be to say that everyone who was alive a certain date had a share in the ownership of the atmosphere. The ownership could be put up for sale, or lease, with the winning tender having to satisfy certain preconditions such as that they couldn’t charge individuals for breathing the atmosphere, but they could charge anyone for discharging CO2 into it. Then we’d all get a payoff which, of course, would depend on the size of the winning bid.
tempterrain, privatizing the air
To the degree these conditions would be (I assume) imposed by the state, they nullify the privateness of air ownership. It’s phony/limited privatization, state control by other means.
Not saying it’s good or bad, just identifying it.
Why is there ownership of land? Sure, you buy land from someone, who bought it from someone and so on. But track that chain of purchases and sales back, and almost always the start of the chain was an act of the state, or another act of violence.
In a few cases, the chain goes back to the first owner who was the first person to ever walk on that land. But that is fairly rare.
Ownership of climate is harder, as there is only one climate system.
Climate and air ownership is harder, sure, in that some form of common ownership is needed, since parceling it up is not possible.
Cain’t do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
There are three comments by Tomas Milanovic over the past year that seem relevant to this discussion:
“I have always had difficulty with questions which stealthily already contain the answer.”
To me this says that Revkin’s question as posed is irrelevant; Revkin is answering his own question by the way he frames the question with the implied answer imbedded.
The next quote: “Never twice the same space.”
That is, the earth’s climate will not have the same set of conditions we can discern from the past. Therefore, however perfectly we can hindcast the past, we will not have the same conditions in the future; hence, what ever device or models we use to predict the future will always be uncertain.
The output of the IPCC WG1’s is trivial.
Knowing that Milanovic understands the current math and physics of climate systems, means to me that we can not have the WG1’s output as a core value in our understanding of climate change.
What was striking to me, Milanovic’s query is:” when is the next Ice Age?”
If we can understand what forces earth moves from glacial to interglacial and back, then we will have an improved understanding of climate.
“Second I ask whether a transitory during 1-2 centuries will cause the next Ice Age to occur rather sooner or rather later and if a translation, is predicted, by how much.”
To me these two queries reflect that our perspective on impactful climate change as being myopic. That is, the time line we are using: what will things be like in 2100 is way too short.
Going back to Revkin, he really doesn’t get it. He wants an answer for now, when the answer is: “later.”
RiHo08
You hit the nail on the head.
Revkin really doesn’t get it, as his structuring of his question reveals.
He has before him what he calls a clear “long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth”.
In his mind, this must be “bad” and, therefore, must be avoided (by the next US President).
This specter has been conjured up by a number of politicians with support from some (suddenly important) climatologists and formalized by IPCC, a political body set up specifically for this purpose.
Revkin has been gullible enough to fall for it without first doing the “due diligence” to ask for scientific evidence supporting the “long-term picture”.
He has further been naive enough to believe the arrogant anthropocentric notion that there is something that we (or, even more specifically the US President) could do to affect the “long-term picture” of our climate – there isn’t.
Finally, as you and Tomas have written, he has myopically fixated on a transitory 1-2 century “blip” in our future time, rather than looking at the real long-term picture.
We are in an interglacial period – this means that sooner or later we will return to much colder climate than today – and that will be “bad news” indeed.
THAT’s the “long-term picture”, Mr. Revkin.
Max
Profoundly colder, but profoundly survivable, too. Easier if prepared for, profoundly.
=======
Whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is bad or good is a question of science. And in science, truth and facts are not the playthings of causes, nor a touchstone of political correctness, nor true religion, nor “what I tell you three times is true.”
… In fact, CO2 levels are below the optimum levels for most plants, and there are persuasive arguments that the mild warming and increased agricultural yields from doubling CO2 will be an overall benefit for humanity. Let us debate and deal with serious, real problems facing our society, not elaborately orchestrated, phony ones, like the trumped-up need to drastically curtail CO2 emissions.
~Roger W. Cohen and William Happer
This would be interesting if we were likely to make a slow, modest increase in CO2 levels.
I see no reason to suspect that is the case.
Fyi– based on the geophysical record of the Earth Dr. Happer understands that Earth is CO2-starved.
Challenge to Climate Etc Denizens.
For the 20th century, we have the data for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
For the 20th century, we have the data for Global Mean Surface Temperature.
Challenge: Establish the relationship between the above two variables. This relationship may be used to provide an empirical estimate of climate sensitivity.
I will do my analysis and submit it to JC for posting soon.
Sustainable, green energy isn’t sustainable.
Did not green energy exist before the industrial revolution for thousands of years?
How come humans have not used it to start an earlier industrial revolution for thousands of years before the one started using fossil fuels.
This indicates green energy cannot sustain an industrial civilization.
It is just fairy tale.
Sure, green energy existed before the industrial revolution. Without it, Columbus wouldn’t be a household name, and George Washington probably wouldn’t have existed. Come to think of it, I would not exist, if not for green energy.
So before you go dissing green energy, give some thought to its importance in history. And don’t say the world would be better if i didn’t exist.
Max-OK
I said “sustain an industrial civilization,” not it is not “useless.”
Max,
you strike me as a guy who comes to compete in a joisting tournament with a wagon full of toothpicks.
Care to expand on your claim of G. Washington probably not existing if not for green energy? That one sounds like a stretch beyond even Gumby’s ability.
Regarding history and energy – are you of the opinion that the switch from windmills and watermills to steam turbines and later gas turbines was due to vast right wing conspiracy, funded by big monopolies? Or is it simply a case of you being as knowlegable about history as you are on so many other subjects?
timg56 said on October 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm
“Care to expand on your claim of G. Washington probably not existing if not for green energy? That one sounds like a stretch beyond even Gumby’s ability.”
_______
I’m sure you have heard of the Mayflower, and know It was a ship powered by green energy (i.e., wind).
Well, George Washington’s ancestors did not come to Colonial America on the Mayflower, but they came on ships similar to the Mayflower.
If not for wind-powered ships George’s ancestor’s would have been stuck in the UK, and George very likely would have never been born. Even if he had been born, he could have been a Red Coat instead of the father of our country, and England might have won the revolutionary war.
Green energy shaped history, and it will be around long after fossil fuels are depleted. Green energy is the future.
George Washington’s great-grandfather, John Washington, was born in England. Either John or his son ( I forget which) went to Virginia around 1700. If he hadn’t emigrated, George’s father would have never met his mother, which means George would have never been born, and the British might have won the Revolutionary war. But I digress. Here’e the quiz:
Re my previous post, I was going to give a quiz on green energy in history, but I changed my mind, so the quiz is cancelled.
Max,
You deciding to rename the development of sailing ships “green energy” doesn’t suddenly lead to a new interpretation of history. It’s a joke.
Just as claiming “green energy” shaped history is a joke. What shaped history is man’s ability to harness energy through inovation and discovery. The wind blows Max and doesn’t shape anything beyond topographic features. You going on with an alternate history about Washington just shows you have a lot of time to waste. BTW – I read a lot of alternate history. Love the stuff. You need a lot of work ( a real lot), but perhaps you should keep at it. It sells pretty well and you might enjoy earning money from me.
Fossil fuels and nuclear fuels may be completely consumed one day. Green energy will be the only source of energy in the future but by that time human populations will be less than 1 billion.
Green energy was with mankind long before coal and oil were important and it will be with us long after these fuels are gone.
“Green energy will be the only source of energy in the future but by that time human populations will be less than 1 billion.”
Well, maybe on Earth.
Sam,
Where do you get the idea nuclear fuels are in danger of disappearing anytime in the next millenium or two?
And how far off into the future (as well as why) will the planet’s population be down to 1 billion?
timg56,
Good question. How do you know fuels on the Earth can last millions of years? With some evidents to back up, perhaps? At present, Deuterium and thorium are still non-viable energy sources.
I said less than a billion which means 0-1000000000 persons when fossil and nuclear fuels were consumed completely.
Global warming not a threat to humanity afterall…..
http://drinkingwateradvisor.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/global-warming-not-a-threat-to-humanity-afterall/
The full paper is here (fee):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.194/abstract;jsessionid=99731D9FFDCD3EAD8F8E285753DA064E.d03t04
It’s a shame the author of this paper, Indur M. Goklany, is or recently was on the payroll of the Heartland institute. You can run but you can’t hide.
It’s a shame the author of MOSTpapers are on the payroll of Governments. You can run but you can’t hide.
But what about the substantive points? Are they correct or not? If not why not? (I don’t have access to the paper).
The abstract would be a strong hint that this paper is likely weak at best. Such a sweeping conclusion, so comprehensive in scope, would need a larger team than just Indur M. Goklany as the sole author. Given that we have no idea what the actual severity of the changes to climate will be even in the next decade, for him to be projecting to 2085 is “highly speculative reaching” to put it mildly.
R Gates,
Isn’t it the CAGW alarmists who are projecting catastrophic consequences of global warming? I though that was what the whole debate was about.
However, I do not have access to the paper so I cannot make any comment on it either.
Heh, Gates can run his mouth but he can’t hide his foolishness.
==========
R. Gates
You contradict yourself when you write (of Goklany):
This is precisely what the purveyors of the CAGW message, such as James E. Hansen (or IPCC) are doing – they even go as far as 2100 (and beyond!).
Yet you swallow the CAGW premise hook, line and sinker.
Max
PL, Are you referencing a paper that you have not read to support a POV?
PS Please excuse my posting this previously in the wrong place.
Are you referencing a paywalled paper you have read to tell me what color the sky is?
============
Guilt by association and confirming your support of slimeballs like Gleick sadly seems to fit you well.
“What’s the best climate question to debate?”
How about: “Is it going to rain tomorrow?”
Will the sky be blue tomorrow, or will there be white in it?
=================
Itha thky blue, o hath it thum white?
==========================
Rainbow?
Climate is not weather.
Not in a coon’s age.
=======
Don Aitkin has posted a good response to this on his blog:
http://donaitkin.com/the-right-mix-of-policies-to-deal-with-global-warming/
I don’t think he’s colorful enough.
============
Judith, The post by Don Aitkin is, I think excellent. Let me highlight two things that I feel go the the heart of the matter. He writes “Mind you, just about everything that we think we know about the future of climate is based on the outcome of computer models.” And also “(2) With the aid of such new knowledge, try to distinguish the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from natural variability”
Let me try an put these two things together, on the basis that our knowledge of what is really happening with respect to CAGW needs to be based almost exclusively on empirical data. Until we have much more in the way of empirical data, we will never be able to know whether climate models are able to predict anything. And if Don is right about climate models, and I think he has a major point, then we know nothing whatsoever about what is going to happen to climate in the future. And until we know just about all there is to know about natural variations, particularly the magentic effects of the sun, we will never be able to detect a CO2 signal in the midst of all the noise. Until the proponents of CAGW start basing their conclusions on empirical data, and empirical data alone, they will never make any progress at all.
I also loved these two
@@@
(8) Restructure the IPCC so that its core business is not issuing wake-up calls to governments that are based on over-confidence about rubbery data and immature climate modeling.
(5) Get rid of carbon taxes and their like.
@@@
Jim Cripwell,
Have you tried to contact Jonathan Haidt yet?
Many thanks!
No. I have no intnetion of contacting anyone.
curryja | October 10, 2012 at 8:40 am |
But are Don Aitken’s policies “No Regrets”?
No. They are founded on a strict warming-is-good-and-normal lukewarmism that assumes many premises contrary to fact with an astounding pronoia.
This is the opposite of “No Regrets” policy, given that it is a mix targetted at one single worldview that (aside from being founded on errors) will fail if that one worldview is wrong.
“So I would offer the following as my best mix of policies to limit both environmental and economic regrets.
(1) Use research funding in particular to explore what is meant by ‘natural variability’, with a view to knowing much more explicitly why climates change.”
So far, so good. Who could object to BAU in research funding? Well, except that the “in particular to explore what is meant by ‘natural variability’” part appears to be suggesting to curtail other research on climate, leading to ignorance about what is meant by unnatural variability. How is that “No Regrets”?!
(Especially given that it flies in the face of Don Aitken’s own premise:
“It is almost certain that by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (and through land clearance and other activities, like making cement) human beings are helping to warm the atmosphere. The data are not very good .. much faster since the Industrial Revolution, when the world’s population began to rise rapidly and use fossil fuels much more systematically..How much of the warming is due to what humans do? We don’t know.”)
It sounds more like Maximum Ignorance, Maximum Regrets.
“(2) With the aid of such new knowledge, try to distinguish the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from natural variability.”
Well, that solves Bart R’s objections, doesn’t it? No, no it doesn’t. It’s a policy that makes the first policy worse. Attribution will always have large uncertainty attached, and will likewise always be pointless. We don’t say when there’s a traffic accident, “How much was due to the concrete bridge abuttment being hard, and how much due to the alcohol the driver was consuming?”
Don Aitken’s nonchallant introduction of an impossible-to-verify, never-used-anywhere for anything standard is simply a ploy to obscure the very fact he’s already admitted: some human beings are responsible for changing the climate unpredictably by raising the CO2 level as a side effect of commercial enterprises. Where in all of economics is this sort of thing ignored on purpose?
“(3) Apply more research funding to increasing the efficiency of solar energy, especially in how best to store solar energy for later use.”
This is kind of pie-in-the-sky command-and-control government-should-be-in-business appears to have an admirable goal. After all, government research is always more efficient, because government is always the most efficient way to get things done. Except we know from economics and real world examples that government is generally terrible at getting things done, and most especially in business.
So long as government is simultaneously pumping “cheap energy welfare” money into coal and oil and gas infrastructure while it reluctantly puts a relative pitance into what some expert civil servant or well-greased lobbyist thinks might be the next solar breakthrough, all we’ll get is boondoggle, waste, profiteering (that’s a bad word) through corruption and stupidity. This is a Maximum Regrets policy.
Regrets are minimized by right-pricing the carbon cycle that Don Aitken has already recognized exhibits scarcity, by privatizing the carbon cycle and paying its owners — all of us, per capita — 100% of the dividends from the fees as determined by the Law of Supply and Demand. That is, the maximum fee on CO2 emission the Market will bear before gross dividends begin to decrease.
“(4) Desist from the assumption that the burning of coal is harmful. It is the best source for baseline grid power, and there are better uses for oil and gas.”
Cite? Facts? Basis of “best”? It’s certainly not the least expensive, at least not in some places. It’s more often the beneficiary of implicit or explicit government subsidies to make it more affordable for the coal industry to operate (the land is practically given to them for free, they get tax expenditures hand over fist, their roads are most often built for them by the state, they’re exempted from waste-disposal regulations, allowed to dump and run, and use some of the most tyrannical and abject labor standards in the world). This leaping to premises that are convenient to the foregone conclusion is again Maximum Regrets.
“(5) Get rid of carbon taxes and their like.”
Well obviously. Why? What does this have to do with any premise or reasoning that has been presented?
Where’s the logic? What’s the rationale? I’m against taxes too, or more to the point I’m against the burdens imposed by taxes where those burdens can be avoided, but we know (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/07/22-vat-gale) that VATs ‘and their like’ are far less burdensome than income taxes, for instance.
Why, if tax measures are part of the policy, assert the most ignorant, highest-regrets possible, measure?
“(6) Put more research funding into later-generation possibilities in nuclear energy.”
It now becomes clear. This is a less-taxes, more-spending policy. Like George W. Bush’s way to manage the economy: all appears to be going very well until the illusions and deceptions go *pop* and the bubbles burst and we get hit with a crash as the reality that you can’t lower revenues and spend more. Sure, you can get higher revenues in some cases by dropping taxes in a way that stimulates the economy, or higher revenues by raising expenditures in a way that stimulates the economy, but you can’t do both at the same time, especially when you’re bad at implementing the stimulation. Which we know the US government is bad at, no matter who is at the helm.
Also, what makes anyone think too little investment in the private sector is going into nuclear research? Everyone from Bill Gates on down is investing in nuclear. And if you argue government’s spent too little on fusion research in the past seventy years, you’ve been living under a rock.
“(7) Invest more in adaptation and preparation with respect to known climatic events that are harmful to human societies, like droughts, fires, storms and floods.”
Well, I can agree with this. So long as those who are to blame are made to pay. Which gets us back to carbon pricing, only it sounds like retroactive pricing back to the start of the harms is what Don Aitken proposes.
I’m sure the tort proceedings will be fascinating to watch.
“(8) Restructure the IPCC so that its core business is not issuing wake-up calls to governments that are based on over-confidence about rubbery data and immature climate modeling.”
And if the IPCC ever makes overconfidence its core business, starts dipping into the rubberyest of the data and the least mature models, what a great policy to have.. though for my part, I see no reason to include the IPCC in any No Regrets policy. We recognize that data is rubbery, we ought make global collection of the best possible data a mandate, and then we ought back the policy buffoons who know zero about actual techniques or procedures of data collection out of the process so they don’t interfere with it. By which I mean, keep the freaking bible-thumpers away from the satellites, among other things. There’s little we’d regret more than handing over interpretation of meteorological data to people who interpret all weather events as messages from some bearded old guy who lives in the sky.
I can see now why Dr. Curry thought Don Aitken’s response so good. It’s practically covering all the bases on how not to do No Regrets policy.
Bart R,
You used a great number of words to miss the point very carefully.
lurker, passing through laughing | October 10, 2012 at 11:05 am |
Thanks for driving by.
Careful not to trip on any shell casings when you get out from the back of your ride.
Bart R
Aw, c’mon, Bart.
Lurker got it right.
First of all, you used 1,276 words. That’s a lot.
But let’s get to the substance.
Whether or not Don Aitkens policy proposals are “no regrets” is “wordsmithing” – the question is, “do they make sense?”
1) IPCC concedes that it’s ”level of scientific understanding (LOSU) of natural (solar) forcing is low”, so it makes sense to do more research resolving the many uncertainties here
2) This research will, no doubt, help solve the great uncertainty surrounding past natural versus anthropogenic forcing
3) Since the Sun is the ONLY source of energy on our planet and this is intermittent, the proposal to spend basic research money on harnessing and storing solar energy makes very good sense.
4) For nations (like USA) with large coal reserves, it makes economic sense to exploit these in a “clean” way; electrical power generation is an efficient use of this resource, which enables flue gas cleanup
5) Carbon taxes do nothing to change our planet’s future climate (no tax ever did). The “carrot” (encouraging research in non-fossil fuel technologies) works better than the “stick” (punishing those who burn fossil fuels and, hence, the entire population who rely on energy).
6) More research funding into improved nuclear energy makes lots of sense (fast breeder, thorium, nuclear fusion, etc.)
7) Preparation for natural weather disasters and adaptation to whatever climate Nature (or anyone else) throws at us both make imminent sense, as our hostess has stressed.
8) Restructuring IPCC away from being an agenda-driven “Cassandra” that ignores the many uncertainties is long overdue – I’d go a step further and abandon and replace it.
There.
(And I only needed 285 words.)
Max
manacker | October 11, 2012 at 8:18 am |
You count my every word? How webstalkishly flattering, in and OCD way.
Don Aitkens policy proposals are “no regrets” is “wordsmithing” – the question is, “do they make sense?”
I’ll remind you, _I_ didn’t set the “No Regrets” standard; Don Aitken did:
“So I would offer the following as my best mix of policies to limit both environmental and economic regrets.”
If Don Aitken sets a standard of limiting regrets and immediately violates it more than eight different ways out of just eight proposals, he fails on logic.
So in terms of self-consistency, Don Aitken makes no sense, and neither do you, unless perhaps you just didn’t bother to read and understand Don Aitken’s 691 word post. I know, that’s almost half of 1,276, so it’s almost a lot. (It’s less than you, a foreigner, have written here lately about the US presidential election, by an order of magnitude, but really, who’s counting?)
1) “Natural variability” lacks the parsimony, simplicity and universality to explain observations and why AGW wouldn’t happen when radiative transfer physics predicts it must. Focus exclusively on the ‘natural’ component, as Don Aitken implies? Unscientific, designed to produce the outcome desired, rather than the truth.
2) Research on all sources of variability at once, taking into account feedbacks from one chain of variability into another? Clearly superior to Don Aitken’s blind eye to the wrong men do. Be simple, but not more simple than reason permits.
3) Spend more tax money in ways we know are almost always inefficient and often are redirected and subverted purposely? Something a European socialist would be expected to support, but that’s not an opinion that really flies in free America. (You understand, convoluted as it sounds, David Wojick gets money that is tagged by Jo Nova as Climate Change funds, right? Just imagine the quality solar power basic research we’ll get.)
4) We can’t begin to discuss how efficient coal might be while we actively ignore a large component of the real cost of burning it. It’s a fictional comparison, no less than if we said, “Look at all the new jobs in graveyards, funeral homes, hospitals and orphanages created by AIDS.” Privatize the carbon cycle, let the price of CO2E emission float by the Law of Supply and Demand, and then look at the costs. Likely coal will still be economical sometimes then, too. In making artificial diamonds, for example.
5) You argue from assertion. Which, as it’s a tax argument and you’re a European socialist, is odd. One would think you’d have plenty of actual information to share on the topic from your homeland. Don Aitken reflects zero familiarity with taxation as a distinct discipline, and merely appeals to emotion.
6) Research into nuclear makes a lot of sense. It’s also funded to extraordinary levels in the private sector, and has received over the past seven decades staggering levels of exactly the sort of research funding Don Aitken talks about in point #2.. to absolutely zero net outcome. Seven decades. Trillions of dollars. Zero progress, Don’s way. Private research? They’re already building production prototypes after less than five years.
7) So long as those responsible are made to pay, I’m all for preparing. Why should those who have stood against the activities causing these increased Risks shoulder the same burden as those who negligently caused it? Even socialists attribute costs to those who incur.. no, no.. wait, I have that wrong. Socialists see no reason to make the one who benefits, who used something up, who caused something, pay for it.
8) Given the rampant socialist nonsense of the preceding seven points, I think no US citizen cares what any socialist wants to do with the IPCC or any other UN agency, really.
And if you want it in less words:
Don Aitken argues to increase government spending on research, but only on research we know won’t produce anything useful; prevent government investigation of the people we know are doing harm, and as a bonus drop their taxes while leaving taxes higher for the rest of us. I say we’d have to be slack-jawed morons or European socialists to buy into Don Aitken’s arguments. Oh look, there’s Lurker and manacker, as if on cue.
Bart R
Have to admit, I like your “less words” version better than the “more words” one, but I’ll address both.
1) “Natural variability” or natural climate forcing have not been researched as well as AGW, so more research work here would be a good thing, right? [Maybe we’d find out that AGW has only caused 25% of the past warming – wouldn’t that be good news?]
2) (see 1)
3) The premise that added basic research in ways to efficiently capture and store solar energy would be a good thing makes sense – to what extent government subsidies could help spur this work can be argued, but Aitken’s premise makes sense
4) Coal, from the USA perspective, is a readily available low cost source of energy, especially well suited for large power generation units, where flue gas can be cleaned up efficiently, avoiding real pollution.
5) A direct or indirect carbon tax in the USA will not change our planet’s climate one iota – no tax ever did. It will simply punish US citizens.
6) Research into new and improved nuclear makes sense. Again, one can argue about how much the US taxpayer should support this, but the basic premise makes sense.
7) Preparation for natural weather disasters and adaptation to whatever climate Nature (or anyone else) throws at us both make imminent sense, as I wrote earlier. The idea that “someone caused” these is ludicrous. S**t happens – get used to it. And, more important – get ready for it.
8) Restructuring or replacing IPCC? My vote would go for replacing. Agree that most people (in USA and elsewhere) see the IPCC as meaningless.
Now to your “quickie”:
You seem to read more into Aitken’s points than is there. He has simply made some common-sense suggestions.
Max
manacker | October 11, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
Have to admit, I like your “less words” version better than the “more words” one, but I’ll address both.
I prefer using fewer words, too. If I have enough time to respond, I’m downright brief.
1) “Natural variability” or natural climate forcing have not been researched as well as AGW, so more research work here would be a good thing, right? [Maybe we’d find out that AGW has only caused 25% of the past warming – wouldn’t that be good news?]
2) (see 1)
How could you possible make such an assertion? Do you count every investigation as it is done? Is your metric by hour spent, or by dollar? By number of researchers, or number of words? And what a meaningless metric in any case, even if it weren’t patently and bizarrely just fabricated out of the seat of your pants.
If we could ascribe 75% of the damage to the hardness of the bridge abuttment, and only 25% to the speed of the drunk driver’s vehicle, we’d still be missing the point. Which one has to believe is Don Aitken’s beery hope.
3) The premise that added basic research in ways to efficiently capture and store solar energy would be a good thing makes sense – to what extent government subsidies could help spur this work can be argued, but Aitken’s premise makes sense
Premise? That’s not a premise. That’s just wishful thinking flying in the face of experience and fact, painting a picture of things just as they are not.
Dan Nocera’s done plenty of basic research. Multijunction solar has had plenty of basic research. Optical waveguides have had plenty of basic research. What’s necessary is removing the obstacles to entry into the energy market of these well-founded solar components that are cheaper than coal right now, today.
The chief obstacle to entry? Government subsidy, and favorable terms in the Market for fossil-based energy.
4) Coal, from the USA perspective, is a readily available low cost source of energy, especially well suited for large power generation units, where flue gas can be cleaned up efficiently, avoiding real pollution.
An assertion that you make that cannot be arrived at by any means, given that coal is burned, and the CO2E is treated as Commons, though it is a scarce, rivalrous, excludable resource. You’re just making up things that you cannot know.
5) A direct or indirect carbon tax in the USA will not change our planet’s climate one iota – no tax ever did. It will simply punish US citizens.
We should remind people again that you are saying this as a European Socialist, with no first-hand knowledge of paying US taxes. Pigouvian taxes are well-established in principle. In the USA they’re frequently called “sin tax”, and if you don’t think there’s appetite in the USA for punishing sinners, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Further, you clearly don’t understand the significance of the Brookings Institute report I linked to: VAT’s are less burdensome per dollar of revenue generated compared to other forms of tax by up to an order of magnitude. In other words, you’re a European Socialist who want US taxpayers to pay more and get less. Who’s punishing us here? Only you, and Don Aitken.
6) Research into new and improved nuclear makes sense. Again, one can argue about how much the US taxpayer should support this, but the basic premise makes sense.
Yeah, you can’t even yield a point when you’ve been proven utterly wrong four times. Why I’m answering a fifth is beyond me.
7) Preparation for natural weather disasters and adaptation to whatever climate Nature (or anyone else) throws at us both make imminent [sic] sense, as I wrote earlier. The idea that “someone caused” these is ludicrous. S**t happens – get used to it. And, more important – get ready for it.
Yeah, you socialists with your no-fault, from each-by-his-means-to-each-by-his-needs Marxism just doesn’t fly here. When someone who isn’t Nature throws something at an American, they better be ready for the s**tstorm we bring down on them to extract payment. If your lucrative British Petrol carbon burning ways are causing our droughts, you will see BP pay for it. Oh, wait, that’s Latimer whose BP is causing our droughts. Well, I’m sure you have something to do with our misfortunes, and when you’re caught we will expect payment.
8) Restructuring or replacing IPCC? My vote would go for replacing. Agree that most people (in USA and elsewhere) see the IPCC as meaningless.
Again, how does this logically connect to the rest, other than by seeing how lame Don Aitken’s reasoning skills were about everything else, we ought give no time to them here, too? Oh, wait, we mean your reasoning skills, now.
You seem to read more into Aitken’s points than is there. He has simply made some common-sense suggestions.
Common-sense? If they were common-sense, they wouldn’t fall apart so readily, would they. The Aitken suggestions are claptrap, propaganda, fallacy and pap. My decanting of Aitken’s ‘points’ into their ultimate outcomes merely reveals his true agenda.
We’d all love if you got something right just once. Please make it soon.
Bart R
After reading your last post, I’ll have to repeat lurker’s message to you:
1) IPCC concedes that its ”level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low”. This tells me more work needs to be done in this area to clear up the uncertainties of attribution.
2) (see 1)
3) Capturing and storing solar energy is still in its infancy. The technology is plagued with high cost and inherent intermittency of supply. More basic research work very likely could lead to some major breakthroughs.
4) For the USA, coal is a readily available relatively inexpensive primary source of energy. Using it for electrical power generation, including complete flue gas cleanup, makes economic sense, as long as new nuclear planet construction is blocked by environmentalists and red tape.
5) A carbon tax in the USA will not change our climate – I say this not “as a European socialist” (which I’m not), but as a logical thinker. NO tax ever changed our climate – nor will this one.
6) Research work into improved nuclear power makes sense, especially to solve the spent fuel problem, which is a concern to many. This work is already going on
7) Preparing for and adapting to extreme weather events makes sense and has nothing to do with “Marxism” (an idiotic notion, on your part).
8) IPCC has an immense credibility problem, whether you are aware of this or not. As a result, the entire field of climate science also does. When polls tell us that close to 70% of US respondents thought that climate scientists fudged the data, this is a problem. I (and others) blame IPCC’s “consensus process”, which excludes or ignores data and studies, which conflict with its CAGW message. I see no other way of getting rid of this process without getting rid of IPCC. In my opinion, it has become inconsequential and redundant.
I’m not going to discuss this with you any further. So let’s move on to something else.
Max
manacker | October 12, 2012 at 10:06 am |
You weren’t actually discussing it with me up to now.
Discussion implies addressing points raised, not talking past and just repeating the same thing over and over again without evolving, developing, changing, explaining, understanding or meeting of the minds.
You were just propagandizing. Again.
Bart R,
I noticed about the same thing over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-252996
If you stay patient and keep up pressing him, he does not seem to have much choice but to stop playing ClimateBall and play the ball.
Sloganeering always reminds me of villains monologues.
Speaking of which, and perhaps to please WebHubTelescope:
The Don Aitkin post was excellent.
Mind you, just about everything that we think we know about the future of climate is based on the outcome of computer models, and they have a lot of improvement ahead of them if they are to be really useful.
Mind you, just about everything that I think I know about the future of climate is based on the temperature history that is in the ice core data. The computer models tell us that what has happened before will never happen again. This time, because there is one molecule of manmade CO2 per ten thousand molecules of other stuff, something will happen that has never happened before. That is way beyond ridiculous. What happens next is what happened next when earth was this warm, many, many, many times before.
PL, Are you referencing a paper that you have not read to support a POV?
They’ll get my privately owned vehicle when they pry its cold, dead steering wheel from my hot hands.
===============
Should you require overwatch, I have a Marine and a couple of paras in the family.
We could consider staking you out as bait. Now there is carbon capture system that might work. Putting econuts 6 ft under.
kim | October 10, 2012 at 9:00 am |
No offense, but if your attention span while driving is the same as while commenting, that’s likely sooner than later.
Regardless of how many of timg56’s hunting buddies and relations stalking people who disagree with their political point of view are riding along with you shooting out through the back windows.
Violet Elizabeth, Kim?
Mauve on, no locks to petal on this brand new pair of roller skates.
===============
I like women wrestling.
Not wrestling women ?
Both?
Ah! A William fan.
tonyb
If you don’t all do exactly what I say right now you horrible neodenialitht rabble I’m going to thtamp my foot and thcream and thcream and thcream until I’m thick.
Ithn’t that the cathe John Sidles? :-) ;-) :-)
@web hub telescope
So you can add this to your list of my ‘noms de plume’….the remark above was penned by moi. Don’t forget now!
Yes, Tony, William’s my kind of outlaw! Say, do yer remember how he got the pen knife back to the elderly gentleman?
Beth
Ah’d a’thunk U wuz more th’ Ned Kelly kinda gal – bein’ an Ozzie an’ all…
Max
Not off hand, but I have doubtless got the relevant book around the house. I read them for their social insight and the focus they put onto the hot climate of the 20’s and 30’s. It also rarely rained.
tony. .
Tony, It rarely rains in yer recollections of childhood. Blue sky and endless possibilities fer adventure :-).
Beth
Ain’t it th’ troof…
But Ah recollect summer days when it wuz so hot that dawgs chasin’ cats wuz both jes’ walkin’
Max
“While persistent and deep uncertainty surrounds the most important potential impacts from and responses to greenhouse-driven global warming, the long-term picture of a profoundly changed Earth is clear. ”
In my opinion, the best climate question to debate is whether the above statement should continue its 20 year plus reign as the axiom on which ‘Climate Science’ is based.
“Anthropogenic CO2 is causing the ‘Temperature of the Earth’ to rise rapidly at an increasing rate. The consequences of this temperature rise will be catastrophic (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm lists nearly 900 consequences of ‘climate change’, all negative.) unless ameliorated by ceding to government the power to control all human activity that affects the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.” has ALWAYS been and CONTINUES to be treated as axiomatic by the pointy end of the Climate Scientist Pyramid.
Should it be?
NO, it shouldn’t.
No.
“Shortwave in longwave out” – in the real world visible light from the Sun cannot heat land and oceans, which is the AGW claim.
Myrrh | October 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm | Reply
“Shortwave in longwave out” – in the real world visible light from the Sun cannot heat land and oceans, which is the AGW claim.
I don’t believe “visible” comes into it. Are you disputing that the earth gets any heat from the sun at all?? (which is anyway not a claim peculiar to AGW)
Strawman.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Greenhouse Effect claim is that shortwave from the Sun and not longwave thermal infrared from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface, that this is mainly visible light.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect claim is that longwave thermal infrared is blocked from entering the atmosphere by some, unexplained, invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect claim is that, therefore, any downwelling thermal infrared measured from the atmosphere is the result of backradition from the upwelling of the Earth’s surface heated by visible light.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget is therefore complete fiction. To understand how this is complete fiction one needs to know in reality what electromagnetic energy from the Sun can and cannot do, i.e. the difference between Light and Heat in real world physics
In the real world it is the direct longwave thermal infrared from the Sun which heats the Earth’s surface, and us. We have known since Herschel’s discovery that the Sun’s thermal energy, Heat, is invisible.
In the real world we now know that visible light, Light, is not thermal energy; it is not hot, we cannot feel it. We cannot feel shortwave from the Sun; these are not heat, they are not hot.
In the real world it takes heat from the Sun to raise the temperature of matter, to heat it, to move the molecules of matter into vibration, which is heat, kinetic energy.
In the real world we know that visible light from the Sun cannot heat matter, it is not powerful enough to raise the temperature of matter. It works on the tinier electronic transition scale not on the bigger molecular vibrational scale.
The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget has taken out, excised, the real heat from the Sun which is capable of heating matter and does reach the Earth’s surface to heat land and water and replaced it with the claim that visible light heats the matter of the Earth’s surface, this is impossible in the real world. Physically impossible.
AGWScience Fiction has introduced into the education system the Greenhouse Effect with its own fictional version of electromagnetic energy from the Sun , effectively dumbing down basic science for the general population who now can’t tell the difference between Heat and Light, who couldn’t now design applications based on knowing the difference; who don’t understand and so couldn’t themselves design photovoltaic and thermal panels to capture the different energies of Heat and Light from the Sun.
There is no more important question in climate science to debate: is the claim of the AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget about the basic properties of electromagnetic energy from the Sun true or false?
I say it is false for the reasons I give from real non-fiction physics. I explain why they have changed the basic difference between Heat and Light from the Sun, to pretend that any real thermal infrared we receive from the atmosphere is the result of “backradiation from greenhouse gases and not direct, beam heat, from the Sun”.
Once it is understood that those promoting the AGW Greenhouse Effect have created a fiction fisics world it is easier to see how they have also changed other real world basic physics to support this AGW fictional “backradiation from greenhouse gases” claim.
Such as, completely excising, taking out, the Water Cycle; such as taking rain out of the Carbon Life Cycle; such as changing the properties of real gases to the imaginary construct “ideal gas” which has no properties of real world gases of volume, weight, attraction, therefore not subject to gravity, and thus claim their fictional ideal gas carbon dioxide able to accumulate for hundreds and even thousands of years in the atmosphere. This fictional world has excised the real gas atmosphere completely, it has only the imaginary contruct empty space of ideal gas in an imagined container. Etc.
Those promoting this imaginary fictional world fisics of the Greenhouse Effect created to support the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) claim, are unable to provide any real world physics to support AGW’s base premise that shortwave heats the Earth’s land and water and that the thermal infrared, heat, from the Sun is unable to enter the atmosphere and so plays no part in heating the Earth’s surface matter.
It takes intense heating of matter, of land and water, at the equator to get us our well-known and well-understood in real world physics great wind and weather systems.
This is real world bog standard physics necessary to understanding climate, and all climate scientists claiming shortwave and not thermal infrared longwave from the Sun is doing this are required to prove it because the whole of the AGW Greenhouse Effect is based on the claims about the electromagnetic energies from the Sun, of “shortwave in longwave out”.
Prove that visible light from the Sun is capable of heating land and water at the equator intensely which is what it takes to get our huge wind and weather systems.
I say you can’t because your AGW Greenhouse Effect claims about the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun are fiction, therefore the whole AGW Greenhouse Effect claim is fiction.
+1.
It is a good shrubbery.
But there is one small problem.
http://www.montypython.net/sounds/hg/shrubery.wav
You claim that heat and light are two different things emitted by the Sun.
How do you suppose that ‘heat’ gets from the Sun to the Earth. If the ‘heat’ energy is not in the form of photons, what is it? Neutrinos? Higgs bosons? Invisible thermos bottles full of Sun-stuff?
You claim that heat and light are two different things emitted by the Sun.
How do you suppose that ‘heat’ gets from the Sun to the Earth. If the ‘heat’ energy is not in the form of photons, what is it? Neutrinos? Higgs bosons? Invisible thermos bottles full of Sun-stuff?
What are photons?
You’re making it too complicated for yourself, we know there is a difference between Light and Heat because one is not hot and the other is hot.. We know how heat from the Sun gets to us.
Ever since Herschel we’ve known that the great heat from the Sun comes to us in the electromagnetic wave/photons/particles whatever you want to call it which is the invisible thermal infrared. Herschel called this “dark light”, we now call it thermal infrared.
We call it thermal infrared because since Herschel our measuring has improved and we now know that even the shorter wavelengths of invisible infrared are not thermal, these are called reflective.
For example, a standard camera captures visible light reflecting off an object and this is exactly what a near infrared camera does, it captures near infrared reflecting off an object.
These are not thermal energies and it takes thermal energy to raise the temperature of matter, as you should know if you’ve ever cooked dinner.
Heat is kinetic energy, matter in vibration. Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, which is heating the skin, which is thermal energy you can feel in the skin and radiating out from it. Heat is transferred in three ways, conduction, convection and radiation. The Sun’s heat, the Sun’s thermal energy, is transferred to us by radiation. That radiation is thermal infrared, that’s why it got to be called thermal.
In traditional physics heat and light are two distinctly different categories, Heat and Light, described as thermal and reflective.
The first has been explored in great depth in the science discipline of Thermodynamics, the second has been explored in great depth in the science discipline of Optics, and, in Biology since we’ve come into the knowledge of photosynthesis which is the process of plants absorbing visible light and converting it to chemical energy, not heat energy, in the creation of sugars from carbon dioxide and water.
Visible light, shortwave, from the Sun is incapable of converting matter to heat energy, of heating up matter, of raising its temperature, of moving the molecules of matter into vibration. It takes intense heating of land and oceans at the equator to give us the huge wind and weather systems we have. It takes actual heat energy to do this, to cook the land and water which in turn heats the volumes of the gas air above them.
AGWScienceFiction’s energy budget is describing a different world, an imaginary one where many impossible things can be thought before breakfast, as with Al through the looking glass..
The Greenhouse Effect is a fiction, as its fisics so clearly shows.
Heinrich the Norwegian Elkhound | October 11, 2012 at 11:39 am asked:
”You claim that heat and light are two different things emitted by the Sun”
.Heinrich, interesting subject, can I jump in?
.Heinrich, not that just heat and light are two different things; but there are different kind of lights also.
#1: the heat that is on the sun doesn’t come to the earth, it’s only 4000C. If you make a fire that produces 4000C heat, 2km away from you – you will not feel it; there are more than 4km from the sun to here. b] if you are out in space, where the satellites are; in a shade – after 2h you will be stiff frozen, -120C below zero. if any direct heat was coming from the sun; that wouldn’t have happened, but it doesn’t.
#2: light as photons is not producing the heat itself – you can’t get suntan from the headlight of your car, or from the torch.
#3: it’s the UV, infrared ”RADIATION” from the sun, that PRODUCES heat here on the earth; same as the radiation in your microwave oven – you cannot see it, but produces lots of heat. Cheers
P.s. by the way; are you scaring the Norwegians that: warming by 1-2C will do them any harm?
#1: the heat that is on the sun doesn’t come to the earth, it’s only 4000C. If you make a fire that produces 4000C heat, 2km away from you – you will not feel it; there are more than 4km from the sun to here. b] if you are out in space, where the satellites are; in a shade – after 2h you will be stiff frozen, -120C below zero. if any direct heat was coming from the sun; that wouldn’t have happened, but it doesn’t.
The Sun’s ‘visible light surface’ is around 6,000°C, this is called the photosphere; the next layer out is the chromosphere from 10,000°C to around 500,000°C, mean 100,000°C; and the next out is the corona at millions of degrees. That’s very hot. Heat, the Sun’s thermal energy, transferred by radiation, thermal infrared, reaches us in around 8 minutes.
That’s 8 minutes for the Sun’s actual millions degrees heat to travel around 93,000,000 miles to us. Some descriptions of the Sun belittle the scale of its heat production..
..I was told in a discussion here that the Sun produces very little heat, and of course, we have the invisible unexplained glasslike barrier TOA which AGWScienceFiction says blocks this intense heat from reaching us at the surface.. *
The intense millions degrees heat of the Corona is Millions of miles thick.
The visible light layer of the Photosphere is around 300 miles thick.
All the intense heat we feel radiating to us from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared. It is not any of the Light energies.
It is not stopped from reaching us by AGW’s imagined barrier..
#2: light as photons is not producing the heat itself – you can’t get suntan from the headlight of your car, or from the torch.
Visible light is not a thermal energy, heat, so not capable of heating up matter, but
#3: it’s the UV, infrared ”RADIATION” from the sun, that
PRODUCES heat here on the earth; same as the radiation in your microwave oven – you cannot see it, but produces lots of heat.
neither is UV. UV is classed as Light and not Heat. The suntan doesn’t come from being cooked, it comes from melanin production in the body protecting against DNA damage. We get sunburn when the intensity of UV is greater than our melanin production can cope with, which is why it’s sensible to get acclimatised if unused to being in the hot Sun.
UV isn’t powerful enough to move molecules into vibration which is what heat, thermal infrared, does, uv is even tinier than visible light, we can’t feel UV just as we can’t feel Visible or Near Infrared because these are not hot, Nothing to do with heat, they work on electronic transition levels not on kinetic vibrational. Visible light from the Sun won’t give us a suntan because its light is benign, our bodies don’t have to set up any defence systems from it.
UV is very important to us for its Vitamin D production, every cell in our bodies has a VitD receptor:
http://rense.com/general48/sunlight1.htm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/21/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d-to-healthy-ranges.aspx
*An example of the ubiquitous don’t-rock-the-AGWmeme-pc in descriptions –
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcorona.html
“The Corona in X-ray Light
All hot objects emit electromagnetic waves–for example, visible light is emitted by the hot filament inside a lightbulb. The hotter the object, the shorter the wavelength, which is why the corona emits “soft x rays,” whose waves are much shorter than those of visible or ultra-violet light.”
What does an incandescent lightbulb really emit? About 5% visible light and 95% invisible heat, thermal infrared.
What AGWSF has done is to not tell you that, it ‘suggests’ that all the heat energy has become visible light, but that’s not true. It’s the 95% heat which is creating the visible light, the product, and the heat is still there radiating out too.
This is a typical sleight of hand produced by the AGWSF fisics, it does a similar play in sentence structure when making the Water Cycle disappear.
Myrrh
So you’re saying the earth doesn’t receive much heat from the sun ?
(Please answer in 100 words or less, and stick to the point).
The triumph of optimism over experience Erica?
Erica | October 13, 2012 at 12:49 am |
So you’re saying the earth doesn’t receive much heat from the sun ?
(Please answer in 100 words or less, and stick to the point).
What??! That’s what the IDIOTIC AGW GREENHOUSE EFFECT FICTIONAL FISICS SAYS!
But those promoting the fake fisics memes don’t understand that this is what they’re saying!
The AGWScienceFiction fake fisics meme: “shortwave in longwave out” is the idiotic claim that “no thermal infrared from the Sun gets through the atmosphere and so plays no part in heating the Earth’s land and oceans”.
In real world physics that is actually the real thermal energy of the Sun, heat.
Got it?
Perhaps you’re confused because the AGW fake fisics pretends that “all electromagnetic radiation from the Sun is the same and all produces heat on being absorbed”, so you don’t know that what they’re actually saying is that “no direct heat from the Sun gets through the atmosphere”.
The AGW claim “The Sun produces very little heat and only a little of that reaches Earth” is a variation I first heard here in these discussions from someone supporting AGW fake fisics which claims in its basic form that there is “some invisible barrier like a greenhouse glass which stops direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, from entering the atmosphere”, but obviously embarrassed that he can’t produce any physical explanation, mechanism, for this stupid idea, now says that is a CAGW claim and the more sophisticated AGW claim says that “the Sun gives off very little longwave infrared and we only get a little bit of that”. He didn’t reply when I pointed out that what he was actually saying was “the Sun gives off very little heat”..
I’m trying to point out how AGW fisics is created by sleights of hand by tweaking real physics and promoted as ‘real world’ by manipulating those taught this by giving them even more stupid reasons which they give as rebuttals, which they can’t see are stupid because they don’t known the real world physics which shows how stupid the rebuttals.
I’m giving the real world physics of what they are actually saying, they are actually saying that “the Sun gives off very little heat”. Because they have zilch real knowledge of the properties and processes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun they can’t see how stupid the rebuttal “the Sun gives off very little longwave infrared”.
I do hope you are able to concentrate long enough to follow what I’m saying..
AGWScienceFiction has created an imaginary world with its own version of fisics. It has introduced this into the education system and now the general population has been dumbed down in basic science.
They, you generic, believe in impossible things: that carbon dioxide can trap heat and defy gravity, that our atmosphere is empty space, that there is no Water Cycle, that there is no rain in the Carbon Life Cycle, that visible light can heat water, that no heat from the Sun reaches us – except they don’t know what they believe is impossible because most of the time they have no idea of what they’re really saying..
You have to know real basic physics to appreciate that this AGW world is fake fisics.
That’s when you’ll see the joke – that those promoting AGW/CAGW fisics have no sound in their world so probably the reason they have such difficulty hearing this…
Myrrh, please give us your understanding of
– 100 words or less
– sticking to the point
Myrrh
Whatever the flaws in the agw argument, it seems clear you have completely misread a fair bit.
Shortwave in longwave out needn’t mean ONLY shortwave in. Hence there is no implication that visible light warms the earth. That’s just a strawman of your invention.
If the earth too radiates longwave, and if CO2 absorbs and re-transmits it, then some of it will return to earth.
CO2 radiation at high above is cold (depends on altitudes, latitudes, and longitudes, say from 0degreeC to -60degreeC) can not radiate net heat back to the Earth which is at a higher temperature. Just like water can not flow upstreams.
If the Earth surface is cooler than the atmospheric temperature then CO2 can radiate back IR back to the Earth. Radiation from the Earth surface passes right thru the atmosphere with the exception of the clouds which absorbs the Earth surface radiation.
Myrrh
Isn’t the essence of the AGW claim that, whatever radiation heats the earth, greenhouse gasses result in a warmed atmosphere, and hence a warmed planet ?
Which would mean your claim of strawman, is itself a strawman.
That claim has no science foundation.
SamNC
So you’re saying there is “no science foundation” in the greenhouse effect?
Erica,
Read the AGW claim which said “greenhouse gasses result in a warmed atmosphere, and hence a warmed planet”. The atmosphere is a layer of gases (main composition O2 and N2) between the Earth and the space. The atmosphere is mainly warmed up by the Earth mass thru evaporation, convection, conduction, radiation not by greenhouse gasses or gases. Greenhouse gases (in particular CO2) have little or nearly no effect on atmospheric warming.
SamNC, but are you saying there no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all? So if the H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere were removed, there’d be no particular effect on temperatures? Ditto if they were increased 100X ?
Its a misconception that CO2 is a green house gas to warm up the greenhouse. H2O is very different which can keep heat with its enormous latent heat. CO2 has minimal latent heat above -50C. H2O has significantly higher specific heat capacities than CO2 therefore store more heat at the same temperature. Don’t mess up CO2 and H2O.
@sam nc
Are sure you know what ‘latent heat’ is? Want to give us a quick definition?
Erica,
If CO2 were to increase by 100x, then it would have 4% atmosperic content. It would have 4% effect. H2O could not have 100x in the atmospere. H2O must expel all N2 and O2 into space to achieve that 100x.
@sam nc
Are you sure you know the difference between 100x and 100%?
Latimer,
latent heat = heat required to change a state, such as, from a solid to a liquid or from a vapor to a liquid.
Latimer,
0.04%x100=4%
Latimer,
Just in case, 1%x100=100% H2O in the atmosphere and 400ppm=0.04%.
@sam nc
See here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253285
@sam nc
You seem to be very confused about the differences between latent heat and specific heat.
‘H2O is very different which can keep heat with its enormous latent heat. CO2 has minimal latent heat above -50C. H2O has significantly higher specific heat capacities than CO2 therefore store more heat at the same temperature’
FWIW the specific heat of CO2 vapour is about half of H20 (0.846 KJ./kgK vs 1.996KJ/kgK), so the second part of your statement is trivially true (though I am not sure of its relevance).
But the relevance of your first remarks has totally escaped me. Latent heat is only a consideration if phase changes are involved. Where do they come into play in your ideas?
“FWIW the specific heat of CO2 vapour is about half of H20 (0.846 KJ./kgK vs 1.996KJ/kgK), so the second part of your statement is trivially true (though I am not sure of its relevance).”
Specific heat of water gas is 1.996KJ/kgK
liquid water is 4.193KJ/kgK at 10 C
And liquid water in form of droplets are in the atmosphere.
But main difference is quantity of H20- particularly in tropics.
Sam, my more general question is : do you maintain that if so-called greenhouse gasses were replaced with non-greenhouse gasses, or vice-versa, there would be no overall heating implications for the earth ?
(And are specific heat and latent heat even relevant to the greenhouse concept?)
Erica,
“do you maintain that if so-called greenhouse gasses were replaced with non-greenhouse gasses, or vice-versa, there would be no overall heating implications for the earth ?”
Yes, there would be no overall heating implications for the earth. H2O on the Earth regulates the Earth atmospheric temperatures.
Greenhouse concept was a wrong concept. CO2 did not heat up the atmosphere in the greenhouse. Only H2O in the greenhouse retained heat with its huge latent heat.
Others have given you specific heat capacities of H2O and CO2. It’s a lot easier for CO2 to lose one degree C than water at the same temperature. In a greenhouse, the moisture content is high. The higher the moisture content the more the energy retained in the atmosphere.
Myrrh
Isn’t the essence of the AGW claim that, whatever radiation heats the earth, greenhouse gasses result in a warmed atmosphere, and hence a warmed planet ?
Which would mean your claim of strawman, is itself a strawman.
The essence of the AGWScienceFiction claim is that shortwave from the Sun, predominantly visible, heats the land and water of the Earth’s surface and thermal infrared, heat, from the Sun doesn’t get through the atmosphere and plays no part in heating the Earth.
AGWSF has deliberately taken the Sun’s beam heat out of its energy budget and replaced it with the impossible claim that it is visible light from the Sun which is doing the heating.
Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat land or water, and the Earth’s surface is largely water, and, water is a transparent medium for visible light anyway.
These claims about the properties and processes of the Sun’s electromagnetic energies are the base premise of the whole Greenhouse Effect energy budget. Since this is, obviously to real physics, nonsense, it follows that anything else AGWSF says about said Greenhouse Effect will also be nonsense. Garbage in garbage out.
Since this is the AGW claim: if you wish to continue arguing for AGW claims then you need to show that this is not garbage in..
Take the challenge.
SamNC and Myrrh
You’re seriously saying the basic AGW argument isn’t about greenhouse gasses ??
Tomcat,
What do you know about the greenhouse gasses?
The basic AGW argument is whether CO2 warms the atmosphere. There is no CO2 physical property that can warm the atmosphere.
It was wrong to think that CO2 in the greenhouse warmed up the air inside the greenhouse. It was actually H2O inside the greenhouse kept the heat with its enormouse latent heat and specifc heat capacities and with the enclosure reducing the convection heat transfer from the inside of the enclosure to the outside.
@myrrh
Given your stated position on the “agw position”, what is the reason you imagine the rationale behind wanting to limit CO2 emissions is ?
Tomcat | October 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
You’re seriously saying the basic AGW argument isn’t about greenhouse gasses ??
Which are supposedly “trapping” heat, the invisible thermal infrared, and “backradiating” it from the atmosphere and so heating the Earth further until oh gosh we’re all gonna fry.
So taking out the direct real heat energy which reaches us from the Sun, which is thermal infrared, means they can pretend that any thermal infrared measured “downwelling” from the atmosphere comes from this “backradiation”. So how to do that? Simples, just keep repeating and repeating by getting into the education system from infant/junior level that Light from the Sun heats the Earth. First teach the would be general educated teachers of these young levels.
You asked about the essence of the claim, so it can’t be just any radiation.
It’s the Big Lie. Look it up, it’s a famous propaganda technique that works. Here, save you the bother:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html
The argument was never about greenhouse gases..
It began as an anti-coal movement by environmentalists who roped in ‘scientists’ like Keeling who was willing to fiddle the data by measuring his, I think his, invention the mythical “pristine well-mixed background” from the top of the world’s largest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes producing loads of carbon dioxide indistinguishable from man made from fossil fuels. But though coal was cleaned up it was very cheap and abundant so the movement got hi-jacked by big oil/nuclear interests who began supporting the environmentalists, for example, setting up CRU to fiddle more data, this time temperature. See Salinger/New Zealand.
The AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect and its Energy Budget are a deliberately created fiction. Very clever, the fisics put together by clever tweaking of real physics. Like writing a fantasy novel of a non-existant world.
@myrrh
So CAGW + greenhouse gasses is an invention funded by the oil/nuclear interests who were plotting against coal is it? Because as we know, oil is like nuclear, ie isn’t a fossil fuel and doesn’t produce loads of co2?
I think you’ll find actually CAGW was funded by politics (the state) – the state being vastly bigger than all energy corporations put together, and the state being the major beneficiary of the CAGW it itself peddles. Hence too the popularity of CAGW with those of totalitarian tendencies, chiefly the political Left.
Greybeard | October 13, 2012 at 2:03 am |
So CAGW + greenhouse gasses is an invention funded by the oil/nuclear interests who were plotting against coal is it? Because as we know, oil is like nuclear, ie isn’t a fossil fuel and doesn’t produce loads of co2?
Yes. That’s how they got on the environmentalist bandwagon – if you look into funding you’ll see that big oil is the big funder of the campaign against fossil fuels, CRU was set up with oil money and still manipulating data to big oil’s agenda. You’ll need to be a bit savvy to see through the misdirection, find out just how much money they’ve been putting into the greenies anti fossil fuels coal and big oil through their ‘charitable’ foundations and NGO’s.
Sometimes it comes back to bite them, but they soon manage to distract the greenies becoming difficult to manage, as with shale extraction. But you also have to bear in mind that the really big players in this have another agenda, the banking cartel’s one world government, so a lot of the anti this and anti that, ‘coal death trains’ and ‘nasty big oil’, are just the use of the emotional energy of plebs to get one world government legislation put into place. Germany has got rid of nuclear and is getting back big time to coal extraction and coal powered electricity, for example.
I think you’ll find actually CAGW was funded by politics (the state) – the state being vastly bigger than all energy corporations put together, and the state being the major beneficiary of the CAGW it itself peddles. Hence too the popularity of CAGW with those of totalitarian tendencies, chiefly the political Left.
The ‘state’ is run by the banking cartel’s industrial/military complex.
There are now several states in the US which have legislated against the UN’s Agenda 21. People are beginning to see behind the curtain..
Here, a short history of the money changers who have given themselves the power to create money out of nothing and keep lending the same out at interest over and over again, which is why it’s all gone to their heads:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Andrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.History.of.the.Money.Changers.htm
Creating money out of nothing and the booms and busts to further enrich themselves and reduce the population to serfdom in continual debt to them was only the beginning of Banking Cartel’s megalomanic sociopath ideas, they own the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, private companies in private land, the City of London and Washington DC :
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/24/a-rothschild-plan-for-world-government/0/
Greybeard | October 12, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Given your stated position on the “agw position”, what is the reason you imagine the rationale behind wanting to limit CO2 emissions is ?
Ah, must have had your question at the back of my mind while I was answering Tomcat – please see my post above from “The argument was never about greenhouse gases..”
Myrrh, let me see if I get this.
Seems everyone agrees
A – the earth is warmed by infrared radiation directly from the sun, which is thereby absorbed, converted into heat energy.
B – the earth is not warmed by the visible radiation from the sun. This is not absorbed, hence causes no heating, and is instead re-radiated back out – but as infrared.
Where the difference of opinion seems to lie, is what happens to this re-radiated upwelling infrared. AGW says greenhouse gasses absorb and re-radiate it, and some of this “re-re-rediated” infrared is downwelling, and hence warms the earth surface.
You say what exactly? … The upwelling infrared just carries on out into space, not interacting with CO2 in any way, having no effect on it? (Presumably the same applies to the incoming infrared from the sun – it too has no impact on CO2).
Tomcat | October 13, 2012 at 1:47 am |
Myrrh, let me see if I get this.
Seems everyone agrees
A – the earth is warmed by infrared radiation directly from the sun, which is thereby absorbed, converted into heat energy.
B – the earth is not warmed by the visible radiation from the sun. This is not absorbed, hence causes no heating, and is instead re-radiated back out – but as infrared.
Who is “everyone” Tomcat?
I’m arguing against the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget which says that thermal infrared direct from the Sun doesn’t even get into the atmosphere..
..instead, this idiotic Greenhouse Effect energy budget says that only shortwave from the Sun heats land and oceans.
This AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget has given the property of heating matter to shortwave only which in the real world is the property of thermal infrared from the Sun.
That is my argument. Idiotic science fiction AGW Greenhouse Effect.
The AGW meme here is “shortwave in longwave out”.
It is idiotic fiction to claim, as AGW Greenhouse Effect fisics does, that the shortwave from the Sun converts to heat. It is not a thermal energy in the real world physics, it is not capable of heating matter in the real world physics.
Hence my challenge, prove that shortwave from the Sun heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it takes to give us our huge wind and dramatic weath systems.
What AGWSF has done is to remove from the energy budget the real direct heat from the Sun so that it can ‘claim’ that any measured downwelling longwave infrared, heat, comes from their fictional “backradiation”.
I’m pointing out the CON. I’m pointing out the sleight of hand that AGWSF has put into place to promote the AGW through the Greenhouse Effect.
Where the difference of opinion seems to lie, is what happens to this re-radiated upwelling infrared. AGW says greenhouse gasses absorb and re-radiate it, and some of this “re-re-rediated” infrared is downwelling, and hence warms the earth surface.
You say what exactly? … The upwelling infrared just carries on out into space, not interacting with CO2 in any way, having no effect on it? (Presumably the same applies to the incoming infrared from the sun – it too has no impact on CO2).
This isn’t about difference of opinion – as I’ve said above, this is about me trying to explain that the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect is fictional fisics, by its own claims.
What I’m saying the effects are of the direct heat from the Sun excised from the GE EnergyBudget, is that all measurements of it in the atmosphere are attributed only to that produced by the heated Earth’s surface.
So, for example, the Sun’s effects on the recent ‘global warming’ are said to be of no significance, that it’s all due to the greenhouse gas increase absorbing and radiating back/holding in blanket, the infrared heat upwelling from the surface.
In other words, because they have taken out the real heat from the Sun, the direct thermal infrared, and have only the indirect from “longwave out”, all changes in the Corona have been excised and it is here that we get our solar cycles.
I hope this is clearer, it’s not an easy thing to explain because like all the best con tricks they play on words to hide that they’ve made changes.
The visible light spectrum is confined to the wavelength the human eye can see:
“A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
Infrared light spectrum is a large band of wavelength which starts at bottom of visible light and some circumstances can even be seen by the human eye. The infrared spectrum close to visible is call the the near infrared:
“Near infrared or NIR is a subdivision in the infrared band somewhere between the 800 nm and 2500 nm wavelengths”
http://www.universetoday.com/35030/near-infrared/
Note the use of the word “somewhere”. As in what is 760 nm? Visible or Near infrared?
This graph of spectrum of sunlight which reaches the earth surface is marked from 250 to 2500 nm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
And it indicates where visible light is in graph.
And the 250 to 2500 is all shortwave.
The infrared spectrum:
“Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with longer wavelengths than those of visible light, extending from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 0.74 micrometres (µm) to 300 µm. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
Or 740 to 300,000 nm.
Visible light: 390 to 750 or range of 350 nm
IR: a range of 299,260 nm or IR is 855 times bigger spectrum.
Or in the infrared and visible light spectrum which let’s relabel: Light that Matters: LTM, visible light is a trace gas.
Or in the graph showing spectrum of sunlight, roughly 250 to 2500 nm it only includes a small section of the IR spectrum.
And same page [above] they also say IR is 750 nm – 1 mm. Or
750 to 1,000,000 nm. Or in this system one has range of roughly factor of 1000. And the frequency is 405 THz – 300 GHz, which again is factor of thousand. And energy of Photon: 1.24 meV – 1.7 eV. Which again is factor of thousand.
Compare to visible light:
Visible 390 nm – 750 nm 790 THz – 405 THz 1.7 eV – 3.3 eV
Which is not a factor of 1000, it is less than a factor of 10
All other named wavelengths [other than ultraviolet] are classified
by a factor a thousand.
In would be perfectly logical in this system to say that ultraviolet and visible light are part of the IR spectrum. Or give it different name like LTM. And say ultraviolet and visible light are small portion of LTM and LTM is mostly IR light
So the Sun is almost entirely emitting LTM and LTM is comprised of what could be called shortwave: Ultraviolet thru visible to Near Infrared.
And long wave: the rest of the LTM spectrum. And the Sun emits Shortwave and warmed bodies [from this sunlight or other sources] emit mostly Longwave and portion of Microwave spectrum.
Humans see in visible light [[redundant]]. Life on earth sees in a wider spectrum than just humans do. Various kinds of life sees in portions of ultraviolet light and in portions of Near Infrared light.
Snakes have pits which allows them sense longwave radiation- so snakes aren’t seeing they are detecting things like a bat “sees” by making sound and listening. So not talking about snakes and bats, I mean using something that resembles an eyeball- such as insects [ultraviolet] or cats- able to see in darker conditions better than humans. So there is a wider spectrum of “visible light” than what is called visible light because it defined by what *most/average* human can see.
Or Near infrared photography: ” Wavelengths used for photography range from about 700 nm to about 900 nm.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography
Visible light: 390 to 750. So with nothing more than using lens which mostly blocks the 390 to 700 nm part it “sees” 150 nm into the near infrared. All you doing to “see it” is using slightly different light sensitive film which works better..
Or there is not *huge* difference between 900 and 750 nm, other than humans did not evolve to see as far as 900 nm. Nor is there *much* difference between 900 to as much as say, 1200 nm.
If you picked say a range of 300 to 1300 nm that is range of most of energy of sunlight.
howstuffworks explains if this way. Notice they say “can be split into three categories” rather than “is split into three categories” or there is degree of flexibility in these terms:
“Infrared light can be split into three categories:
Near-infrared (near-IR) – Closest to visible light, near-IR has wavelengths that range from 0.7 to 1.3 microns, or 700 billionths to 1,300 billionths of a meter.
Mid-infrared (mid-IR) – Mid-IR has wavelengths ranging from 1.3 to 3 microns. Both near-IR and mid-IR are used by a variety of electronic devices, including remote controls.
Thermal-infrared (thermal-IR) – Occupying the largest part of the infrared spectrum, thermal-IR has wavelengths ranging from 3 microns to over 30 microns.
The key difference between thermal-IR and the other two is that thermal-IR is emitted by an object instead of reflected off it. Infrared light is emitted by an object because of what is happening at the atomic level. ”
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/high-tech-gadgets/nightvision1.htm
So, thermal-IR, or the 3 microns to over 30 microns wavelength is called this because normal stuff around you or “room temperature” stuff emits this radiation- emits photons in that wavelength.
And the near-IR and the mid-IR are coming from some light source, like the sun or light bulb, which can seen/detected because objects are reflecting this wavelength.
@sam nc
Example:
Atmosphere: Size 100 units
Gas A: 1 per 100 (1%)
Other gases 99 per 100 (99%)
Multiply gas A by 100
New size of atmosphere: 199
New size of gas A: 100
New proportion of gas A 100/199 (51%)
Other gases 99/199 (49%)
Other gases are not expelled. Size of atmosphere increases.
Capiche?
OK. When other gases are not expelled. I stand corrected.
Latimer,
“You seem to be very confused about the differences between latent heat and specific heat.”
I had been working with latent heat and specific heat for over 20 years.
“FWIW the specific heat of CO2 vapour is about half of H20 (0.846 KJ./kgK vs 1.996KJ/kgK), so the second part of your statement is trivially true (though I am not sure of its relevance).”
So you think the magnitude of 0.846KJ at 0.04% Compared with about1.996KJ at ~1% (roughly 1:60 in heat content magnitude difference) is trivially true in dry air? This 1:60 has not accounted for the moisture content in the atmosphere. I assume you know latent heat in the moisture content right?
“But the relevance of your first remarks has totally escaped me. Latent heat is only a consideration if phase changes are involved. Where do they come into play in your ideas?”
See the answer above.
@sam nc
If you had a point to make it has escaped me.
It is no explanation of a previous post simply to say
‘see answer above’.
And this para
‘So you think the magnitude of 0.846KJ at 0.04% Compared with about1.996KJ at ~1% (roughly 1:60 in heat content magnitude difference) is trivially true in dry air? This 1:60 has not accounted for the moisture content in the atmosphere. I assume you know latent heat in the moisture content right?’
seems to be entirely relevance-free, even if I could decode it.
Please try again.
“So you think the magnitude of 0.846KJ at 0.04% Compared with about1.996KJ at ~1% (roughly 1:60 in heat content magnitude difference) is trivially true in dry air? This 1:60 has not accounted for the moisture content in the atmosphere. I assume you know latent heat in the moisture content right?’
seems to be entirely relevance-free, even if I could decode it.”
He saying .04% of atmosphere is CO2 and H2O gas is about 1 %
or there is 25 times more water vapor.
Tomcat | October 11, 2012 at 5:22 am
Tomcat, the difference between you and Myrrh is: you ”know” Myrrh understands – there is big, big difference between knowing and understanding how the things function – that’s why he is contradicting IPCC, with confidence.
1] Photon / light is ”reflected” that’s why you can see it, not absorbed. If the visible light was absorbed – it means: would be accumulative – you would be able to spread pots and buckets in your backyard – absorb / accumulate /. collect and use that light at night, to save on electricity; but is not on!
Visible lights are reflected – that’s why deep ocean looks blue – even though the water is transparent; reflects the visible light – same as when you look up in the sky, it;s blue – because the colour that register blue is reflected. If you go further up, into the space station – look trough the window, you will see black; because is no gases, to reflect any light.
The second subject that most of you are wrong, is ”heat radiating” from the ground and warming the water and CO2 clouds high up, is WRONG! Heat from the ground doesn’t radiate for more than 2 inches! because above the ground are O&N, as perfect insulators. ( use a pot of boiling water – monitor how far on the side of the pot you can register that heat 1-2-3 inches, from 100C heat; (not above the pot, because there steam is taking heat up)
The heat from the ground is COLLECTED by oxygen & nitrogen; reason when is windy, cooling is more efficient -> that heat makes them to expand and on the way up, to waste that heat. (by the way, sunlight is reflected by the seawater / mirror effect – reason they use mirrors, to produce electricity. Bottom line / the most important: heat collected by the water and dirty clouds, never come down to the ground – therefore: IPCC doesn’t have a case!!!
Myrrh is making a legitimate argument. All the heat from the ground and from the dirty clouds is taken up by O&N and wasted. Same as water takes heat from the engine to the radiator, to dispose it. The only difference is: O&N when warmed; can double the volume of the troposphere; imagine if your car radiator can expand like piano-acordian, when warmed extra. Until everybody understands that – all of you will be stumbling in the dark. Because O &N expand INSTANTLY when warmed / shrink instantly, when cooled – extra heat in the atmosphere is NOT accumulative!!! The only reason some places get warmer than normal is because; other places get colder than normal – shrink and make space to accommodate the extra volume of air, from where is warmer – otherwise, if the WHOLE atmosphere gets warmer -> earth’s radiator increases in volume and equalizes in a jiffy. Reason for the confusion, because all of you are barking up the wrong tree. .
willard (@nevaudit) | October 10, 2012 at 11:35 am |
More waffle and obfuscation designed to back up your and Joshua’s earlier aggressive silliness. Either Joshua knows what he talking about and has an answer to Latimer, or he doesn’t. The idea that he has one but won’t answer for fear of rabbit holes etc etc is lame in the extreme. It indicates Joshua has no answer but lacks the honesty to face up to that, and is trying slink away to cover that up. Being a commenter on a blog is nothing but going down rabbit holes ffs! As is science.
@tomcat
Thanks for your observation.
It is by no means unusual for alarmist commentators to make some sweeping alarmist remarks about some imagined danger or threat or whatever today’s greenist ’cause du jour’ is, but to fold up like burst balloons when asked the simplest supplementary question. Usually with long-winded waffle in an ill-fated attempt to misdirect the reader away from the self-evident fact that they haven’t a clue about the subject. And then add in a few accusations of ‘denialism’.
The tactic is lame and just a waste of everybody’s time.
From a personal observation, when I did a bit of sales work, we viewed an objection to our sales pitch as a good sign not as a threat. It showed that the punter was engaged enough to want to know more. And in answering the objection gave scope for you to find out more of their particular interests, as well as another opportunity to demonstrate the strength of one’s case and virtues of the product. The salesman’s worst nightmare is the prospect who just sits there like a stuffed dummy and gives nothing back…the ‘low reactor’. And when I was buying, the ‘low reactor’ stance worked well with inexperienced sales reps who were unwisely tempted to make a far better deal than they might have otherwise.
To answer every question/objection to a sales pitch (for that is what the alarmist narrative really is) with screeches of denial is totally unpersuasive and frankly stupid. It turns the punter off, leaves them unengaged with the product…and possibly generates outright hostility to both the pitch and the .pitcher.
Latimer,
In your above comment you compare us “alarmists” to salespeople. But when you debate in forums such as this you are “selling” your position just as much as anyone on my side of the argument.
@andrew adams
Sure.
I think we can assume that nearly everybody who writes on a blog does so because they wish to persuade other people of their point of view. In that sense everybody is ‘selling’ something. Absolutely no dispute there.
My remark wasn’t in the slightest meant to criticise people for doing so. Just pointing out that, if you view the interactions in that way is shows just how spectacularly bad the alarmist sales tactics can be.
There are plenty of examples on this blog and especially on this thread. I’m sure that you would not buy a used car from a salesman who angrily refused you a test drive, and nor should you buy a dodgy ‘climate change’ narrative from people who scream ‘denier’ when asked a simple question to backup their assertions.
@andrew adams
PS I should add that *your* interactions here have always been scrupulously correct. You do not indulge in the self-defeating tactics of some of your ‘colleagues’. and your arguments are more persuasive because of that.
Latimer,
Thank you for those words. I certainly agree in principle that if we want to persuade people we have to take responsiblity for the way we make our argument. I guess we may differ over particular examples but I’m happy to leave it at the point where we are in agreement for once ;)
Tomcat,
Thank you for your unsollicited advice a bit earlier. Answering questions someone asks you is certainly a good suggestion. But you have to admit that your advice misses some details:
Joshua never was under no obligation to satisfy Latimer. It is obvious that Latimer can’t get no satisfaction. He can follow the thread of the conversation, but this task does not seem obvious to him. And to top it all, Latimer is acting like a pest.
This leads to an interesting Procrustean game:
Step 1. Ask questions in the most annoying manner.
Step 2. Until you receive an answer, act like a pest.
Step 3. If you receive an answer tell you’re not satisfied and go to 1.
Let’s call it the Can’t Get No Satisfaction algorithm. This algorithm is self-fulfilling. It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except state after state of lack of satisfaction.
That does not mean this algorithm is sufficient. It needs a strategy. This strategy is quite simple: never own anything you say or do.
The strategy is simple, but the implementation is not.
Latimer has to be ready to reply to someone that you’re into a Can’t Get No mode that it’s his fault. His interlocutors are the ones who make him do it. Because what they say is not obvious, or not observable evidence, or what not. That’s the easy part of the strategy: you can always find an excuse to reject what the interlocutor says and blame him at the same time.
The uneasy part is when you’re being called for not taking any responsibility for anything you do or say. Then, you have to fake the best commisseration you can. Playing the victim is a tough skill to develop.
In case the conversation does not turn out too well, you need a backup plan. Oftentimes we see the recruitment of a sidekick whose vulgarity can help you start a food fight.
At the beginning of the conversation, it was David Springer.
Now, it is you.
Wellcome aboard.
***
Here’s the first hit that “pollution from fossil fuels” got me:
> The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide). Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which the vast majority of climate scientists agree will cause major **adverse effects**.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
There is also a section entitled **Environmental effects**.
Clicking on the link under the expression “adverse effects” leads to this other page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
Happy reading, vulgar sidekick!
Science is already doing it to us; they don’t feel a thing willard.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49333454/Mysterious_Algorithm_Was_4_of_Trading_Activity_Last_Week
Almost in the open too.
Thanks for the link!
And let’s not forget that another kind of agent might become your next climate war debater:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17852/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda
Check.
ht/mt
Tom
Bandwidth stuffing by high-frequency traders is just scum-as-usual. It really has nothing to do with science at all.
Neither does AGW, in truth.
AGW is a consequence of the physics of radiative transfer Tom.
BBD,
I am sorry too. I trusted these people. Now, from what I have read…AGW is Fizz-X.
Tom
Scientists have been predicting that CO2 would warm the planet for over 100 years. This well-understood consequence of radiative transfer physics is nothing new. Nor has it ever been falsified, despite furious scientific scrutiny in recent decades. The only thing that has happened is that a vast deal of rubbish has been circulated – much of it online – by non-experts who almost invariably have either political, religious or financial vested interests in rejecting the scientific consensus on AGW.
You will not find a sound scientific case for ‘scepticism’ because there isn’t one. So whatever you have read is a product of political, religious or financial vested interests (which frequently overlap). Failing that, it is just straight-up crank pseudo-science.
BBD, Myself, being one of them. You do present a riddle in a fiddle when you write:
“You will not find a sound scientific case for ‘scepticism’ because there isn’t one.”
Slippery and I agree on this one.
Your last comment is incomprehensible.
BBD
The case against CAGW, is that is there isn’t a case for it. It’s just crank pseudo-science, driven home by the mega-buck vested interest of the the state. Entrenched by science-frauds like Climategate, with which the climate Establishment cannot being itself to criticize.
willard
There is the other strategy, used by CAGW faithfuls.
It’s the “hit and run” approach.
You “hit” your debate opponent with a ludicrous claim (often with an “ad hom” tossed in for free).
When your debate partner asks for specific evidence to support your claim, you “run”.
Max
Manacker,
Speaking of hitting and running, again you jest while you have homework to do:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-248950
Also please provide a quote for what you claim over there, as I have no reason to trust your reading skills:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-252004
Just the two most recent examples where you provide (arguably unsatisfactory to Latimer) evidence where you sound like the hit and run agent you are describing.
Many thanks for the illustration!
willard
re your earlier post on the other thread.
I had already given you my opinion on these matters.
You responded by giving me your (but not responding to my questions)..
Seeing no sense in continuing the conversation, I did not respond.
My original points still stands.
– CAGW is the term used by many for the IPCC premise, as I explained. I did not make this expression up. It’s out there – get used to it.
– The CAGW premise is not supported by empirical data, as I pointed out. You have responded with a lot of words, but you have not cited any empirical data in support of the CAGW premise. Nada. Zilch.
– I do not see how the CAGW premise can be scientifically falsified. Some might say that the current lack of global warming despite ever increasing CO2 to record levels, is a direct falsification, but CAGW supporters throw out all sorts of rationalizations, (time period too short, Chinese aerosols, natural variability, etc.) to keep the CAGW premise alive. When there are endless rationalizations that make falsification impossible, I’d say the premise is not falsifiable. You have not been able to tell me what would falsify the CAGW premise.
So all your waffle-words did not address the questions I raised, but simply sidetracked the issue.
Either respond to points 2 and 3 above with empirical scientific data supporting CAGW and an indication of how CAGW can be scientifically falsified, or hold your peace.
Is that answer good enough for you, willard?
Max
Manacker,
You talk about a CAGW premise.
First, I have never seen you identify this premise. No quotes, no citations. I have asked you many times now to provide a quote and one citation. If you don’t, nothing warrants us to believe that what you are referring as the “CAGW premise” is not a strawman made from your own stuffing.
Second, I have never seen you substantiate the assumption that this is a premise. As far as I am concerned, AGW is a scientific hypothesis. So I have no idea in what way AGW should be connected with what you call the CAGW premise.
As I asked you many times already.
Keeping talking points does not help you to fulfill these tasks.
In fact, if you don’t identify what you mean by “CAGW premise”, all you have are talking points.
That you mainly rinse and repeat talking points is quite obvious, as evidenced by your hit and runs.
Perhaps, if only this time, you’d like to do some real talking?
willard
I plus others here and on other threads have repeatedly stated IPCC’s CAGW premise as follows (I’ll put it in bold, so it’s easier for you to understand):
Most of the global warming since ~1950 has with greater than 90% likelihood been caused by increased concentrations of human GHGs, principally CO2,
AND
this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, if actions are not undertaken to curtail GHG emissions, principally CO2
If you do NOT support the above premise, we can end our exchange.
If you DO support the above premise, we can move on.
Max
Max
CAGW also goes by the name of ‘catastrophic climate change’ and is a term regularly used by the Britsh Government and by its agencies such as the Met office
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6236690/Met-Office-catastrophic-climate-change-could-happen-with-50-years.html
The above article clearly explains the definition as regards temperature increase and various side effects.
tonyb
Willard
Since you have asked me to cite references regarding the meaning of “CAGW”, let me do so.
The first part of the premise refers to past climate change. Here I quote IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM, p. 10:
The second part refers to the future threat unless actions are taken. This is mentioned throughout AR4, but the most succinct summary given in the lead-in statement in the testimony of James E. Hansen before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United States House of Representatives, April 26, 2007
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Testimony_20070426.pdf
That is the CAGW premise.
Got it?
Max
tony b
Looks like our two posts crossed.
Thanks.
Believe Willard should now have enough references to understand what is meant by “CAGW” or “catastrophic climate change”, as it has been called in the UK.
Now it’s up to Willard to either write that he does NOT support the CAGW premise (in which case our exchange has ended) OR
to write that he DOES support this premise, on the basis of the empirical evidence as follows………citing the empirical scientific evidence (Feynman) supporting the premise.
I have also requested that he write me how the CAGW premise could be falsified (Popper)
Let’s see what he comes up with.
Max
Manacker,
Thank you for your answer. It took some effort, but it was worthwhile. We now see that AGW and CAGW are two different beasts. I’m not sure why you mix them up.
In fact, why call AGW a premise? For me, a premise is something that has a specific meaning, e.g.
> A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
All you did was to state one conclusion. The premises from this conclusion would be the evidence basis upon which this conclusion is reached.
Also, I don’t believe that you can assert that this conclusion is not based on empirical evidence. Of course it is. You may disagree about the evidence, or about the inference, or about the pragmatic consequences from AGW, but you can’t say that the IPCC does not offer an evidence basis. It does.
In fact, I do note that you mix all the attacks possible: sometimes you attack the evidence, sometimes the conclusion, sometimes the inference, and sometimes the pragmatic consequences.
This kind of absolute contrarianism is not uninteresting in itself.
***
I appreciate Hansen’s testimony, but I’m not sure that we should include the idea of a carbon tax in the “C”. You talked about the AR4. What would be the statement in AR4 that would be the most representative for what you and others associate to the “C”?
Many thanks!
tonyb,
Thank you for the article.
I note that the Torygraph refers to a “a Met Office report” or a “Government-funded study”, but I fail to see where they cite it. Nor is it shown a quote where the word “catastrophic” is being used.
Do you have the specific citation?
Many thanks!
Max,
Thanks for those IPCC quotes.
I think the IPCC’s conservative take on this is laudable.
‘Potentially serious’ sounds like a very sober assessment and a firm refutation of Max’s ‘CAGW’ hysteria.
Willard
Here i is the met office press release
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/four-degrees
here is the study and media list
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/media.php
by the way the torygraph is generally considered a warmst newspapr-google Geoffrey lean
this from scientific Ameican
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-risinge i
The word dangerous and disastrous seems pretty interchangeable
tonyb
willard
Glad you now finally see what the world means by “CAGW”
I do not “mix this up” with AGW at all (as you erroneously assume).
AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely:
– GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to warming (GH theory)
– CO2 is a GHG (as is water vapor plus some minor GHGs)
– CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)
– global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~30-year warming cycles with ~30-year cycles of slight cooling in between)
– humans emit CO2 and other GHGs
– ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming
CAGW has been defined for you and references have been cited.
AR4 WG1 SPM also lists many of the points Hansen listed in his congressional testimony: sea level rise, temperature rise, increased severe weather plus secondary effects
Now I’m still waiting for you to tell me whether or not you support the CAGW premise as stated and, if so, for you to cite the empirical data upon which you base your support
AND
indicate to me how you think the CAGW premise could be falsified.
Ball’s in your court, Willard.
If you are unable or unwilling to cite the empirical date with references (Feynman) plus tell me how CAGW could be scientifically falsified (Popper), I will conclude that you cannot do so, because such data do not exist and/or the CAGW premise cannot be falsified.
Waffle time is over. It’s time to get specific (no “hit and run” approach).
Max
Michael
Right.
That’s why I used the expression “represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment” (temperature increase by 2100 of up to 6.4C, increased droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme high sea level plus secondary effects, such as crop failures, spread of vector diseases, loss of drinking water from melting glaciers, etc. all as listed in IPCC AR4).
That’s the “C” in “CAGW”, a premise to which I do not subscribe, but IPCC and James E. Hansen (among others) do..
Max
Manacker,
For me, this proposition:
> Most of the global warming since ~1950 has with greater than 90% likelihood been caused by increased concentrations of human GHGs, principally CO2.
could perhaps be dubbed the official validation of the AGW hypothesis. It could also be called the quantification of the claim, but this might be unjustifiably generous.
This is not CAGW, nor is it a premise.
***
Here’s John Nielsen-Gammon’s formulation of the argument I have in mind:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
As you can see, the hypothesis is distinguished from the conclusion, although both are related.
As you can see, the results are empirical lines of evidence.
As you can see, as soon as we have a specific proposition on the table, it’s a bit tougher to hit and run with talking points.
***
Reading back your comment, I believe you don’t disagree with any of this. Your main beef is against CAGW. This has to be connected with AGW in an explicit and a logical way.
To be explicit, we need to work on a working proposition.
To be logical, this proposition needs to be connected in an argumentative framework.
This remains to be done.
Since what you are arguing against is CAGW and considering the agreement we could reach by specifying AGW, I suggest we specify CAGW too.
tonyb,
Thank you for all the links. I’ll take a look.
Perhaps you could always use “dangerous” instead of “disastrous”, if both are interchangeable… ;-)
For reference, here’s the URL for the AR4 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html
In the introduction, we find interesting operative words:
> This Synthesis Report is based on the assessment carried out by the three Working Groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It provides an integrated view of climate change as the final part of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
The operative words provide evidence that the SPM will contain something like conclusions, not premises.
willard
Thanks for your last waffle.
Looks like you are continuing to avoid my request to cite specific empirical evidence in support of the CAGW (or DAGW, if you prefer) premise of IPCC and James E. Hansen.
From this I have concluded that you are unable to do so.
I really did not expect you to do so. This has been my experience with all proponents of the CAGW premise.
I have also been unable for any one of them to tell me what it would take to falsify the CAGW premise, so you are no exception here, either.
It’s been nice talking with you anyway. You have confirmed to me that I have reason to continue to be rationally skeptical of the CAGW premise, as it is not supported by empirical scientific data – and, most likely, cannot even be falsified.
Max
Manacker,
You have yet to quote and cite a formal statement of what you are referring as the CAGW premise.
You have yet to justify your use of “premise”.
You have yet to justify why CAGW needs to be falsified, nor how the scientists of the world could ever satisfy you on that point.
***
As far as I can tell, you are in a conceptual bind:
If your CAGW premise is not a scientific claim, it makes no sense to apply scientific criteria to it.
If your CAGW is a scientific claim, it makes no sense to integrate policies (let alone specific policies like carbon taxes) into it.
Burdening me with the task to falsify an unspecified proposition makes me believe that you are catching a glimpse of this conceptual bind.
And that’s just the beginning of your conceptual problems: relying on a naive conception of falsificationnism, challenging people with ad hoc criterias, using a terminology that estrange your eventual logical apparatus, etc.
Popquiz:
1. In the first section of the Summary, we read:
> Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
1a. Is that AGW, or CAGW, or neither?
1b. Is this a premise or a conclusion?
Popquiz (continued)
2. On the same page, we read:
> Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.
2a. Does this belong to AGW or CAGW?
2b. Is this a premise or a conclusion?
3. On the same page, we read:
> There is medium confidence that other effects of regional climate change on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers.
3a. Does this belong to AGW or CAGW?
3b. Is this a premise or a conclusion?
Popquiz (continued)
3. Skipping section 2, which was already discussed, we get to section 3, entitled Projected climate change and its impacts. A few propositions are emphasized in blue.
The first is this one:
> There is high agreement and much evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades.
The second is:
> Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century
The third one is:
> There is now higher confidence than in the TAR in projected patterns of warming and other regional-scale features, including changes in wind patterns, precipitation and some aspects of extremes and sea ice.
The fourth one is:
> Studies since the TAR have enabled more systematic understanding of the timing and magnitude of impacts related to differing amounts and rates of climate change.
The fifth one is:
> Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems
The sixth one is:
> Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if GHG concentrations were to be stabilised.
The seventh one is:
> Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
Questions
3a. What proposition would encompass all of the above?
3b. Would it be a premise or a conclusion?
3c. What kind of statement (scientific, moral, political, theological, etc.) would it be?
Best of luck!
Willard, Since you report it has taken you a lot of effort to grasp, here’s a cut-down version to help you. What all the fuss is about, is CAGW. This is what underlies the whole unproven ‘consensus’ conjecture, even if the terms they use are not as forthright.
Willard,
> Most of the global warming since ~1950 has with greater than 90% likelihood been caused by increased concentrations of human GHGs, principally CO2.
could perhaps be dubbed the official validation of the AGW hypothesis.
Textbook example of circular argument, the attribution conclusion fitted to the premise. That’s the CAGW lark for you.
Max,
It looks like little more than word games from you.
IPCC says “serious”, you wail “catastrophic”.
willard
You write:
WHAT?
– I have cited the specific reference to IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM, p.10, which gives a statement of the “CAGW premise” regarding attribution of past warming
– I have cite the specific testimony by James E. Hansen to a US Senate committee listing many of the “catastrophic results” that will result from AGW (unless corrective action is taken), and even listing suggestions for the corrective action.
– I have listed the “catastrophic results” that are projected to occur, according to IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM, pp. 8 and 13: temperature increase of up to 6.4°C, heat waves, floods, droughts, increased intense tropical cyclones, extreme high sea level, as well as some of the secondary impacts, which IPCC projects in WG2, WG3: crop failures, disappearing glaciers now supplying drinking water for millions, spread of vector diseases, etc.
-And finally, I have put this statement into my words (condensed) to encompass the above descriptions by IPCC, Hansen etc. of “CAGW”
Is there anything in all of that, which you do not understand?
“Premise” is defined as (on-line dictionary): “A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.”
Under synonyms I find: “argument, assertion, hypothesis, postulation”
I have used it in more in the sense of “hypothesis” where this has been defined as “an assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”.
Got it now?
So much for the “CAGW premise” (or “hypothesis”), for which you have so far been unable to cite supporting empirical scientific data, i.e. from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation (Feynman).
If you’ll check Wiki (for example) you’ll see what is meant here.
Wiki states: “Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method.” (Popper)
It is up to the one who proposes or supports a hypothesis to explain how it could be scientifically falsified.
Willard, you have evaded the challenge long enough with blah-blah.
– Cite the empirical evidence to support the hypothesis.
– Tell me how the hypothesis can be falsified.
Or I will take this as an admission that you are unable to do either.
Max
Micael
You got it wrong.
I am not “wailing catastrophic”.
I do not even conclude that the impact of AGW is “serious”.
I have not seen any empirical data to support the “catastrophic” (or “serious”) projections of IPCC
– temperature increase by 2100 of up to 6.4C
– extreme high sea level
– increased heat waves
– increased droughts
– increased foods, heavy rainfall
– increased intense tropical storms
– crop failures
– loss of glaciers providing drinking water for millions
– spread of vector diseases
etc.
I have asked willard (who apparently believes in the validity of these IPCC projections) to cite empirical evidence for these. He has failed to do so (so far).
I have also asked him how the above-stated “CGW premise” of IPCC can be falsified scientifically. He has also been unable to answer this.question.
Hope this clears it up for you, Michael.
Mac
Max,
I don’t see the IPCC saying ‘catastrophic’ – only you.
Michael
Again you are confused when you write:
I have listed the specific projections of IPCC.
There is no doubt in my mind that these would be potentially “catastrophic” (or “serious”).
These, plus the conclusion that most of the warming since ~1950 was caused by AGW, constitute the IPCC “CAGW” hypothesis or premise, as it is known.
If you do not believe that the potential changes projected by IPCC would be “catastrophic” or “serious”, say so.
I think they would be – BUT I do not think they will occur, because neither they themselves nor the above-stated premise of attribution of past warming are based on empirical scientific evidence, simply model simulations and theoretical deliberations.
If you don’t like the commonly used name “CAGW” (to distinguish from the AGW hypothesis itself), give me one, which you think would be more appropriate.
Hope this has cleared up your confusion, once and for all.
Max
Manacker,
For me, this proposition:
> Most of the global warming since ~1950 has with greater than 90% likelihood been caused by increased concentrations of human GHGs, principally CO2.
could perhaps be dubbed the official validation of the AGW hypothesis. It could also be called the quantification of the claim, but this might be unjustifiably generous.
If you don’t like this formulation of this proposition, you can tale John Nielsen-Gammon’s conclusion. Heck, you can even take your own formulation:
> Human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed warming.
You’ve just told us that you take this for the first part of the CAGW premise:
> I plus others here and on other threads have repeatedly stated IPCC’s CAGW premise as follows.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253094
This is not CAGW, nor is it a premise. This is the conclusion of the argument for AGW.
Perhaps this conclusion might be a premise for what you call CAGW. Perhaps you are wishing to let us know that you agree with the first half of what you call the CAGW premise.
Perhaps all this would be easier if you stopped pussyfooting and simply put forward a proposition for what you call CAGW. Not AGW, just the C. Quoting Hansen’s testimony does not count as an official proposition.
Handwaving to pages does not amount to quote anything.
You can find examples of such propositions in the popquiz. I await for you to find something that would look like this:
> [AGW] represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, if actions are not undertaken to curtail GHG emissions, principally CO2.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253094
***
And for the nth time, it would be nice of you if you explain for once why the hell you call the proposition that still needs to be specified a premise.
To do that, you will have to analyze the specified proposition.
***
Sloganeering won’t help you, this time.
Willard and Michael
From what I have read here, you both appear to agree with the IPCC conclusion that most of the warming since ~1950 was caused by human GHG emissions and with the resulting IPCC projections of potentially deleterious future changes resulting from AGW (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC “CAGW premise”).
I am rationally skeptical of this premise (or hypothesis) as I have seen no empirical scientific evidence supporting it, nor have I seen a statement from anyone how the hypothesis could be falsified.
Despite numerous blog exchanges and lots of verbiage, neither of you has been able to:
– Cite empirical scientific evidence to support this premise
– Tell me how this hypothesis could be falsified
So I can only conclude that
– Such empirical evidence does not exist and
– The CAGW premise cannot be falsified, ergo it is not a valid scientific hypothesis
Thanks for confirming this.
As a rational skeptic, I will keep looking.
Max
Manacker,
The word “hypothesis” and the word “premise” are not interchangeable. You forgot to say that you agree about the first half of it. The only reason why you keep sticking the two halves together is to justify that you are talking about CAGW.
You are also presuming that I believe in something that I keep repeating that is misspecified. Not only are you putting words into my mouth, you do not even state once and for all which words you are putting in my mouth.
I am quite agnostic to CAGW. Heck, I am quite agnostic to AGW too. I never understood why I should have an opinion on all of this, and if so, why this would matter with the price of tea.
If this is the best explanation we have, it is the best explanation we have. My belief is quite irrelevant. So why should I entertain any?
Your characterization of being a rational skepticism runs against an old philosophical tradition. You might very well be usurpating the concept of skepticism by constantly asking for a kind of knowledge your own framework refuses to accept. I’m not sure if this is repugnant (tm — auditing sciences), though I’m quite sure this is wrong.
***
The expression “falsifying a projection” deserves due diligence.
In the traditional framework, falsification applies to lawful hypotheses, or theories as a whole, or even set of theories. I assume that you know that projections are not predictions, and that falsification is not usually applied to projections. For instance, I don’t recall Popper talking about projections. Do you have any references to back this idea of yours?
Perhaps I could be a bit more blunt: to ask for projections to be falsifiable makes little sense to me. Simulations are just simulations: they help extrapolate from the evidence we have. They also help to represent our knowledge of the evidence. We also use them to correct our evidence. Indeed for me, data and theory are intertwined, theories too are intertwined. In other words, holism wins.
The very possibility of using projections that way might be the best refutation of falsificationnism. If you refuse projections, that is the theorical simulation, extrapolation, and representation of complex data, you are refusing how the empirical sciences are being conducted right now.
If I had a choice between following empirical scientists and a guy on the Internet who has problems distinguishing a premise from a conclusion, I would hesitate to follow that guy.
Ah, we see that Max has the same definition of “empirical” as Latimer.
Proposal: AGW is Junk science.
Definitions:
also
QED
The absolutisim is of interest. On the attribution of warming since 1950 being caused by GHGs:
(my emphasis)
Remarkable. I fear I may revert to the dictionary once more.
Blinkered (adjective)
1. Narrow-minded
unable or unwilling to understand anything outside a very narrow range
willard the waffler.
You have posted lots of empty blah blah but no evidence to support your CAGW premise.
All talk – no data.
That’s science?
Not really.
Thanks for confirming that there is no empirical scientific basis for the IPCC hypothesis of CAGW.
Bye.
Max
Very Tall Guy
You are apparently also unable to cite the empirical evidence (Feynman) supporting the IPCC CAGW premise.
So be it.
See ya later
Max
manacker,
Insults won’t help you answer my comment:
You have yet to specify what you now call the CAGW hypothesis.
Now have you acknowledge that you believe the first part of this hypothesis.
That I know because you specified that hypothesis.
Let me help you. Here’s one statement we can find in the AR4 SPM:
> Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-4.html
Would you agree that this proposition represents well enough what you call the CAGW hypothesis?
Many thanks!
PS: What was the quote for the ending of that Willard Romney ghostwritten book, again?
@willard
Yes there is nothing wrong with models per se, and much current knowledge is put into them. And we climate laymen aren’t really equipped to asses them.
The real problem is the *industry* making them is steeped in malpractice and bias – due to be financed by politics, which has a vested interest in showing more political interference is called for. A profession that has largely blown its public trust by allowing the Climategaters to continue unpunished.
Max,
that you are able to make such a statement when at the same time quoting your own definition of CAGW based on AR4 shows just how blinkered your thinking is.
That you casually dismiss the 1,000 pages of evidence in the report as “not empirical” is remarkable in its chutzpah.
It’s also a great illustration of denial in action.
Is there a difference between “I deny the existence of 1,000 pages of scientific evidence” and “the 1000 pages of evidence is not empirical”?
My hypothesis is that you are denying the evidence. You can falsify that easily enough. Go ahead, admit reality. There is plenty of evidence.
Oh wow. Congrats – this is the most trivial sub-thread ever.
‘global emissions must peak in the next decade or two and then decline to well below current levels by the middle of the 21st century if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.’
Let me google that for you – http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=IPCC+%2B+catastrophic+climate+change
@willard
I begin to understand. The scales have fallen from my eyes. It is very simple.
You didn’t grasp the question in the first place. Here’s a reminder
‘That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change is completely obvious’
And I wrongly thought that you were struggling with the second half of the sentence. Instead you had failed to understand ‘irrespective of any harmful influence on climate change’
Providing evidence of influence on climate change does not address this point, which specifically excludes climate change. If Mummy asks you to go to the store to egt soem pet food, and explictitly says ‘but no dog food please’ ..and you come back with only dog food, she’d be a bit annoyed I’m sure.
Good. Glad we got that sorted out. If you have difficulty with future questions, please be brave enough to admit it early on. It will save a lot of time wasting in future.
And do, please try to stick to the point. Or if you can’t just stay silent. It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and prove it.
Latimer Adler,
You have not provided any evidence that your question is the question. Please read back the beginning of the comment on which you imposing your question:
> This is a rather typical example of how demagogues exploit complications in the concept of the PP to serve a partisan goal.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250262
I believe that the main question discussed was about the Precautionary Principle, not the one about which you’re asking for evidence you would find obvious.
***
Worse, here’s the complete sentence you chopped down to your question:
> Even assuming that it can’t be “proven” that anyone has been “hurt by it” yet (which, btw, is absurd anyway – given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment), the PP in the context of the climate debate refers specifically to the potential of future impact on the climate.
Joshua assumes, for argument’s sake, that no harm is done.
Parenthetically, he advertizes that he finds this assumption quite absurd, considering what we know about the negative impact of ACO2 from a variety of sources. This parenthesis has no importance whatsoever in his discussion of the precautionary principle.
***
Worse, here’s Joshua’s rewording of his claim:
> That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change (and I’ll even throw in geo-political negative externalities as an exclusion for the sake of argument), is completely obvious are obvious to anyone who is serious about this issue and is even remotely interested in a good faith discussion. (Please note, someone not stuck in a binary mentality can see that the existence of negative impacts is not mutually exclusive with the existence of positive benefits).
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-250262
But this formulation does not stand alone. It is to be connected with his first formulation, something you never did.
Now, please look how you rewording:
> That ACO2 has harmful impact irrespective of any potentially harmful influence on climate change is completely obvious.
Parsing the differences between Joshua’s wording and your formulation is left as an exercise to the reader. Hint: qualifiers.
***
Worse, this has nothing to my own question, which is related to another question you asked:
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
I emphasized the quantifier to illustrate that my comment answers the what is begged by this rhetorical question, viz.
> Is there any evidence at all?
Of course there is. Start with WG1, then follow up with WG2. You could start with WG2, but then you’ll have to return to WG1 anyway, for you won’t find WG2 obvious at all if you don’t start with WG1.
If you prefer, I can quote tidbits after tidbits of pieces of evidence. Not to satisfy your immense thirst for knowledge” Just because it might make denizens click on the link and RTFR.
Answering your question is not my job to satisfy your need for obvious evidence. Nor is it Joshua’s. Scratch your own itches.
If you can’t get no satisfaction, well, boo hoo.
For now, I believe I have shown that when you talk about aboutness and topicality, you’re just an ignorant pest.
To summarise
Joshua claimed something was ‘obvious’.
I asked him to back up his claim.
He could not. Even with your help and screeds of irrelevant diversions.
Point established.
End of discussion.
> He could not.
Actually, he did:
http://bit.ly/R0zt0q
Why? Because I asked him and instead of inferring anything sinister about his mental states, I provided a good reason to do so:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-251717
Obviously, this evidences that Latimer Adler needs to improve his reading skills.
***
And to repeat, this question was parenthetical to the discussion Joshua was having at the moment.
All he did is to budge in a discussion to act like an ignorant pest.
Obviously, this evidences that Latimer Adler needs to improve his skills at recognizing topicality.
> All he did is to budge in a discussion to act like an ignorant pest.
In that sentence and in our situation, “he” refers to Latimer, not Joshua.
Not that Joshua ever played that role, at least to a lesser degre… ;-)
To summarize – the logic of a self-described “skeptic.”
So because Latimer fails a basic test of “skepticism,” he jumps from the fact that I did not, (with a stated reason as to why I didn’t), to I could not.
Nary a consideration of possible alternative conclusions, no actual evidence to use as the basis for distinguishing his 100% certain conclusion from any other possibilities. None.
His conclusion amounts to a completely non-skeptical conclusion based on no, even cursory effort, to investigate conclusions other than the one he is inclined to consider specifically because of his biases.
A simple Google would have sufficed.
I’m not sure it’s possible to provide a better example of “skepticism.”
Willard,
well, thank you, I’ve learned something about ice hockey, a subject on which my ignorance is almost total.
Having absorbed the Wiki pages, I’m not really sure about it as a metaphor for climate etc denizens.
Latte responds with further demands for satisfaction, which as you note, he ain’t getting, however hard he tries (and he tries) (and he tries) and airs the oft repeated demand for “empirical” evidence, presumably as opposed to other forms of this alchemical substance.
Which makes one wonder about what Latte’s definition of empirical evidence might be. It may appear chimerical, but it has some characteristics we can grasp.
It appears to be defined thus:
Empirical evidence is that evidence which does not support global warming.
True science is defined as that which uses only real evidence, i.e. that which can be considered empirical.
Therefore, we can conclude that true science cannot support global warming, and further, that climate science is therefore untrue, and by extension unclean, in need of (preferably ritual) purification.
Which brings us back to the issue of metaphor.
The best characters I could offer here would be Latte as Scheisskopf, yourself as Yossarian and Judy, naturally, as Milo.
What’s her motivation for serving up this Babel of climate? I’d suggest that Heller hath no fury…
@VTG
When did I ever challenge the idea that the climate has warmed a bit in the last century? I’m cool with that and there are plenty of observatiosn to back it up.
But if you mean by ‘global warming’ all the crap about renewable energy and sealevel rise and ‘acidification’ and the end of civilsation as we know it and 50 million climate refugees and the end of glaciers by 2035 and hockey sticks and ‘unprecedented’ and drowning polies and the whole tranche of wacko ideas that have got attached to the simple climatical observation that its a bit warmer than it was in 1912, then I’m very very sceptical and there are is very little reliable evidence for any of it.
Doesn’t stop lots of people shouting about it though. They’re mostly long on the talk, but short on the data. And a surefire way to know that they are talking from their arse is their response when you ask for it. Somebody with a good case would just present it and calmly explain how it further backs up their argument. Those who don’t play games and scream ;’denier’. Works every time.
Simples.
Latte,
and then, quite seamlessley…
Hypocrisy (noun)
Feigned high principles
the false claim to or pretence of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
Encarta online dictionary
@very tall guy
Excellent definition. Care to explain how you think it applies to my posting? Or is just posting the definition good enough for you?
Where, pray, am I being hypocritical?
There is an expression in the UK – ‘Put up or shut up’
I commend it to your immediate and close consideration.
obvious (adjective)
1. Easy to see
easy to see or understand because not concealed, difficult, or ambiguous
Encarta online dictionary
There is a more important question though. Where should the apostrophe in ‘aint find its home?
@willard
I forgot that you are probably not a Brit.
Allow me to rephrase my remark so that it is understandable to NA audiences and others with very literal minds
‘Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself’
/sarc
Does that make it clearer for you?
@willard
Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself.
My crimes? Not to show due deference to Willard and his playmates.
‘Acting like a pest’ and
‘Asking questions in a most annoying manner’
These are indeed terrible sins. Perhaps I will adopt the McSteve approach to the egregious Gergis of writing ‘Pretty Please with Sugar on it’ next time I annoyingly and pestilentially have the gall to ask a question following one of the more spectacularly bonkers alarmist assertions.
But shall I share a secret with you, fellow sceptics? I don’t think that Willard and his homies are really too worried about ‘la politesse’ of the way in which the question is asked. But far more that they don’t seem to have any remotely plausible answers.
In an ideal world you might think that a serious bunch of people who really believed that is was absolutely necessary to make major changes to our current economic structures would at least take the time and trouble to become world experts on their case. That they’d not only have thought about the answers to questions that people might ask, but would also have thought about the answers to questions that people ought to ask or should ask. And would have made sure – with practice and more practice that their case was both robust and persuasive.
You do not do this by sitting in an echo chamber of your mates chorusing ‘denier’ whenever anyone raises a difficult point. Nor by playing philosophical (and totally unconvincing) word games in the style of WJ Clinton. You do it by stress testing your argument in front of a hostile audience until you get the answers right.
Climatology has been insulated from such an examination for many years and when exposed to anything like a sceptical audience, the answers are poor, disjointed and weak. Perhaps Willard, BBD, Joshua and the gang are using this blog as a testbed. If so, they are showing no signs of improvement.
And remember Jeremy Paxman. A much feared British TV interviewer. He is said to prepare for every interview with the thought ‘what is this lying bastard lying to me about today?’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c
Watch and learn!
Latimer,
You are spot on, and your critique applies not only to blog comments but to many professional climate scientists as well. If they cannot respond constructively to reasonable technical questions, then what is the point of them?
> Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself.
As foretold:
> The uneasy part is when you’re being called for not taking any responsibility for anything you do or say. Then, you have to fake the best commisseration you can. Playing the victim is a tough skill to develop.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-252334
We must admit that Latimer Adler’s shirt rippin’ is getting better and better.
Let’s see if this’ll go in the right place this time
@willard
I forgot that you are probably not a Brit.
Allow me to rephrase my remark so that it is understandable to NA audiences and others with very literal minds
‘Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself
/sarc’
Does that make it clearer for you?
Hypocrisy (noun)
Feigned high principles
the false claim to or pretence of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
Encarta online dictionary
Latimer Adler,
Thank you for the clarification, but I already got your victim blaming stance. Perhaps this concept is not obvious to you. So here’s some evidence that this phenomenon got studied, with a quote:
> Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them (regardless of whether the victim actually had any responsibility for the incident).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
Your sarcasm have not succeeded at hiding the fact that you were (litterally) playing the victim:
> Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse of others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy or attention seeking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
In either case, you were blaming someone else for the treatment you receive without taking responsibility for it.
***
If you read that Wiki page, you’ll see evidence that in transactional analysis:
> The Victim is someone who inauthentically behaves as if they are being victimised in situations where they actually have reasonable opportunities to alter the situation.
The opportunity here is to stop acting like a pest who constantly feigns ignorance.
***
Here’s another opportunity to quench your own thirst for obvious evidence. Please click on the following link:
http://bit.ly/R0zt0q
and report what you find obvious, or not.
***
In my book, a bullying pest who plays the victim is one of the most repugnant (tm — Auditing Sciences) act there could be.
Your last comment might very well be the most obvious evidence of this act I’ve ever seen.
And I’ve read Steve’s.
@willard
I make no claim to ‘victimhood’ whatsoever. I am a big boy and can look after myself.
But I am rather surprised that my just asking a simple question and persisting until I get a decent answer gets you all in such a froth and a flummery that you appear to have lost all control of your emotions. It is very revealing of your inner selves and should act as a dreadful warning to others.
About three and a half lifetimes ago (it seems) Joshua made a sweeping assertion. I asked him to justify it – surely a reasonable enough request on a discussion blog.
Rather than a straightforward answer such as …
‘You can see the effects in effect a , effect b and effect c..and the references are ref1 ref2 and ref3. These are sufficiently drastic and well-known for me to consider them obvious’
which would have been a polite, helpful and persuasive reply, it seems that WW3 broke out. In among all the diversionary tactics you all saw fit to come up with accusations of hypocrisy, denierdom, dishonesty, being a pest and asking questions in an annoying way. But not much of an answer to the question.
Guys guys guys…what is it about asking a simple question that gets you all so excited? These are not the reactions of rational beings..but nearer to religious fervour. Have I somehow defiled the name of your god? Blasphemed against some hidden creed? Or is it the very act of asking a question at all rather than giving unquestioning obedience that gets you all so riled?
‘By their writings shall ye know them’ is one bit of the bible I remember from childhood. And your hysterical overreactions to my question tells me and others a great deal about your whole approach to the topic of climate change.
You do not seem to want to discuss the issue rationally but emotionally. That’s fine…but spittle-filled rants about Denierdom are unlikely to make many new converts. And will, undoubtedly, turn a few away from your cause. The minority you attract will have exactly the same unattractive traits as you do. The historica parallels with various extremely unpleasant incidents in history are becoming more obvious with every post you make.
Thanks for revealing so much of yourselves so honestly (if unconsciously). We can now all judge the strength of the alarmist case you present and of your commitment to open debate.
PS If there’s to be a fatwah, please let me know. I’ll talk to my mate Salman and see if I can borrow his gaff and heavies for a year or three. Ciao…bedtime here.
Latimer Adler claims:
> I make no claim to ‘victimhood’ whatsoever.
I make no claim otherwise, but merely pointing out that he was victim playing, for instance when he says:
> Oh dearieme. Oh the shame. Mea culpa! I abase myself.
Interestingly, he does not address my claim that he is blaming the victim. It might not be obvious for him to contradict that claim, since he provides evidence in the remaining of his post. For instance:
> But I am rather surprised that my just asking a simple question and persisting until I get a decent answer gets you all in such a froth and a flummery that you appear to have lost all control of your emotions. It is very revealing of your inner selves and should act as a dreadful warning to others.
Letting aside the obnoxious mindreading and the obvious mischaracterization, we have evidence that Latimer justifies himself thus: faced with his simple question, his interlocutors are simply reacting irrationally and emotionally. In other words, the victim is to blame.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
***
Let’s look at his “simple question”:
> On what basis? What evidence would you cite? What ‘negative impacts’ are there?
Here was Joshua’s answer:
In other words, Joshua tells him: producing CO2 creates pollution, and Latimer might very well be asking why water is wet.
Latimer’s question is irrelevant for the discussion at the time: as we saw, Joshua did not even assumed what Latimer challenges, for argument’s sake. But Latimer insists:
> I’ll take your unwillingness/inability to present any evidence beyond ‘its obvious’ as an admission that you haven’t got any, shall I?.
This is not a simple question. This appeals to Joshua’s pride.
Latimer Adler is ready to appeal to his interlocutor’s pride when they refuse to tell him what evidence they have to think that CO2 produces pollution and that pollution has impacts.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
***
Finally, we’ll note that many answers were still provided to him, none of which he found obvious, most of which he did not even acknowledge.
The most direct is this one:
http://bit.ly/R0zt0q
This last answer has been told twice. His last comment does not acknowledge this.
No wonder why Latimer can’t get no satisfaction.
Point, set, and match goes to Latimer Alder.
Well played.
There are conosolation prizes awaiting anonymous cowards Creepy Willard and VeryTallGirl but they need to show a picture ID to claim them and we know that’s not going to happen. ;-)
David Springer,
I thought you were missing in action. You went silent all of a sudden. But you were referring this exchange all along!
Glad to know. Care to explain your judgement? Due diligence and all that jazz.
Many thanks!
Latte earlier…
Dave now…
self-aware (adjective)
having a balanced and honest view of your own personality, and often an ability to interact with others frankly and confidently
Encarta online dictionary
@very tall guy
Do any of your posts have a point to them?
If there is a difference between them and just writing random abuse, it has passed me by.
And if by doing so you are attempting to buttress the alarmist cause, you are failing bigtime, mon brave……to the point of being counter-productive.
If you do have a point to make, suggest you make it clearly and simply. Scientists are supposed to be able to do this.
@willard
Just to note that all your remarks in the answer above refer to pollution from burning fossil fuels. You seem incapable of distinguishing between cause and effect.
Let me explain
Fossil fuels are burnt. Such burning produces a lot of different gases. Some of those gases have undesirable pollution effects…NOx, sulphur dioxide etc. It also produces CO2 . And CO2 can have an effect on ‘global warming’
But the proposition was that ACO2 itself has obvious effects other than global warming.
That the process that liberates CO2 also liberates NOx etc does not mean that the CO2 has the same effects as NOx. You cannot blame CO2 for NOx’s effects.
Your lengthy screed is irrelevant, and the proposition yet again fails.
Feign (transitive verb)
to make a show or pretence of something
• She feigned ignorance.
Encarta online dictionary
@very tall guy
Thanks for confirming my point
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253304
yet again.
You’re welcome.
Latimer Adler,
Joshua’s point never had anything to do with CO2 by itself. The way you insisted on one formulation of his claim provides enough evidence that you misread Joshua’s point all along. This last comment of yours renders this quite obvious.
The way you insisted on Joshua’s second formulation made me believe that sooner or later you’d fall back to this old Aristotelian trick. Essentialism has not much currency nowadays. Talking about things by themselves suffices to drop out of a scientific debate.
Your point was ontoclimatological. Joshua’s point was not.
If you read back at all the quotes from the WG1 I excerpted, you should get the feeling that the idea of considering CO2 by itself makes little sense.
That was one of the points of the exercise. Another point, as already said, was to RTFR.
Is H2O by itself really wet?
@willard
You say
‘Joshua’s point never had anything to do with CO2 by itself.’
Bollocks.
He clearly stated that he was writing about ‘Anthropogenic CO2’.
If he had meant to write about ‘producing ACO2’ or ‘side effects of ACO2 production’ or any other formulation then he was perfectly at liberty to do so.
He did not.
Which was why I asked the question in the first place.
And it could have been quickly fixed had he and you and whoever else has leapt into the foodfight had simply said
‘Sorry Latimer, I should have said ‘production of ACO2” and all would have been well. I don’t dispute that burning things can give off nasty gases.
But instead we’ve been around the houses about a zillion times. With all sorts of unpleasantness along the way.
Thanks for the ‘scientific’ debate guys. Nice to see just how your minds work.
Latimer
Are you freakin’ serious? Anthropogenic CO2 necessarily exists only through production. You don’t have one without the other. Pollution isn’t a “side-effect” of the production – it is an intrinsic part of the production, and it is an intrinsic part of the very existence, of ACO2.
That’s what distinguishes ACO2 from, uh, CO2.
Dude – just stop. You made an idiotic argument. Just as you did with your completely false assertion about why I didn’t enter your rabbit hole. Move on to discussions that make you look less foolish. I’m sure that if you keep trying, you’ll find one eventually.
Latimer Adler,
You’re clutching at straws:
> If he had meant to write about ‘producing ACO2′ or ‘side effects of ACO2 production’ or any other formulation then he was perfectly at liberty to do so.
And that’s what Joshua did:
> Even assuming that it can’t be “proven” that anyone has been “hurt by it” yet (which, btw, is absurd anyway – given that we all know, clearly, how ACO2 from a variety of sources has negative impact in addition to affecting the environment), the PP in the context of the climate debate refers specifically to the potential of future impact on the climate.
This is not the first time I quote this sentence and read it for you, Latimer.
You simply misquoted, misread, and mistreated Joshua.
And then you went on with your usual editorials promoting your grandiosity.
Simples.
***
Besides, I believe you forgot to answer my question: is H2O wet by itself?
@joshua
I can take some CO2 created by anthropogenic causes and do experiments with it. I can also take ‘natural’ CO2 and do experiments with it. The effects will be exactly the same. There is no chemical or physical difference between the two gases. Anthropogenic and natural CO2 are the same thing. There are no physical or chemical effects that are exclusive to ACO2.
If your point is ‘well anthropogenic CO2 had to be created somehow and creating it might have done some nasty things’ that’s a completely different argument. It is not the ACO2 itself that is the problem..it is its particular means of production.
From another commentator it might have been less surprising, but for one such as yourself who has made a career of analysing others words (especially our hostess) in minute detail in the hope of finding some contradiction or variance it is strange that your own language is not as precise as you require others to be.
No doubt you will choose your words more carefully in the future.
Latimer –
Why are you discussing this strawman?
I will repeat myself once more. I will take this one more step towards your rabbit hole.
ACO2 necessarily exists as the result of being anthropogenic, of being produced by humans – and as a result, it’s production pollutes. It does not exist without pollution. Thus, as I said, ACO2 has harmful effects (even excluding the climate and geo-political aspects). The existence of ACO2 does not occur w/o harmful effects. That should have been clear when I also said that ACO2 has positive effects as well – meaning, say, providing humans with energy.
I was not saying that CO2 has harmful effects (or positive effects). If that’s what I meant, I would have said so. Your insistence on trying to hang your hat on this trivial argument will get no one anywhere. That you would have spent so much time and so many posts obsessing with such a trivial point is only evidence of a leporine nature.
Grab another carrot from the fridge and and move on. to more productive discussions.
(and BTW – pointing out “skepticism” is a hobby of mine, not a career)
@joshua
You say
‘ACO2 necessarily exists as the result of being anthropogenic, of being produced by humans – and as a result, it’s production pollutes. It does not exist without pollution’
But you can make ‘anthropogenic CO2’ in lots of ways.
One of which is adding yeast to sugars. Done correctly this produces ethanol and carbon dioxode.
It is a reaction that has been practised all over the world. Humans plant and harvest crops specifically to use in this reaction. Are there any ‘pollutants’ from its production?
And at an even more basic level ‘anthropogenic CO2′ is what we all create when we breathe. Unless you are willing to include human breath as a pollutant (tho’ I stood next to a man on the tube yesterday whose breath was certainly deeply polluting), then yet again you are making sweeping assertions with little foundation.
You really must learn to be more careful in what you write…especially since you portray yourself as Heretic Finder in Chief in your analysis of other people’s writings. Remember the plank in your eye before so soundly criticising the motes in everybody else’s.
Willard
Can’t promise tha I’ll use ‘dangerous’ instead of ‘catastrophic’ as the latter word is so well used in the British Media. It was just yesterday I was shouting at the radio when someone used it :)
tonyb
Shouting at the radio shows you’re an over-the-top, reactionary luddite!
JCH
Depends on what was coming out of the radio, I’d say.
Max
A Fan of Violet Elizabeth Bott, +1 and ethpthially yer ‘neo denialitht rabble.’
You have coined a powerful new phrase that could become popular, abusive terminology in the Great Climate Science Debate.
I’m awarding yer the following :-) :-) :-)
@beth cooper
Thank you for you nice wordth. Thome of which I understood.
I promithe to thpend all my winnings on fighting the neodenialithts like that vulgar boy William Brown! And none of it on thweetieth.
Baffled readers begin here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d30aU8XJjFI&feature=related
or here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_William
If “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, then everyone here on Climate Etc appreciates your sincerely imitative flattery Latimer Alder! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
@AFOTBS
If you think that was flattery, I think you need to study what Violet Elizabeth might call (were she not such a nicely brought up young lady)
‘taking the pith’.
A tradition that is, perhaps, more prevalent in British and (one hopes still) Australian discourse than in North American.
It is rarely meant to be complimentary.
You are not as clever as you fondly imagine, Latimer. Childish is one word that immediately springs to mind…
:-)
What BBD said! And besides, plain-talking Dave Dawson and Freddie Farmer could whup William Brown’s whole prissy crowd, any day of the week! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
PS: Decide for yourself, Latimer Alder! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!
FOMD
Hmm. Dave Dawson appears to be an adult fighter pilot whilst William Brown and his friends were 11 year old boys with catapults. Not comparng like for like are you, which seems a metaphor for your general proclamations on CAGW… besides Biggles could whup Dave Dawson any day of the week.
tonyb
@BBD
The phrase you are searching for is ‘well read’
fan of VEB and sweet little Violet Elizabeth herthelf, thx I luv the films, theycatch the spirit of the books, tho’ William’s rougher in the books. ) Long may the outlaws (and Jumble) seize the day!
Max, I had many adventures as a child, had me own outlaw band and wild horses lol.
manacker | October 11, 2012 at 7:34 am |
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate
“Who owns the atmosphere?”
Ownership rights are about who actually has ultimate control. In general it is in the commons. However, to the extent that governments do in fact decide what citizens may do with/to it, government owns those rights related to the atmosphere.
Who ought to own rights to the atmosphere, is a different question.
Tomcat
I don’t see anything in the US Constitution that tells me “government owns the atmosphere”.
What “government”?
What “atmosphere”?
Sorry.
No sale.
Max
Perhaps someone somewhere said God owned the atmosphere.
And the Lefty/Statist believe that God is Government.
It’s not an uncommon human trait- it is well known that Roman emperors were worshiped as a god. And large pictures of the Dear Leader is common practice in the backward regions of the world.
Max
You’re getting confused between who ought to own the atmosphere, and who actually does.
The government actually does; it successfully enforces its own rules on it. For better or for worse.
Tomcat
Again:
“What government?”
– World (UN?), regional (EU), national, state, local, all of the above?
“As represented by whom?”
– UN Secretary General, legislators, executive branch, “supreme leader”, etc. on down the line?
“Based on which legally binding document?”
– UN Charter, national constitutions or statutes, edicts by supreme rulers, state law, city ordinance, etc.?
A can of worms.
I’d like to see something specific in “international law” that defines this.
Max
PS I agree that there need to be regulations prohibiting air pollution (i.e. ejecting substances into the atmosphere that are toxic to humans, animals or plants or are known to cause health problems), as requested by a democratically elected legislature or executive branch and their appointed agencies, but that is not “owning” the atmosphere IMO – it is simply “protecting” it, as an asset that is “owned” by everyone collectively.
Max you again confuse who ought to own the atmosphere, with who actually does. To the extent governments at various level impose rules – and as we see they do – they effectively own those specific rights.
I neither criticize nor endorse this; it is merely an obvious observation.
“What’s the best climate question to debate?”
One possibility : “Why did so many, apparently intelligent, people in positions of influence apparently fail to ask the right questions of themselves or others, such that we wouldn’t have had to endure the idiocy of the IPCC stance on carbon dioxide”
Another possibility: “Those same people really did know the right questions all along. But why did they choose not to ask them in public before the answers started to become obvious to everybody else?”
myrrh. whatever your positon is, you’d best learn to state in a single brief, non-rambling paragraph, or virtually everyone will continue to ignore it. Are you disputing the tyndall effect ?
What’s the Tyndall effect?
Explain it in detail.
Myrrh | October 16, 2012 at 3:49 am |
wiki does it well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndall_effect
The Tyndall effect is why eyes are blue, but contain no blue pigment. You can confirm this by putting flour in a glass of milk in front of a strong light.
It’s related to Rayleigh Scattering, which accounts for the blue of the sky.
The fundamental Physics of how light interacts with small particles suspended in the medium it travels through make the GHE impossible to avoid, where there are molecules with three atoms in the atmosphere and visible light that strikes a visible surface that is not perfectly reflective.
Any other questions?
“Any other questions?”
If you talking about molecules rather flour, shouldn’t you be talking about Rayleigh Scattering rather than Tyndall effect?
gbaikie | October 16, 2012 at 5:26 am |
To quote me, “It’s related to Rayleigh Scattering, which accounts for the blue of the sky.”
As you doubtless know but choose to ignore, the existence of “greenhouse” gasses – those that absorb infrared radiation. Water vapour, CO2, etc.
Do you dispute this?
re “greenhouse-driven global warming”, you ask for “the best mix of achievable policies to limit environmental and economic regrets”:
1.- Not committing large expenditure on the dangerous assumption that the scientists have got it right.
2.- Making full and proper allowance for the benefits of global warming as well as the drawbacks. Benefits could include greater global food production as Canada and Russia warm up, lower winter death rates, etc.
3.- Making a full and proper assessment of the cost of predicted impacts of global warming. For example, working out the real cost of a say 2-ft sea level rise over 100 years, taking into account that the normal lifecycle of urban infrastructure etc is way less than 100 years.
4.- Making a full and proper assessment of the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. For example, checking just how much atmospheric CO2 build-up can be avoided by some countries reducing CO2 emissions, and by just how much it will reduce global temperature. NB. See also 2. above in this context. Take into account the likelihood of other countries thus becoming more competitive, picking up business, and hence increasing CO2 emissions.
5. Making a full and proper assessment of the effectiveness of adapting to predicted impacts of global warming, and comparing with 4.
– and finally, since the application of these policies is likely to result in very little short term acion, if any –
6. Investing in research into the sorts of technologies that are likely to be needed if some of the predicted impacts do occur, or if unpredicted impacts actually occur.
IMO that’s an excellent summary, Mike.
Max
So you’re saying the earth doesn’t receive much heat from the sun ?
Myrrh: What??! That’s what the IDIOTIC AGW GREENHOUSE EFFECT FICTIONAL FISICS SAYS! …. “shortwave in longwave out” is the idiotic claim that “no thermal infrared from the Sun gets through the atmosphere and so plays no part in heating the Earth’s land and oceans”.
No, I think that’s the strawman physics some idiots present as AGW. Nothing there about ONLY shortwave in.
Sullivan – No, I think that’s the strawman physics some idiots present as AGW. Nothing there about ONLY shortwave in.
I’m surprised to find that some here don’t know the basic AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. I’ve just written a post on this showing a few examples : http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-253602
Actually, your comment is ridiculous – how many here don’t know what the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget says? Are you really saying you don’t know the cartoon KT97 and kin Energy Budget? “Shortwave in Longwave out”? Have you never heard of it?
All the schools teach the AGWScienceFiction fake fisics that sun-light which heats the Earth, it doesn’t mention heat,longwave infrared direct from the Sun, at all. It only mentions heat in the upwelling from the Earth, the product of the sun-light and says this gets trapped in the atmosphere.
Here, http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html
a typical description ubiquitous in the education system:
“Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 2007) shows the role that greenhouse gases play in the atmosphere. Solar radiation is primarily shortwave radiation which is transparent to greenhouse gases. Incoming solar radiation passes through these gases as if they were not present so the concentration of greenhouse gases does not directly influence incoming sunlight. The sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere. Heat from the surface radiates up into the atmosphere in the form of infrared energy (longwave radiation). ”
“Shortwave in Longwave out”
This is what I mean when I refer to the AGWScienceFiction Energy Budget..
How is it explained that no longwave infrared direct from the Sun comes through the atmosphere? Well, the original explanation is that there is “an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse stopping the longwave infrared direct from the Sun from entering the atmosphere, but allowing visible light to get through, a variation on that I’ve been told in these discussions is ‘that description is from CAGW, AGW says that the Sun produces very little longwave infrared’.
Both these ‘reasons’ are ludicrous, not in real physical science at all.
What has to understood here is that the Greenhouse Effect is about “greenhouse gases trapping the upwelling heat, only longwave infrared from the Earth, and either radiating it back/trapping it, depending on which doctrinal nuance of the Greenhouse Effect is subscribed to..
AGWSF cannot allow direct heat, longwave infrared, from the Sun because it destroys its claimed “heat trapping by the atmosphere from the upwelling longwave infrared”.
Do you see that? If it allowed the great direct heat from the Sun, then it is changes in the Sun which would be doing the major changes of warming in the atmosphere..
“Sunlight” is the key word in the AGW education of childen, heat from the Sun isn’t mentioned, so children now associated light from the Sun with heat from the Sun. It is very clever brainwashing. Dumbing down of the next generation:
http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/bigQuestions/greenhouseEffect/
“Earth’s atmosphere does the same thing as the greenhouse. Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does. During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”
My bold. This is early teaching of only shortwave in.
Here for older children: http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Greenhouse_effect
“Because the atmosphere is such a good absorber of longwave infrared, it effectively forms a one-way blanket over the earth’s surface. Visible and near-visible radiation from the sun easily gets through, but thermal radiation from the surface can’t easily get back out. In response, the earth’s surface warms up. The power of the surface radiation increases by the Stefan-Boltzmann law until it (over time) compensates for the atmospheric absorption.”
“Because the atmosphere is such a good absorber of longwave infrared, it effectively forms a one-way blanket over the earth’s surface”
Oh right, so that means in the real world the direct heat from the Sun is absorbed in the atmosphere..
Hence my science challenge: Prove that visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator which is what it takes to give us our huge and dramatic wind and weather systems.
I don’t know why you’re arguing this version taught all through the education system, it comes direct from the fake fisics AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget teaching.
If you weren’t exposed to it, perhaps you were educated by traditional physics teachers, somewhere? Out of government control? Special government control? Maybe educated before all this introduced and have never looked at the detail of what is actually being taught?
Or maybe you weren’t paying attention in class..
Anyway, that’s what I’m arguing about here, the fake, and quite frankly idiotic impossible physics, of the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect, and against the repercussions of this, the dumbing down of basic science education for the general population.
To Myrh: do I understand you correctly as saying that burning of oil (unlike coal and gas), does *not* release large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere ?
No, I’m not saying anything about that. I’m saying that it is the oil industry backing the ‘greenie’ campaign against fossil fuels which includes against the oil industry.
It is classic misdirection, a propaganda technique, which means that there is something other than ‘anthropogenic global warming’ in the oil industry’s agenda..
Here to get you started: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/
CRU is still financed by big oil and nuclear and it is from CRU’s outset that world temperature records began to be manipulated, see Salinger/New Zealand.
@michael
Actually it’s little more than word games from the IPCC & co. The substance of what they preach is catastrophe, spun into “serious” to avoid being seen for what it is.
BFG
I agree with your remark to Michael.
IPCC makes specific projections for AGW:
– Global warming of up to +6.4C by 2100
– Extreme high sea level
– Increased heat waves
– Increased droughts
– Increased floods, heavy rainfall
– Increased intense tropical cyclone activity
and secondary effects:
– crop failures
– loss of glaciers supplying drinking water for millions
– spread of vector diseases
etc.
Sounds a lot like the Biblical floods, famines and pestilence.
Most people see these as “predictions of potential catastrophe from AGW”, which is also how I would read the IPCC reports.
To hide behind the semantics of “projection” versus “prediction” or “serious” versus “catastrophic” is simply “wordsmithing”.
Max
climatereason @ 8.31am. Shout back radio, tony )
Willard : Joshua’s point never had anything to do with CO2 by itself. The way [Latimer] insisted on one formulation of his claim provides enough evidence that you misread Joshua’s point all along.
Willard, in his characteristic defend-fellow-blinkered-alarmist-no-matter-what style, predictably wriggles on the same hook as Joshua, who Latimer has been trying to stop waffling and get off the fence. (ouch mixed metaphores)
BFJ,
It’s not that hard to defend Joshua’s commonsensical proposition that rests on mundane facts such as:
(1) CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuel.
(2) Burning fossil fuel creates pollution.
On the other hand, Latimer’s position rests on the possibility to talk of CO2 by itself.
I don’t think this qualifies as “trying to stop waffling”.
Myrrh : I’m arguing against the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget which says that thermal infrared direct from the Sun doesn’t even get into the atmosphere..
Where does it say that ?
instead, this idiotic Greenhouse Effect energy budget says that only shortwave from the Sun heats land and oceans.
Where does it say that ?
This is getting tedious..
I can’t do your reading for you.., follow the links I gave.
To all making similar argument claiming this isn’t standard AGW fisics:
Whatever your, generic, problems are here, if you’re arguing for CAGW or AGW then you are using the standard AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget which is that Shortwave, mostly visible, from the Sun and not Longwave, invisible thermal infrared, from the Sun, drives the Earth’s heating. The standard model has eliminated the direct beam Heat from the Sun, longwave thermal infrared. Live with it.
If you want it to be something different, then by all means change it, but you are creating something other than the standard fisics used to argue AGW/CAGW KT97 and kin Greenhouse cartoon, and I have spent a considerable amount of time arguing these so I do know what they are.. And I’m not interested in arguing against your own pet variations.
My argument is only against the standard AGW Greenhouse Effect fake fisics of “Shortwave in Longwave out”.
Solar is AGWSF speak for Shortwave from the Sun.
*************************************************************
“INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION
Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called “shortwave radiation”) from the Sun drive the Earth’s climate system. ..”
ABSORBED ENERGY
The solar radiation that passes through Earth’s atmosphere is either reflected off snow, ice, or other surfaces or is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Emitted LONGWAVE Radiation
Heat resulting from the absorption of incoming shortwave radiation is emitted as longwave radiation. Radiation from the warmed upper atmosphere, along with a small amount from the Earth’s surface, radiates out to space. Most of the emitted longwave radiation warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms our planet’s surface.”
GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere. In turn, the warmed atmosphere emits longwave radiation, some of which radiates toward the Earth’s surface, keeping our planet warm and generally comfortable. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere by restricting the outward passage of emitted radiation, resulting in “global warming,” or, more broadly, global climate change.”
http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
*************************************************************
And I have explained why this is fictional fisics, impossible in this, the real world.
If you support AGW/CAGW then my science challenge to you stands:
Show how visible light from the Sun heats intensely the land and water at the equator which is what gives us our great and dramatic wind and weather systems.
If you can’t, and you can’t because it is impossible physics in the real world, then you must, if you are being honest to science, throw out the whole of the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect.
You are indeed being tedious Myrrh, for two reasons.
1. You keep pretending that the standard argument has visible light causing warming, ignoring direct infrared from the sun. Even children know that if you leave something out in the sun, it will warm up. So please, no more of that timewasting strawman.
2. You keep ducking the question of what happens to the infrared the earth radiates ,when it encounters CO2. Do you deny the standard claims about its absorption spectra?
Tomcat | October 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm | You are indeed being tedious Myrrh, for two reasons.
1. You keep pretending that the standard argument has visible light causing warming, ignoring direct infrared from the sun. Even children know that if you leave something out in the sun, it will warm up. So please, no more of that timewasting strawman.
There is little point in continuing discussing this with you as you appear to lack simple comprehension skills.
I’ll give you one last chance to respond to what I’m actually arguing here, see my first post above, as I have now consolidated my response to “what is the the best climate question to debate?” into one post: Myrrh | October 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-254136
which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and it is the visible light from the Sun which is doing the heating of matter. Which is impossible in the real word and in real physics.
2. You keep ducking the question of what happens to the infrared the earth radiates ,when it encounters CO2. Do you deny the standard claims about its absorption spectra?
It is irrelevant to the point I am making, and of no interest to me in this discussion. See my first post above. Which you have been distracting from ever since..
Myrrh
Once again you present your ludicrous strawman claim that the agw theory is that visible light warms the earth.
And once again you duck the basic question about greenhouse gasses.
Tomcat | October 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm said: ”And once again you duck the basic question about greenhouse gasses”
1]Tomcat, if you understand the meaning of a ”greenhouse” you would have understood that: O&N are the greenhouse gases, not CO2 & H2O!!!
2]O&N as transparent – let the sunlight trough / SAME as glass on a normal greenhouse – than, as perfect insulators O&N slowdown cooling – same as glass roof on a greenhouse!! (sprinkle some sooth on the roof of a normal greenhouse – inside would get COLDER!!!
3] In a normal greenhouse, when the air warms up -> 25% of the air out the door = volume stays the same / quantity DECREASES; in the conmen’s greenhouse / in the troposphere, when air warms up -> volume increases / quantity doesn’t change!!! Can you see that difference, that nobody else can? On the moon, because is no O&N, the coldness at night touches to the ground – on the earth, the REAL greenhouse gases O&N as perfect insulators are keeping that coldness 45km high up. Reality doesn’t have place in the phony GLOBAL warming lunacy. . http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Stephen Denier
Yes, “greenhouse” is a poor term, but is unfortunately established now (means Tyndall effect, relates to the absorption of infrared radiation).
Tomcat | October 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply Myrrh
Once again you present your ludicrous strawman claim that the agw theory is that visible light warms the earth.
The pages I linked to are from NASA. Hence my:
“which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and it is the visible light from the Sun which is doing the heating of matter. Which is impossible in the real word and in real physics.”
I can’t do your reading for you.
I had given more links to show how this AGWSF fisics of visible light from the Sun heating the Earth is widespread; it is taught at universities, it is taught throughout “climate science”, it is fictional fisics taken by the general population to be “real physics basics” in the repeated memes. It is the reason that AGWSF can conjure up its mythical “backradiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”, because it can ignore all the measurements and effects of direct real heat from the Sun which in the real world is the actually energy heating land and ocean, and us.
And it is only the beginning of the fictional fisics AGWSF produces to create its imaginary Greenhouse Effect..
..but you probably can’t hear this either as you’ve no sound in your fictional Greenhouse Effect world.
As I wrote earlier:
“I’m surprised to find that some here don’t know the basic AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. I’ve just written a post on this showing a few examples : http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-253602 ”
Here’s a few more, and for the benefit of any others reading this:
NB this is the version I was given here as, I paraphrase, ‘the Sun produces very little longwave infrared and we get only a tiny bit of that is the more sophisticated AGW version not the CAGW which says there’s an invisible [unexplained] greenhouse glass-like barrier stopping the longwave infrared from the Sun reaching the surface’.
I didn’t get a reply when I pointed out that claiming the Sun produces very little heat is absurd.
These AGWScienceFiction memes get repeated without any conscious appreciation of the absurdity of what is being said, people take them for granted and never think to analyse them.
So again, visible light is being claimed to be the great energy from the Sun which is heating the Earth’s land and ocean. This is what is taught at universities.
And one more example. This one because it’s the earliest version I’ve found, note where it comes from for those interested in the Communist/Fabian connection, Gorbachev now the great greenie in the US education system:
Here’s some background on Gorbachev: http://rense.com/general12/gobie.htm
And once again you duck the basic question about greenhouse gasses.
And again and again and again, it is irrelevant to the point I am making, and of no interest to me in this discussion. See my first post above. Which you have been distracting from ever since..
“The pages I linked to are from NASA. Hence my:
“which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and it is the visible light from the Sun which is doing the heating of matter. Which is impossible in the real word and in real physics.” ”
Suppose we had different star for a sun. Assume this different star caused there to be the same amount energy [1360 watts per square meter at Earth distance] but it was a cooler star [so star is bigger than our sun or we were closer to it] but the important point is it delivers same amount of energy.
So our sun has 5800 K and this other sun would be somewhere around 2500 K. So this means we get less visible light.
See graph here:
http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdeedu/kstars/ai-colorandtemp.html
So the question is would earth be warmer and if so how much approximately?
Myrrh : “The pages I linked to are from NASA” …….
“which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface”
Seems Myrrh lacks basic comprehension skills – the pages he refers to clearly mention INFRARED from the sun reaching the earth’s surface.
Vassily | October 15, 2012 at 7:17 am |
Myrrh : “The pages I linked to are from NASA” …….
“which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface”
Seems Myrrh lacks basic comprehension skills – the pages he refers to clearly mention INFRARED from the sun reaching the earth’s surface.
My reading comprehension is not the problem here, it clearly says SHORTWAVE infrared.
That means it is talking about the shortwave infrared in “Shortwave in Longwave out”, and not talking about the longwave infrared direct from the Sun.
As explained here also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_warming
“Basic mechanism The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed.”
Near Infrared (near IR), is classed with Light and not Heat, it is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, we cannot feel it, it does not heat up matter at the surface – in the real world.
AGWScience Fiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget (KT97 and kin), says Longwave infrared direct from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and plays no part in heating the Earth’s land and ocean. It says Shortwave, mainly visible light, is doing the heating. This is ludicrous in the real world and real physics.
Please see my post to Tomcat here:
Myrrh | October 15, 2012 at 5:19 pm
gbaikie | October 15, 2012 at 6:42 am | “The pages I linked to are from NASA. Hence my:
“which shows clearly that the official version of AGWSF fisics is that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and it is the visible light from the Sun which is doing the heating of matter. Which is impossible in the real word and in real physics.” ”
Suppose we had different star for a sun. Assume this different star caused there to be the same amount energy [1360 watts per square meter at Earth distance] but it was a cooler star [so star is bigger than our sun or we were closer to it] but the important point is it delivers same amount of energy.
So our sun has 5800 K and this other sun would be somewhere around 2500 K. So this means we get less visible light.
See graph here:
http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdeedu/kstars/ai-colorandtemp.html
So the question is would earth be warmer and if so how much approximately?
Since the Sun is radiating out millions of degrees of invisible heat I don’t see how the spectral analysis and accompanying temperatures you’ve presented are directly capable of answering your question.
All that shows is temperature at the surface of the photosphere, that is not the temperature of the Sun. That is only the temperature of the Sun at that particular point, which is around 300 miles thick.
That is the temperature required to produce that particular spectrum. In other words, at that point there is 6,000°C of invisible heat producing the colours at the photosphere. Colours are not hot. These are simply the product of heat.
For example, if you heat up steel to white hot most of the radiation will be given off as heat, the heat doesn’t disappear. It is still there creating the non-thermal visible light. As in an incandescent lightbulb where 95% of the radiation is heat, thermal infrared, and only 5% visible light.
Those spectrum charts are only showing peak reached from the amount of heat available at that one point.
The outer layer of the Sun which is millions of degrees hot is also millions of miles thick.
Do you have a chart comparing the visible layers of Suns with their different layers? To compare the actual heat energy radiating out from them, the invisible thermal infrared, visible is not heat.
One thing I’ve sort of glanced at but haven’t followed through, I think it might be that the energy from the Sun measured at TOA has been historically the heat energy as these are used in calculations in building and so on, visible light not being hot is irrelevant to these. But anyway, that figure would have to be what gets to us from the outer millions of degrees heat from the Sun, not from the visible layer. Which is itself followed by a much hotter layer, around 100,000 degrees mean, and of course then by the outer.
The outer layer where all the heat we get from the Sun comes from, is that which varies, so we have cycles of the Sun hotter and colder. Still of course millions of degrees of heat..
In other words, the heat we’re getting from the Sun doesn’t come from the 6000°C photosphere ‘surface’.
Myrr,
How much longer are you going to try and tell is that sunlight cannot warm us? Have you never noticed how it seems warmer when the sun is out compared to when it is overcast ? I’m pretty sure the guys as NASA have noticed it, anyway.
Vassily | October 16, 2012 at 2:00 am | Myrr,
How much longer are you going to try and tell is that sunlight cannot warm us? Have you never noticed how it seems warmer when the sun is out compared to when it is overcast ? I’m pretty sure the guys as NASA have noticed it, anyway.
Oh dear, and basil is supposed to be so good for memory, hmm, but maybe only for those who eat you.
You and Memphis and Tomcat are having such tremendous problems following my argument though I have tried to keep it simple, I don’t like to make personal comments, but I’m concerned. Are you not well? Perhaps you should take a break from this and go and sit outside in the fresh air and relax in the big powerful waves of invisible longwave infrared heat direct from the Sun warming you up inside and look at the benign, restful visible light from the Sun making the sky blue as it is bounced around all over the place by the molecules of air in the atmosphere. Bounced around like balls in a pinball machine by the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen when their electrons absorb the tiny bits of light and spit them back out again.
And if that’s still too complicated for you, I’ve just written a post beginning: “Are you sitting comfortably?”, which will I hope be simple enough for you to follow. See if you can find it.
Do let me know if you get lost and I’ll fetch it for you.
gbaikie and stefanthedenier understand Myrrh and the Sun energy reaching the Earth better than any CO2 warming believers. All wavelengths have energy in them but their energy contents are different. Tungsten filament burning red hot, steels heated to red hot, natural gas, LPG, acetylene, Bunsen burners burning blue, moonlight (reflection of the Sun light) is cold. All matters or elements absorb the Sun’s energy with their particular wavelengths matching those from the Sun and radiate their own specific wavelengths spectrum. Different materials for the LASER will have different wavelengths (colors) emiited.
Sam the basic problem here is that Myrrh is trying to PRETEND that the AGW people think that on visible light that causes no heating reaches the earth. This is a dishonest old debating device called a “strawman”.
Tomcat,
Behind the bluelight emitted by burning natural gas, LPG, acetylene is the huge heat (when C+O2 released chemical heat) or thermal heat (thermal radiation) or Myrrh’s invisible or dark light.
Myrrh’s basic problem is that he doesn’t seems to understand that radiation from the sun warms the earth.
Try this experiment Myrrh : on a sunny day, go and stand outside.
Memphis | October 14, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Myrrh’s basic problem is that he doesn’t seems to understand that radiation from the sun warms the earth.
Try this experiment Myrrh : on a sunny day, go and stand outside.
All electromagnetic radiation from the Sun is not the same and not all absorption converts to heat energy. Contrary to the AGWScienceFiction meme “all electromagnetic radiation is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”. A radio wave is not the same as a gamma wave.
So, the Heat we feel from the Sun, that we feel on our skin and that heats us up when we absorb it, that makes us sweat, is the invisible longwave infrared, a.k.a thermal infrared.
Heat from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer by radiation. It is this heat energy of the Sun reaching us on the surface of the Earth, heating up us, the land and ocean. It takes the great power of heat to heat up matter. If you’ve ever cooked dinner you know this.
This invisible heat radiating to us from the Sun is what Herschel discovered, he called it “dark light”, we now call it thermal infrared. Thermal means ‘of heat’.
We call it thermal infrared to differentiate between the invisible longwave infrared which is heat and the invisible shortwave infrared which is not, near infrared.
Shortwave infrared is not hot, it is not heat, we cannot feel it, it is classed with visible light as Light, not Heat. We cannot feel shortwaves like near infrared, uv and visible light, because they are not thermal energies, they do not heat us up.
That great thermal energy of Sun, heat, travels over 93 million miles to us in around 8 minutes where it cooks matter at the Earth’s surface, land, ocean and us; it is particularly strong at the equator where its intense heating of land and water gives us our huge and dramatic wind and weathr systems.
If I go outside and stand in the Sun the radiation from it which I can feel heating me up is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move, which is the invisible longwave infrared, which is thermal infrared, which is heat. I can feel it because it does reach the surface of the Earth in the real world.
AGWSF fisics of the Greenhouse Effect says it doesn’t reach the surface and plays no part in heating land and ocean and us. That is clearly absurd.
Instead, AGWSF fisics has given to visible light, and the shortwaves either side which also are not thermal energies, this property of heat properly belonging to thermal infrared.
We cannot even feel visible light from the Sun let alone feel it as heat and it is incapable of heating up matter. Visible light works on the tinier, because it is much smaller than thermal infrared, electronic transition level.
It takes the power of real heat to heat matter, to move the molecules of matter into vibration, kinetic energy which is heat. Shortwaves from the Sun like visible and uv and near infrared do not have this great power to move molecules of matter into vibration, they cannot heat matter, they are classed as Light and not Heat. They are classed as Reflective and not Thermal.
When I first found out that AGWScienceFiction’s energy budget has given the property of heat to visible light, I was astonished, I couldn’t quite believe what I was reading. The next opportunity I had to question this, I did, a PhD who posted on the Greenhouse Effect. He told me to go outside and bask in the heat of the Sun, which was the visible light I could see. I realised then he was talking utter nonsense, but I thought it rather amusing, especially when he then likened it to an incandescent bulb. He said, I paraphrase, ‘the heat I feel from an incandescent lightbulb is the visible light from it and be careful not to touch the bulb or you’ll burn yourself’.
In the real world, in real physics, an incandescent lightbulb radiates around 95% heat and 5% light. There has been a lot of development in real science to produce lightbulbs which give more light and less heat.
Used in greenhouses for example where visible light for photosynthesis needs to be enhanced, but they don’t want to cook the plants..
Photosynthesis is the plant using visible energy to convert to chemical energy, not heat energy, but sugars, out of carbon dioxide and water.
Anyone, anyone, with even a smattering of real world basic knowledge of this can see immediately that the claims of AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget are total codswollop.
Perhaps why some here appear to be desperately trying to say that this isn’t the claim. Trying to confuse the unwary perhaps, changing the meme perhaps.. Maybe they simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
Myrrh,
Very good observation and very sound reasoning. I wish those CO2 warming believers had 1% of your observation – the world economy ( in particular the Europe and the US) should not as bad as now.
Myrrh
So you are nowfinally going to stop pretending that radiation from the sun cannot warm us? Good, that strawman did you no credit at all.
Your next science challenge, is to start thinking about greenhouse gasses, and their absorption spectra.
“Myrrh’s basic problem is that he doesn’t seems to understand that radiation from the sun warms the earth.”
From the various replies by many, it seems to me many don’t understand how the Earth is warmed.
So Myrrh says:
“This invisible heat radiating to us from the Sun is what Herschel discovered, he called it “dark light”, we now call it thermal infrared. Thermal means ‘of heat’.
We call it thermal infrared to differentiate between the invisible longwave infrared which is heat and the invisible shortwave infrared which is not, near infrared.
Shortwave infrared is not hot, it is not heat, we cannot feel it, it is classed with visible light as Light, not Heat. We cannot feel shortwaves like near infrared, uv and visible light, because they are not thermal energies, they do not heat us up.
That great thermal energy of Sun, heat, travels over 93 million miles to us in around 8 minutes where it cooks matter at the Earth’s surface, land, ocean and us; it is particularly strong at the equator where its intense heating of land and water gives us our huge and dramatic wind and weathr systems.
If I go outside and stand in the Sun the radiation from it which I can feel heating me up is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move, which is the invisible longwave infrared, which is thermal infrared, which is heat. I can feel it because it does reach the surface of the Earth in the real world.”
So, Myrrh saying what he calls, thermal infrared, which comes from hot sun is causing Earth to be warm.
It is not clear what Myrrh calls thermal infrared is what others call thermal infrared, but we could assume this is the case.
What is clear is that the heat a human radiates, a fire, or sun is same thermal infrared. And meaning not a different wavelength.
I am not positive the Myrrh’s thermal infrared has wavelength, instead it’s just “heat”.
If this thermal infrared or “dark light” has a wavelength it seems he means it’s all the same sort of wavelength.
Myrrh thinks all shortwave light doesn’t warm anything or only “dark light” can warm anything.
So the hotter something is the more “dark light” it makes and that if get so hot it emits visible light, the visible light isn’t energy that heat anything, just the dark light heats anything.
Now the way I understand it is the Sun would emit, what Myrrh calling “dark light” or thermal infrared or longwave infrared or the same radiation that human body or warmed pavement radiates.
You take chunk steel, you heat to say 50 C and is emitting what Myrrh calls dark light, you heat it up further to say 500 C, and it’s still radiating this dark light but also radiating higher wavelengths of energy- shortwave IR, you heat up further to 1000 C, and continues radiating the dark light, plus the shortwave IR, plus visible light.
And most of the energy emitted is in the visible light and shortwave IR, but there also the “dark light” continues being emitted, though the photons from the “dark light” have less energy in comparison.
If you have substance which can be heated to 3000 C, it’s going have more energy being emitted in the visible light spectrum- and continue to emit shortwave IR and long wave IR. The tungsten filament in Incandescent Light Bulbs is around 3000 C.
If heat something up even hotter, you start getting ultraviolet and the Xray and finally Gamma rays. Our Sun is too cool to emit Gamma rays.
Now if go back to chunk of steel at 50 C, and you have bigger chunk of steel, it emits more “dark light”. So any big thing which is warm will emit lots of “dark light”. And the Sun is a large object and it will emit a lot of “dark light”. But it’s relatively insignificant, because, one it’s far away, and two there is far more energy coming from the other wavelengths.
So, the problem is I stand in the sun, and I feel it’s warmth. I think it’s from shortwave radiation, Myrrh thinks it’s all from “dark light”.
How can this be resolved?
Seems one has to measure it.
How do separate visible light from “dark light” so it can be measured?
Now if had bowl of water and sunlight shines thru the water, the “dark light” would be absorbed by the water, yes?
And if you magnified the light coming thru the bowl of water, the light could not be increased by magnifying glass so as to burn something??
If this doesn’t separate the dark light, then you propose something that would.
Memphis | October 16, 2012 at 1:43 am |
Myrrh
So you are nowfinally going to stop pretending that radiation from the sun cannot warm us? Good, that strawman did you no credit at all.
Are you sitting comfortably? Good, then I’ll begin.
What I am saying, listen carefully now, is that the radiation from the Sun which actually warms you is [DRUM ROLL] invisible!
Yes, really, it’s invisible. You can’t see it, but you can feel it. You can feel it as hot on your skin and as it penetrates deep into your body the water in your body, have I told you that you’re mostly water? Not as much as a cucumber, but still a lot, and all this water in your body absorbs all this invisible heat from the Sun and you get hotter and hotter and hotter because it’s cooking you from the inside out. Isn’t that a scary thought?! All the water inside you boiling up from the invisible longwave radiation which is heat from the Sun.
That’s why this longwave radiation we get from the Sun is called thermal, thermal means “of heat”, it comes from the Greek therme which means heat. It is also called infrared, but that’s much more complicated to explain so we’ll leave it for another day. You just have to remember that what feels hot on your skin and is boiling you up inside is invisible heat radiating out from the massive millions and millions of degrees hot Star in the sky we call The Sun.
Also radiating out from our massive ball of fire called the Sun is visible light which we see as colour in the sky, but this is puny and weak compared with the bigger much more powerful invisible waves of heat radiating out. Visible light from the Sun is so tiddly and nervy that it gets bounced around all over the sky by the air! That’s how we get our blue sky. This visible light from the Sun isn’t hot at all, we can’t even feel it.
Visible light, oops, I didn’t explain that, visible light is radiation from the Sun you can’t feel but you can see, that’s why we call it light, and that’s why when there is no radiation from the Sun it is dark, because the light has gone.
And do you remember that the radiation from the Sun which you can’t see but you can feel is invisible heat? Good. Well, visible light from the Sun which you can’t feel is so tiddly and nervy and weak it isn’t big or strong enough to heat you up like the invisible heat from the Sun heats you up.
Tiddly visibly light is not like the bigger more powerful invisible waves of heat from the Sun which you can’t see, but can feel. These bigger more powerful invisible heat waves radiating from the Sun are what heat you up, inside and out, and heat up all the land and seas around you.
Feeling sleepy now? Take a little nap, and when you wake up in the cold light of day you’ll remember which is which and be able to follow my argument without getting yourself all confused.
Light from the Sun you can see but not feel, is visible but not hot
Heat from the Sun you can feel but not see, is invisible and can be very very hot indeed.
AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, Kt97 and kin, says that Heat from the Sun doesn’t reach us! How silly is that?
AGWScienceFiction says “the invisible heat direct from the Sun doesn’t reach us and plays no part in heating the land and ocean and us”. AGWSF is describing an imaginary world, not at all like our world where it is the direct invisible longwave infrared heat from the Sun which heats us all up.
AGWScienceFiction says that “the visible shortwave light from the Sun heats up the land and ocean and us”. How silly is that?
Myrrh
Well done on finally accepting that the sun warms the earth, and doesn’t just send only visible light that doesn’t warm us. Hopefully now you’ll also drop your laughable strawman that says Nasa or anyone else doesn’t see that either.
Your next science step is consider what happens next. If the earth is warmed up, perhaps it will radiate some of that heat? And if it does, might some of this heat perhaps be kept in the earth system by greenhouse gasses…?
Keep at it, you’ll get there in the end.
Memphis | October 16, 2012 at 8:28 am |
Myrrh
Well done on finally accepting that the sun warms the earth,
I have never said the sun doesn’t warm the earth – show me where I have.
and doesn’t just send only visible light that doesn’t warm us.
Visible light from the Sun cannot warm us. Prove that it can, take the science challenge I’ve given.
Hopefully now you’ll also drop your laughable strawman that says Nasa or anyone else doesn’t see that either.
Your next science step is consider what happens next. If the earth is warmed up, perhaps it will radiate some of that heat? And if it does, might some of this heat perhaps be kept in the earth system by greenhouse gasses…?
Keep at it, you’ll get there in the end.
If you can’t show how visible light from the sun heats land and water to support your claim then I suggest you take a strong laxative, it might clear your mind.
Myrrh, unless you can show that radiation from the sun does not warm the earth, you are wasting your time, just spouting junk-science.
gbaikie | October 16, 2012 at 4:16 am |
So, Myrrh saying what he calls, thermal infrared, which comes from hot sun is causing Earth to be warm.
It is not clear what Myrrh calls thermal infrared is what others call thermal infrared, but we could assume this is the case.
Good grief gbaikie, it’s come to something that since the introduction of the fake fisics of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect we can no longer connect with ‘common’ terms…
This isn’t easy to explain because one really does have to know a few real world physics basics to see how these have been tweaked to create the fictional world of AGW with its Greenhouse Effect.
As I explained above, somewhere, AGWScienceFiction has changed real physics basics for an impossible fisics. With electromagnetic energy from the Sun it needed to push the idea of “shortwave heats land and oceans” because it first had to take out the direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, a.k.a. longwave infrared, a.k.a. heat, to establish its claimed “backradiation by greenhouse gases from trapping the upwelling thermal infrared from the heated Earth” and it didn’t want any interference by the real world’s direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, direct longwave infrared.
It did this first by taking out all the properties and processes of the distinctly different electromagnetic waves, and the meme introduced to drum this fiction into ‘background basics as if real physics’, is “all electromagnetism is the same, all create heat when absorbed”.
And other silly memes of fisics given here too, “conservation of energy” is bandied about as if that is proof “that all electromagnetic energy is the same and creates heat when absorbed” – because there’s no real physics understanding of conservation of energy. For example, as energy is conserved in photosynthesis where visible light converts to chemical energy, sugars, and not to heat energy.
The play on the world absorbed when describing AGWSF’s “visible light is absorbed in the ocean and therefore heats it, blue visible light travels further and therefore heats the ocean deeper down”, is deliberately confusing the particular technical meaning of absorbed by the electrons or molecules with the more general language use of absorbed meaning attenuation, which can have several reasons for an energy ‘disappearing’, the technical absorption on electronic transition or molecular vibrational being among the possible reasons.
In other words, in AGWSF there is no longer any distinct material difference between the electromagnetic waves. For example, AGWSF has eliminated all differences of scale, eliminated size, and, by the meme of “peak energy of visible” it promotes the idea which in real physics is ludicrous, that the tiny visible light is so powerful it directly heats matter(when in the real world the tiny visible light is bounced around all over the sky on meeting matter of the gas air by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen), so in AGWSF the different ways the actually different energies act on meeting matter doesn’t matter, that is, what these can and cannot do. These differences have all been eliminated for the Greenhouse Effect. It is these actual differences which give us the dynamic world we have around us.
Because AGWSF fisics is fake there is no internal coherence in it, for example: if “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all creates heat when absorbed” then AGWSF fisics doesn’t have any answer to the real world physics understanding of how visible light is reflected/scattered in the atmosphere which is by real technical absorption of visible light by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, hence our blue sky. So – how much is this heating the atmosphere? I never get an answer when I ask this question..
The answer from real world physics is that it isn’t, firstly because it’s not a thermal energy so not big enough to move the whole molecules of nitrogen and oxygen into vibration, which is kinetic energy which is heat which is what it takes to raise the temperature of the gas air, but also because of real world physics conservation of energy. As the electrons of the molecules of air absorb visible light they are physically moved in their orbit before coming back to ground state when they spit out the same energy they absorbed, the energy is conserved by the electrons using it in moving in their orbit and is conserved in the loss of speed of the visible light. The visible light hasn’t changed into something else on being absorbed, AGWSF’s “changing to a lower energy longwave infrared”, it remains the same but has lost momentum – so, this is not converting to heat, which is movement of the molecule, but to movement in space.
In the real ocean visible light is slowed down even more than in the fluid gas air, some fourteen times more, but by a different process. Because water is a transparent medium for visible light, meaning that it is not technically absorbed by the electrons or the whole molecule but is transmitted through, it is not absorption which slows down visible, but what happens in the non-absorption process, in, technical term, transmission, meaning travel through a transparent medium. The visible light tries to join in the dance of the electrons, but can’t, the molecule of water tries to capture the visible light, but can’t, and it is this delay while they’re trying which slows visible light down.
Not being absorbed by real world water, visible is not only not capable because of its tiny scale of moving the whole molecule of water into vibration which is what it takes to heat water, but it isn’t even able to be absorbed by the electrons of the water molecules as the electrons of the molecules of air absorb it, so water doesn’t reflect/scatter visible light on the electrons of molecule level as does air, but gives up and passes it along, and so, visible is transmitted through, also, unchanged, but much delayed.
Anyway, that’s how the confusion was created by claiming “visible light is absorbed by the ocean, therefore it heats it”. It’s a sleight of hand play on the word “absorbed” which is coupled with the claim that “all electromagnetism is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”, and, not differentiating between the different ways energy can be conserved.
So now we have a whole generation, because it was deliberately introduced into the education system, who believe the idiotic fisics “that visible light is capable of heating the water in the oceans”, when in the real world and real world physics, a) water is a transparent medium for visible light, it doesn’t absorb visible light at all but transmits it through unchanged, and b) visible light in the real world works on the electronic transition level on meeting matter, this level is tiny, it isn’t capable of moving whole molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat water.
It takes the bigger real heat energy to do this, and that transferred by radiation from the Sun is the longwave infrared waves of thermal infrared. Near infrared, shortwave, are not thermal, they are not hot, they are classed in real world physics together with visible light as reflective not thermal, in the category Light and not Heat.
In the real world shortwave infrared reflects back to the eye as does visible light, but because it’s invisible we can’t see this happening, but we can see it through near infrared cameras which operate on the same principle as visible light cameras and can capture the shortwave infrared reflected back. Thermal infrared in contrast is actually technically absorbed by matter like our bodies, this is how it heats us up by heating our skin and inside by heating the water in us, it isn’t reflected back out, so, thermal infrared cameras do not measure reflected heat, they measure internal heat being radiated out.
What is clear is that the heat a human radiates, a fire, or sun is same thermal infrared. And meaning not a different wavelength.
I am not positive the Myrrh’s thermal infrared has wavelength, instead it’s just “heat”.
If this thermal infrared or “dark light” has a wavelength it seems he means it’s all the same sort of wavelength.
Heat is the electromagnetic wavelengths of longwave infrared, thermal infrared, they are called thermal because they are of heat. Heat in real physics is the movement of molecules in vibration, also called kinetic energy meaning heat energy, the more they vibrate the hotter they get, it is the thermal energy of the molecule. This is what we get from the Sun, the Sun’s great thermal energy, which is heat, which is the great vibrating matter of the Sun radiating out to us.
AGWSF fisics tries to make heat seem either non-existant in its meme “the electromagnetic waves are not heat they only become heat on meeting matter and being absorbed” or so simplified to the point of nonsense in the meme “all electromagetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.
I’ve given enough explanation above of the second meme’s ludicrous logic by tweaking real physics, the first is a bit more difficult to explain.. So, ask yourself this, if “all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same and only becomes heat on being aborbed”, what it the mechanism in plants which converts this undifferentiated electromagnetic energy to blue and red visible light? And as plants absorb green and reflect it back out again, what in the gas air converts this “all the same electromagnetic energy” to green light so the plant can then absorb it and reflect it back out? Or, does the plant too have magic powers, as AGWSF’s carbon dioxide (which can defy gravity and cause global temperatures to rise 800 years before its own level changes)? Does the plant somehow convert this “all the same undifferentiated electromagnetic energy from the Sun” to green light outside of itself before absorbing it only to reject it?
That’s the real problem with AGW’s Greenhouse Effect fiction fisics, it is such utterly ludicrous illogical nonsense when real world basic physics is known. AGWSF is only successful because most people generally don’t have enough real world basics to see this. However, it’s in putting several of the AGWSF claims together, as we’re doing here, that we can see the fake fisics in all its amusing nonsense. And then the reality hits, people actually believe it is real physics, so they don’t understand the nonsense they’re defending.. Or that they are incapable of, say, designing photovoltaic cells for the capture of sunlight and thermal panels for the capture of sunheat, because to them “all electromagnetic energy is the same” and they don’t understand these are in fact quite different from each other in properties and processes, a gamma ray is not a radio wave. It’s the deliberate dumbing down of basic physics for the general population to sell the scare of AGW, to control people.
Myrrh thinks all shortwave light doesn’t warm anything or only “dark light” can warm anything.
I don’t “think”, I know. In the real world physics we have great understanding of the properties and processes of visible and thermal infrared, the first is well understood in the science discipline of Optics, and now also in Biology, and the second has been understood for a long time in the science discipline of Thermodynamics, where the word radiation only means heat, as one of the well understood three methods of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.
This is your AGWSF claim you’re repeating and claiming it is real world. But you can’t show how this is physically possible, or any real world applications where this supposedly “great visible light energy from the Sun” is actually used in day to day living, heating the matter of our houses directly raising the temperature.
So the hotter something is the more “dark light” it makes and that if get so hot it emits visible light, the visible light isn’t energy that heat anything, just the dark light heats anything.
Right. Except now we don’t call it “dark light”, that was what Herschel called it when he first discovered heat from the Sun was invisible, but we call it thermal infrared because our measuring techniques are much improved since Herschel’s day and we can now accurately say that the shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is not hot. Since Herschel’s day, and Tyndall – he had a go at measuring the difference between light and heat, we know that visible light and the shortwaves either side which AGWSF claims “directly heat the Earth’s surface matter” are not hot and don’t have the power to heat matter which thermal infrared, simply called heat, does.
Now the way I understand it is the Sun would emit, what Myrrh calling “dark light” or thermal infrared or longwave infrared or the same radiation that human body or warmed pavement radiates.
You take chunk steel, you heat to say 50 C and is emitting what Myrrh calls dark light, you heat it up further to say 500 C, and it’s still radiating this dark light but also radiating higher wavelengths of energy- shortwave IR, you heat up further to 1000 C, and continues radiating the dark light, plus the shortwave IR, plus visible light.
And most of the energy emitted is in the visible light and shortwave IR, but there also the “dark light” continues being emitted, though the photons from the “dark light” have less energy in comparison.
You’re repeating another AGWSF sleight of hand meme here, “most” – how is it most when for example, an incandescent lightbulb emits only 5% visible light and 95% thermal infrared heat?
Why should the Sun be any different?
If you have substance which can be heated to 3000 C, it’s going have more energy being emitted in the visible light spectrum- and continue to emit shortwave IR and long wave IR. The tungsten filament in Incandescent Light Bulbs is around 3000 C.
And back in the real world, an incandescent lightbulb emits around 5% light and 95% thermal infrared. That’s why we a whole industry producing lamps which try to maximise the light, which doesn’t heat, and minimise the heat, the thermal infrared. As in the empirically tried and tested proven use of such in greenhouses where they want to maximise visible light to enhance photosynthesis and don’t want to cook the plants..
We understand what visible light can and can’t do in the real world and its real physics. Look around you. We don’t have visible light saunas, we have thermal infrared saunas; we don’t have visible light heaters to heat our homes, we have thermal infrared heaters heating matter directly, just as the real thermal infrared direct from the Sun heats the matter on the Earth’s surface directly; heats water of the oceans, heats the land, heats it so intensely at the equator that it gives us our HUGE and dramatic WINDS flowing from the equator to the poles and back again. We, in the real world, know the difference between LIGHT and HEAT.
You don’t even have winds, because you don’t have convection, you don’t have convection because you have ideal gases without properties without gravity in empty space instead of real gases with volume and weight and attraction subject to gravity.
AGWSF has deliberately confused the general population about this, even at university level.
So, the problem is I stand in the sun, and I feel it’s warmth. I think it’s from shortwave radiation, Myrrh thinks it’s all from “dark light”.
How can this be resolved?
Seems one has to measure it.
How do separate visible light from “dark light” so it can be measured?
Gosh, you mean to tell me that this, all this, “proven and lots of experiments and well known since Arrhenius/Fourier/Tyndall” I keep being told isn’t something you have readily to hand? If it is so well-known where is all this information, all this experimental proof?
I haven’t been able to find it either..
Now if had bowl of water and sunlight shines thru the water, the “dark light” would be absorbed by the water, yes?
Yes.
And if you magnified the light coming thru the bowl of water, the light could not be increased by magnifying glass so as to burn something??
Firstly, we don’t have a huge magnifying glass around our Earth, nor is the Sun a laser..
If this doesn’t separate the dark light, then you propose something that would.
The best suggestion, actually the only suggestion I’ve ever got, was from Wayne in a WUWT discussion. He suggested building a box with a glass lid which allows both light and heat to come through, but taking out the heat by a continual cold stream of water over the glass lid, visible light is also transmitted through the water so there is no impediment to visible light from the Sun entering the box. Of course, technical details like the depth, speed of water required to take away all the heat so one is left measuring only light, would have to be worked out.
There are lights used in horticulture which use water, a very strong absorber of heat, to cool down the lights, iirc, the water is on a loop somehow which takes away the heat from the lamps and is cooled and then circulated round again.
I shall have another check of coding before posting, and keep my fingers crossed..
myrrh,
Liquid water is in ionic form of H+ and OH- makes its electrons easier to move around.
Myrrh,
Good observation and great discussion about the Sun light. If J Hansen, P Jones, K Trenberth … saw your point, should be ashamed of their entire life of promoting AGW. Any CO2 warming believers should now read and re-read your posting above and wake up from the climate modeling GIGO land.
Here is where Myrrh seems to be making his big mistake: in the Nasa link he gives, is the following quote:
“Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called “shortwave radiation”) ”
Emphasis added to the bit he keeps overlooking.
Tomcat | October 14, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Here is where Myrrh seems to be making his big mistake: in the Nasa link he gives, is the following quote:
“Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called “shortwave radiation”) ”
Emphasis added to the bit he keeps overlooking.
Please also see my post above to Memphis:
Myrrh | October 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
The figure given by AGWScienceFiction fisics for infrared is 1%, most of the time it isn’t even mentioned as considered insignificant. Sometimes UV is mentioned, but that is also deemed not very important as the claim is the major bulk of the energy from the Sun heating the surface is visible light.
What you have failed to understand is the word “shortwave”, which flags that the infrared mentioned therein is the shortwave infrared, and not the longwave.
Shortwave infrared is not thermal, it is classed with Light and not Heat. *
AGWSF’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget says that longwave infrared from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and has no part in heating land and ocean and us. Instead they have given longwave infrared’s property of heat from the Sun to visible light, and the shortwaves either side, and to remind you of this they have produced the meme: “Shortwave In Longwave Out”.
I remind, they have done this so they can pretend that all the longwave infrared, heat, measured downwelling from the atmosphere comes from the heated Earth’s upwelling thermal infrared “backradiating from greenhouse gases”.
And, AGWSF have done this to pretend that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are creating warming by blanket trapping/backradiating and so changes in the Sun are of no importance. That is, real heat production from the Sun can be dismissed as “of no importance because it doesn’t reach the surface”.
Of course, if one takes the changes of the Sun’s real output of heat, such as in the regular cycles of sunspots, as the real reason the Earth was warming recently, because it does reach the surface, then trace amounts of gases such as carbon dioxide are obviously insignificant.
So, they had to create a fictional world with a new ‘science’. Its fictional fisics passing itself off as if real world, but actually describing a world which has physical properties and processes impossible in the real world.
What I am trying to point out is how they have done this, by tweaking real world physics, swapping properties and processes etc., because this is a scam, a science fraud on a grand scale, and they have used all kinds of tricks to fool the eye, ear and mind.
* NASA used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is the longwave infrared which is thermal, and that we couldn’t feel shortwave infrared, which isn’t hot.
It used to be elementary science for children.. Anyway, I only discovered a little over a year ago that NASA was getting rid of traditional real world teaching on this and putting up pages in line with AGWScienceFiction’s fisics, [here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886 ]. I was shocked and very disappointed, NASA has been at the forefront of real science and holds a special place in the affections of many.
ok myrrh, if the only radiation that comes from the sun is visible light that cannot warm us, why does standing out in the sun feel warm?
And if, contrary to your claim the sun *can* warm the earth, clearly the earth can then retransmit some of this radiation, and “greenhouse” gasses can trap it.
That’s the basic principle anyway. just *how* much remains to be seen.
Tomcat | October 16, 2012 at 1:52 am | ok myrrh, if the only radiation that comes from the sun is visible light that cannot warm us, why does standing out in the sun feel warm?
And if, contrary to your claim the sun *can* warm the earth, clearly the earth can then retransmit some of this radiation, and “greenhouse” gasses can trap it.
That’s the basic principle anyway. just *how* much remains to be seen.
Gosh, y’all having such problems following simple explanations, where have I said the Sun doesn’t warm the Earth?
I have said that it’s the invisible heat from the Sun which heats up the Earth and us.This is the electromagnetic wave on the spectrum called thermal infrared, longwave infrared.
I have contrasted this with visible light from the Sun which is not a thermal energy, which is not hot, and which can’t heat us up. This is the much shorter and much tinier electromagnetic wave called visible light, shortwave.
I suggest you look for a post I have just made beginning “Are you sitting comfortably?”, and read it over and over until you can understand what I am saying.
Until then, quite frankly, you are making yourself look not very bright at all.
And having resolved that, the science challenge for Myrrh is now the point about greenhouse gasses he keeps ducking (ie does he dispute the standard account of CO2’s absorption spectra?).
Will he finally take the challenge, or will he keep running from it ?
For the last time, you introduced “your challenge” which was irrelevant to what I was saying, and I told you so:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253242
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253585
Find someone else to discuss it with, I’m still not interested.
What’s the Best Climate Question to Debate?
Please see my post: October 14, 2012 at 2:49 pm
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-254090
And the NASA link there which shows the official version that visible light from the Sun heats the land and ocean: http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html
And please see: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html
“Electromagnetic radiation from space is unable to reach the surface of the Earth except at a very few wavelengths, such as the visible spectrum, radio frequencies, and some ultraviolet wavelengths. Astronomers can get above enough of the Earth’s atmosphere to observe at some infrared wavelengths from mountain tops or by flying their telescopes in an aircraft.”
If you support AGW/CAGW or think that their version of the energy budget of “Shortwave in Longwave out” (which is the Visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans and direct invisible longwave infrared doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and so plays no part in heating land and oceans) is real world science, then my science challenge to you stands:
Science Challenge: Show how visible light from the Sun heats intensely the land and water at the equator which is what gives us our great and dramatic wind and weather systems.
If you can’t, and you can’t because it is impossible physics in the real world, then you must, if you are being honest to science, throw out the whole of the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect, or, if you don’t agree with CAGW/AGW but think this real world physics, then realise you’ve been duped by those promoting AGW’s the Greenhouse Effect.
My challenge is against the OFFICIAL fisics created by AGWScienceFiction for their claim The Greenhouse Effect and its Energy Budget:
A) which has eliminated the actual direct heat from the Sun saying it doesn’t reach the surface and plays no part in heating land and oceans.
[This is actually in real physics the invisible thermal infrared, aka longwave infrared, which is in the real world the energy from the Sun actually physically able to heat land and oceans and does heat land and oceans, and us, it is what we feel as heat and which we absorb. This, in the real world and the real physics of thermodynamics, is the thermal energy of the Sun transferred by radiation, i.e., it is the Sun’s actual heat transferred by radiation. One of the three ways of heat transfer, the others being conduction and convection.]
B) and replaced this with the claim that Visible light from the Sun (“shortwave in”) is the driving energy absorbed by the surface heating land and oceans.
[This is impossible. Visible light from the Sun works on the electronic transition level, it is tiny. It does not work on the bigger kinetic molecular vibrational level. It is incapable of moving molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat land and ocean. Real heat from the Sun is bigger and more powerful, it does work on the molecular vibrational level, it takes heat to heat matter intensely, to raise the temperature of matter.
And, in the real world’s well known tried and tested physics, water is a transparent medium for visible light – it is not absorbed but transmitted through unchanged.]
The AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget claim about visible light the driving force heating land and ocean is a lie. AGWSF has given visible light the real properties of direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, which has been eliminated from AGW’s fictional world with the claim this doesn’t reach the surface and plays no part in heating land and ocean. This is consistently taught as if real world physics as it has been introduced into the general education system.
This is impossible. This is against real observation and very well known physics of the electromagnetic spectrum’s properties and processes of the various wavelengths (photons/particles). We’ve know since Herschel that the great heat we feel from the Sun is the invisible thermal infrared.
Since Herschel we know that visible light is not thermal, it is not hot and we cannot feel it, and not all invisible infrared is thermal. Near infrared is not a thermal energy, it is not hot, it is reflective not thermal. It it classed as Light and not Heat in standard empirically confirmed traditionally taught physics.
This is not only the best climate question to debate, it is the best physics question to debate..
I say this AGWScience Fiction fisics and now taught as basic science is total gobbledegook, impossible in the real world; a made up world which AGWSF has passed off as the real one around us. This is SCIENCE FRAUD. On a rather large scale..
So, if you agree with AGWSF that visible light from the Sun actually heats land and ocean, prove it. Take the challenge above.
“Science Challenge: Show how visible light from the Sun heats intensely the land and water at the equator which is what gives us our great and dramatic wind and weather systems.”
I was considering do a simple experiment with magnifying lens and attempting warm water [which is transparent] . Idea was use a big enough lens to try to see any affect. But it was late in day and I didn’t have any large magnifying glass. So I wondered as anyone tried it and put it on internet. No Luck. But in this brief search I found this:
“I receive viewer mail weekly asking, “With all that heat produced by a Fresnel Lens, can I point a lens at my swimming pool a few hours a day and heat it?” The simple answer is no. Water is clear and any light collected from the Fresnel lens will simply pass the focal point and continue into a wide pattern exiting as reflective light bouncing off the bottom of the pool. The big misconception regarding any magnifying glass or Fresnel lens it the belief that they “magnify or amplify the sunlight” when all they really do is concentrate it.”
Which didn’t answer my question, because I knew the simple answer was no- it’s beyond stupid to think it could warm a swimming pool, the question is how much could such concentrated sunlight have on a small quantity of water. But next part was slightly more interesting:
“”What if I focused the lens on a dark object just below the water surface?”
While that would be much better, you would transfer more heat to your pool if you simply got a black object the size of your lens and sunk it to the bottom, no lens needed. Square footage or square meters are what counts when it comes to sunlight. A one meter by one meter (39″ x39″) Fresnel lens concentrates sunlight to produce roughly 1000 watts of heat energy to a very small point. A sheet of heavy black plastic absorbs the same amount of solar energy but over a large area. Since plastic or almost any material transfers heat effectively when submerged in water, the 1M x 1M black plastic sheet would add 1000 watts of solar heating. The sheet is heating water at the bottom of the pool so you are taking advantage of the thermal layer above. Several black sheets can add a lot of heat assuming sunlight reaches the bottom of your pool. Many pools do not get direct sunlight to the bottom especially in the winter months due to the angle of the Sun.”
Now, he probably wrong that 1000 watts gets to the bottom of pool, but is correct [probably] that fair amount of 1000 watt could reach the bottom of pool. The question is how much.
Solar ponds seem to a have limit to how deep they can be, but if you only talking about say 2′ depth one can approach temperature equal or greater than any dark substance not under water [around 80 C]. Or what that means is probably on the order of say 90% or more of sunlight [all the 1000 watts] reaches below a foot of water depth- which would mean both visible and near infrared light.
Which is something I kind of forgot about- I general assumed that skin surface of water was absorbing a sizable amount of near infrared light- or blocking from from reaching deeper in the water.
But we do have the issue of top skin of ocean getting quite a bit warmer- and if not due radiant [solar flux] that means, due to convection??
Anyhow this next part is also interesting:
“I know of a person who incorporated 300 Fresnel page magnifiers into a solar blanket for a pool and tested it against a normal clear solar blanket. He was thinking of applying for a patent but was confused with the negative results he was generating. The non-Fresnel blanket was better insulated so it kept the heat in. The Fresnel Lenses basically did nothing other than provide an escape route for heat. I am not sure what came of his project.”
http://greenpowerscience.com/BLOGGER111/BLOG1SWIMMINGPOOL.html
Myrrh, long before global warming was an issue I was taught that some colors were cooler than others and that this was due to the amount of visible light that was reflected. I can be rather set in my ways so perhaps you can show in the literature why what I was taught was not accurate.
With respect Steven, that’s for you to work out.
Wherever you got the information, if you are claiming as the AGW Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget claims that shortwave radiation from the Sun is heating the Earth’s surface then it is for you to find the proof.
That is why I have phrased it as science challenge to those who claim it is factual physics. You have to find the proof, you have provide the show and tell to convince me.
Science Challenge: Show how visible light from the Sun heats intensely the land and water at the equator which is what gives us our great and dramatic wind and weather systems.
”
You have to find the proof, you have provide the show and tell to convince me.
”
Another ignoramus is not convinced that radiative physics works, and thinks that his ‘skepticism’ is not only highly original, but really, really important.
Yawn.
“Science Challenge: Show how visible light from the Sun heats intensely the land and water at the equator which is what gives us our great and dramatic wind and weather systems. ”
As I have said before, water is most of surface area of earth near the equator, and tropics [40% of surface area of earth] receives most of the Sun’s energy and the tropical ocean does seem to me to drive Earth’s climate. Knowing how exactly the ocean is warmed by sunlight is still somewhat a mystery. But since you include land, this seems much easier, in terms beginning to explain it [though I don’t think land areas are as important in terms driving global climate].
One can paint a surface and the color of the paint will affect it’s temperature if in sunlight. Paint only has color based how responses to visible light- darker paint absorbs more visible light and it becomes warmer.
So, this aspect a point of contention?
If a black flat painted board in sunlight is warmer than white glossy one, is there different explanation other than more visible light is being absorbed?
Does “dark light” respond to different colors, despite the fact that colors only exist due to the existence of visible light.
Let’s go back to water, water can different levels of transparency- can we assume the visible light is absorbed and warms water which more murky?
Oceans are not pure H20- it has many minerals in solution and these minerals are not transparent.
But want to keep issue color affecting temperature. An example is difference with black plastic bag or white plastic bag filled with water and put then in the sun- black bag warms water more and significantly quicker
than compared to white plastic bag.
Science challenge for Myrrh : go outside on a sunny day and see if you feel warm.
Depending on your findings, we can then see of there can be any merit in the idea that warmth from the sun could possibly result in the earth re-radiating some of that heat.
And after that, we can look at whether maybe greenhouse gasses like CO2 could be trapping some of the heat the earth is radiating, thus slowing down the rate the earth cools at. Or, as some would say, warming the earth.
Enjoy.
Science challenges to Tomcat:
1.go outside at night and see if you feel cold.
2.go outside in the day and soak up some sun, then go out at night and see if you are warmer.
3. measure the average temperature of a range of colored objects sitting in the sun during the day over a 24 hour period. See if color makes any difference to the mean temperature.
4. put a pot of water on the gas stove to boil. Hold you hand over the 100degC boiling water and see how close you can get. Hold you hand to the side of the burner and feel the IR from 1000+ degC flame. Which feels hotter.
5. find an experiment measuring thermalisation of IR by CO2.
blouis79
I take it from your questions that, you realize the sun warms us. OK.
But you dispute the existence of greenhouse gasses – ie the claimed absorption spectra of CO2 etc. Is that right?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Tomcat | October 16, 2012 at 1:52 am said: ”ok myrrh, if the only radiation that comes from the sun is visible light that cannot warm us, why does standing out in the sun feel warm?”
Tomcat, many different goodies come from the sun. Photons that reflect, you can see, radiation responsible for heat, you can feel.
Imagine you are around a big campfire. At night, you can see the light from the fire, but the heat radiation from the fire, you can feel. Even if blindfolded, you can feel the heat = goodies from the sun come in many colours.,
take a candle – inside the light from the candle; you will notice blue colour, inside / the cold light / and the red colour light outside, that is hot – because is combining with oxygen -> releasing heat, you see it as red, simple, isn’t it?
Yes Stefan, I don’t know why Myrrh is trying to pretend that AGW people don’t know this stuff.
Tomcat | October 17, 2012 at 10:50 am |
Yes Stefan, I don’t know why Myrrh is trying to pretend that AGW people don’t know this stuff.
Tomcat, I very much doubt you’re as lacking in reading comprehension skills as you show yourself here, so I’m left with the obvious alternative which I still hope I’m wrong about, that you are being deliberately deceitful.
Everyone generally is taught standard AGWScienceFiction fisics as if it is real world and I have given a range of sources to show that what I am arguing against is the standard teaching in education, certainly all climate scientists working to the AGW energy budget use it as a given . You are the one apparently pretending this isn’t so.
You might not like, because you do understand what I’m saying, my presenting the fake fisics sleights of hand by comparing the Greenhouse Effect claims with real world physics, but tough. Live with it. The AGW Greenhouse Effect is a scam created by the manipulating of real physics with the result that it produced an utterly ludicrous fantasy world of impossible physical properties and processes. So no, most in AGW don’t know real world physics at all. Or I wouldn’t be bothering pointing it out.
That shortwave, mainly visible, is the claimed AGW Greenhouse Effect “standard energy from the Sun heating the Earth’s surface” is ubiquitous, you’re going to have to eliminate every text book mentioning this, every page on the net, every paper written in the last few decades where using this fake fisics basic is taken as a given…
Longwave infrared, thermal infrared, the Sun’s direct heat, is not allowed to reach the Earth’s surface in the Greenhouse Effect, because, the AGWSF “backradiation” is based on the fake fisics premise that the atmosphere traps the upwelling heat, thermal infrared, further heating the Earth’s surface. That effect disappears when the direct thermal infrared heat from the Sun is allowed entry into the atmosphere to do the heating of the Earth’s land and oceans by its full real natural heating energy . So, by claiming that AGW fisics isn’t teaching this then you are the one pretending, I have given more than enough examples even if yourself have, for some reason, never encountered AGWSF fisics of its fictional Greenhouse Effect set in a fictional non-existant world.
Whatever your reason for doing this, you might confuse a newbie to GAGW/AGW/climate science discussions but the majority here know exactly what I’m arguing about and know it is the AGW basic fisics claims, you harm your arguments more than you harm mine if you don’t take this on board.
So, in case there is now or there will be some newbie to these arguments who may have been confused by the disinformation you (and Memphis) have been producing here, here is an example from a genuine study to remind of what the AGWSF fisics passes off as real physics, as used generally in all the variety of science studies because this has been introduced into the education system and, apart from the applied scientists in the field who can spot this is fake, the majority simply take it as if real physics basics:
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/rose_bowl_eir/
Temporary Use of the Rose Bowl Stadium by the National Football League (NFL)
From 3.2
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442465892
“Global warming, which is a part of climate change, is the observed increase in average temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere.
One identified cause of global warming is an increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. GHGs are those compounds in the Earth’s atmosphere that play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Specifically, GHGs allow the sun’s rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, but trap the energy that radiates back from the Earth to space, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.
The increase in net earthward movement of this radiation is known as the “greenhouse effect.””
[and]
“The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere1 is called the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process: (1) short-wave radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long-wave radiation re-emitted by the Earth; and (3) greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere absorbing or trapping the long-wave radiation and re-emitting it back towards the Earth and into space. Human activities that affect this third process are the focus of current climate change actions.”
I rest my valise.
Tomcat | October 16, 2012 at 1:52 am said: ”ok myrrh, if the only radiation that comes from the sun is visible light that cannot warm us, why does standing out in the sun feel warm?”
Again, because the direct heat from the Sun we feel on our skin and heating us up inside is the invisible longwave infrared, a.k.a. thermal infrared, which means heat.
We cannot feel anything from visible light or shortwave infrared, these are not heat energy, they are not hot, they cannot move molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter.
It takes the bigger heat energy of the Sun to heat up matter, to move the molecules of matter into vibration which is what heat is. Heat is the energy of matter in vibration, this is called kinetic energy, another name for heat energy, a.k.a. thermal energy. The energy of matter in vibration is called heat, because it’s hot..
Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the molecules of your skin into vibration, creating heat by heating them up.
This is what the Sun’s direct thermal energy does to us and to the land and water on the surface of our real Earth. The Sun’s direct heat, its matter in vibration, always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder and reaches us on the surface of the Earth in around 8 minutes. The Sun is a massive ball of fire, its temperature is millions of degrees centigrade and this great heat flows continually.
Herschel was the first to discover that the heat energy of the Sun was invisible, he called it dark light. We now call it thermal infrared because we can now do what he couldn’t, accurately measure the wavelengths which were heat energy, we can now tell that not all invisible infrared is heat energy; we now know that invisible shortwave infrared is not hot, and neither are the wavelengths of the visible spectrum and UV.
We cannot feel these non-thermal shortwave energies, they are classed as Light and not classed as Heat because we can tell the difference between heat and light in traditional physics.
“Herschel was the first to discover that the heat energy of the Sun was invisible, he called it dark light. ”
So, I googled: Herschel + dark light
“In the year 1800, Sir William Herschel discovered the existence of infrared by performing an experiment very similar to the one we show here. Herschel passed sunlight through a prism. As sunlight passes through the prism, the prism divides it into a rainbow of colors called a spectrum. A spectrum contains all of the colors which make up sunlight. Herschel was interested in measuring the amount of heat in each color. To do this he used thermometers with blackened bulbs and measured the temperature of the different colors of the spectrum. He noticed that the temperature increased from the blue to the red part of the spectrum. Then he placed a thermometer just past the red part of the spectrum in a region where there was no visible light and found that the temperature there was even higher. Herschel realized that there must be another type of light which we cannot see in this region. This light is now called infrared ”
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom
/classroom_activities/herschel_example.html
So according to this the visible split does provides heat and the infrared just below visible light [near infrared] also provides heat [more heating than from any part [or all] of visible light spectrum. Which agrees with wiki which say most of energy of sunlight infrared. And also agree with solar spectrum of sunlight which reaches surface.
“Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
This graph shows the amount energy. The red colored area is the amount sunlight energy reaching the surface when sun is near zenith and it clear skies.
The height of red colored area shows the watts per square meter.
So with visible light starting 390 nm it looks around 1 watt and at around 740 nm it looks like about 1.2 watts but most of light is around 1.3 to 1.4 watts. So between 400 and 700 one 300 nm. And if times by 1.3 to 1.4
you get 390 to 420 watts per square meter. So this is most of the 445 watts per square of visible light.
Looking at the near infrared light. The first part before the absorption
due to H2O one has around 250 nm and about 1 watt per nm- or about 250 watts. Next, there is two bumps is about 400 nm in total and has about 1/2 watt, so 200 watts per square meter. Then another section about 250 nm with about .25 watts, so around 62 watts per square meter. And last bit is about 500 nm but only about .1 watt, so around 50 watts per meter. And adding up the near infrared: 250 + 200 + 62 + 50 and gives 562 watts per square meter [I over guessestimated it] it’s suppose to be 527 watts per square meter for the infrared.
For fun I try to guess-estimate from same graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The sunlight which isn’t blocked by atmosphere [TOA]
So, starting 250 nm and going to 390- 140 nm at average of
say 1/2 watt:: 70 watts/sq/meter
390 to 590 nm, say, 1.75 watts. So total 350 watts per square meter.
590 to 790 nm, say 1.5 watts. So 300 watts
So visible light has about 650 watts per square meter with UV having about 70 watts square meter. 1360 minus 720 equals 640.
So infrared part should guessestimate around 640 watts per square meter. Or 640 minus 527, 113 should equal amount blocked.
So actually 790 nm little beyond visible.
So about 650 watts infrared and 640 watts visible per square meter.
So atmosphere blocking about 200 watts of visible, and 40-50 of UW
and about 100 watt per square meter of infrared.
Hmm.
But probably not just about adding up watts, the intensity of the light probably has large part of making lunar surface have 120 C. But in any case, it seems the visible part of the light spectrum is mostly responsible
for making the moon get up to the surface temperature of 120 C, as compared to max surface temperature on the Earth being around 80 C
Btw, if anyone can provide any evidence of more than 10 watts per square meter of any kind radiation from the Sun [or from anywhere] other than the energy emitting from the Sun in wavelength in the range 250 to 2500 nm and intersecting the earth surface, I would find this very fascinating.
As far I know there is no other source of energy of this magnitude- and would guess that moonlight [reflected sunlight] which around 1 watt per square meter or less would be the next highest source of energy. Though perhaps all starlight could also be around the same range as Moonlight.
Oh also cosmic background energy. Oh, scratch that:
microwatt (10^−6 watt):
1 µW (−30 dBm) – tech: approximate consumption of a quartz wristwatch
3 µW – astro: cosmic microwave background radiation per square meter.
Oh, Interesting same page:
Between 1 and 1000 watts:
20–40 W – biomed: approximate power consumption of the human brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28power%29
And:
8 W – tech: human-powered equipment using a hand crank.
200 W – tech: stationary bicycle average power output.
And anyone wants to bring up topic of Back Radiation, it would be valid point if one can show this energy doing work equal to +10 watts per second per square meter. So a collector 10 meter square could generate + 1000 watts per second of energy.
And such things as wind or lightning doesn’t count [they are not radiation sources] nor something like a volcanic activity or anything localized .
It has to be global in extent and more or less constant.
Or there is no evidence of anyone detecting dark light unless what meant by dark light is near infrared light- it has wavelength less than 2500 nm. Or we talking dark light which has a small amount of ability to warm anything by any significant amount- such as more than moonlight.
Interesting topic:
“theoretically could you build a large enough lens to concentrate moonlight to start a peice of paper on fire.”
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=18061
Basically moon too cool- 120 C is too cold
Related question, anyone think they could start piece of paper on fire
with Back Radiation??
I think you might possible get near 100 C from moonlight if had an uber way of magnifying it. With Back Radiation what would the limit of temperature it could be magnified to?
gbaikie | October 18, 2012 at 2:51 am |
gbaikie, this year’s gold medal for empty talk will be yours – I was thinking to nominate Gates; but he is got to settle for silver. Your practice made you close to perfect; I’m proud of you. Keep on the good work. P.s. if you get a job as a secretary and yipe that much – you can make yourself some respect and as much money, the honest way.
gbaikie – re Herschel.
So according to this the visible split does provides heat and the infrared just below visible light [near infrared] also provides heat [more heating than from any part [or all] of visible light spectrum. Which agrees with wiki which say most of energy of sunlight infrared. And also agree with solar spectrum of sunlight which reaches surface.
I repeat:
“Herschel was the first to discover that the heat energy of the Sun was invisible, he called it dark light. We now call it thermal infrared because we can now do what he couldn’t, accurately measure the wavelengths which were heat energy, we can now tell that not all invisible infrared is heat energy; we now know that invisible shortwave infrared is not hot, and neither are the wavelengths of the visible spectrum and UV. ”
Try reading Herschel’s own words on his experiments – his measuring was crude, by hand physically moving the prism to find the “edge” between visible and invisible. He didn’t have any idea of the differences in SIZE between the different wavelengths!
Which means, he had no way to tell how much overlap from the thermal infrared he was impinging into the visible he was measuring.
AGWSF fantasy fisics takes out all the differences between wavelengths
Science is about discovering the physical differences of matter/energy – we know what the different wavelengths can and cannot do. We know visible light isn’t capable of moving the whole molecules of matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat something up, because it is tiny, it works on the tiny electronic transition level.
It’s at this tiny electronic transition level that visible gets bounced around all over the sky when the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen absorb it and then spit it out.
All that blue in the sky we see is gazillions of absorption and spitting out of visible light by electrons.
It takes physically moving the whole molecule into vibration to heat up matter. Near infrared photons/particles/wavelengths are not big enough to do this, that is why it is classed in with Light and not classed in with Heat, because it is not a thermal energy. It is Reflective, as Light, not Thermal, as Heat.
You have to conclusively prove visible light can , because that is your claim.
Why can’t you find anything that explains this claim? How does visible light physically heat up matter?
We now know, because we have explored this in great depth since Herschel’s time, that visible light and shortwave infrared ARE NOT THERMAL ENERGIES. It takes the bigger thermal energy, heat, to heat up matter. We know that every time we cook dinner. It takes a lot of heat to heat up matter. It takes a lot of heat to heat up land and water at the equator to give us the huge equator to pole wind system we have and all our dramatic weather.
Why are you scrabbling around trying to find something to explain this AGWSF claim? If it is so well known then there should be a whole science dedicated to the use of visible light to heat matter.
I do wish you, generic, would try actually listening to what I’m trying to say here, I’m trying to show how this is fake fisics. You have to prove it isn’t.
I repeat:
We cannot feel these non-thermal shortwave energies, they are classed as Light and not classed as Heat because we can tell the difference between heat and light in traditional physics.
As I posted earlier what NASA used to teach before being taken over by AGW fake fisics fanatics.
It used to teach that we cannot feel shortwave infrared because it is not hot. Point your remote control on your hand..
It used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, now it teaches that infrared doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface.
What does it take for you all to appreciate what I’m trying to point out here?
AGWSF has changed traditional, well known, and well understood from the countless applications of these real facts about infrared.
Where are the industries producing visible light saunas? Where are the industries producing visible light room heaters?
Where is all the science to back up this claim? Where the applied science making use of this “visible great energy from the Sun heats matter”?
Eh? What’s that? Oh, silence again.
Myrrh you continue with your blatant lie – the laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us. What is it that you hope to gain with this ludicrous strawman?
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 1:40 am |
Myrrh you continue with your blatant lie – the laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us. What is it that you hope to gain with this ludicrous strawman?
I haven’t been saying that, so it is you creating the strawman. Show where I have said this, quote my words.
If you are being disingenuous here then I am very disappointed, but, assuming you just have comprehension difficulties because what I am trying to explain is difficult to grasp, I’ll elucidate further on this for you, and for the benefit of any others reading who might have got confused by your comments.
I have been explaining that the science establishment, as you put it, has excised the real direct heat we get from the Sun – FROM ITS GREENHOUSE EFFECT ENERGY BUDGET – and substituted in its place visible light from the Sun.
Knowingly doing this or in ignorance, the effect is that it is still measuring the real heat from the Sun, but it’s claiming this comes from the downwelling from “greenhouse gases”.
That is the scam.
To achieve this scam, the AGW scare, it created a fictional “greenhouse” scenario in which it had to remove the longwave infrared directly beamed from the Sun and it did so by saying visible light was the energy heating the Earth.
This has effectively dumbed down basic science for the general population because they introduced this concept into the education system where it is now taught that the Sun’s visible light heats the Earth.
The rest of their fictional fisics was likewise created to support this fake Greenhouse Effect which says carbon dioxide directly affects global temperatures. For a start, the fake Greenhouse Effect is created by taking out the Water Cycle.
Put the Water Cycle back in and there is no Greenhouse Effect of “greenhouse gases heating the Earth 33°C from -18°C, because, and please listen carefully, water vapour the main greenhouse gas actually cools the atmosphere by 52°C. Without water global temperatures would be 67°C and not the 15°C it is. Think deserts.
The “greenhouse gases heat the Earth by 33°C it would be without them by trapping upwelling heat from the Earth” is a magicians sleight of hand, created by taking out the process of the Water Cycle to get to the 15°C.
It’s not easy to see magicians tricks, so please take the time to think about this.
It gets complicated because they had to create a ‘new physics’ to explain each of their claims and one can only spot these if one has real world basic physics with which to compare their fictional variation. I thought explaining how they have taken out the real heat from the Sun because they had to use its measurements for their “backradiation from greenhouse gases” would be the easiest to explain…, the arguments about the second law are interminable because few understand that physics well enough to counter the AGW tweaking of it by several sleights of hand.
To get their scare AGW they had to claim that carbon dioxide can accumulate in the atmosphere, but this again is a specialist area. One of the problems went away when they took out the Water Cycle, because in the real world all pure clean rain is carbonic acid. In other words, carbon dioxide isn’t accumulating in the real world because it is fully part of the Water Cycle and so in this shares water’s residence time in the atmosphere which is 8-10 days. Therefore, no matter how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere it will all come down back to the surface in the rain, snow, dew, fog.
You will not find an explanation of rain mentioned in any of the general AGW education packages for children on the Carbon Life Cycle, which they call the Carbon Cycle because it then becomes obvious that carbon dioxide can’t accumulate. And because in their fictional AGW scare they have to turn children against carbon dioxide, the have also demonised carbon dioxide as a toxic, a poison, they have taken Life out of our world. They are poisoning children’s minds with this..
The other way they explain carbon dioxide accumulating is more complicated, one has to know the difference in real world physics between the artificial construct “ideal” gas and actual gases designated “real”, because they are. What AGWSF has done is simply claim carbon dioxide is an ideal gas which means it is not subject to gravity.. So, it gets thoroughly mixed and can’t be unmixed without a great deal of work being done and therefore can’t separate out from the air in the atmosphere and so stays in the air for hundreds and even thousands of years. As a real gas carbon dioxide is of course one and half times heavier than air, so will always sink displacing air unless their is some work being done to change that, and it’s not always windy..
As with the second law arguments, one has to know quite a bit of detail to see where they have tweaked real physics to create their sleight of hand explanations. For example, Van der Waals is simply not mentioned, because a gas with volume, a real gas, spoils their “well-mixed” and “accumulates” claims, and especially, their “radiation only” claims.
Carbon dioxide and nitrogen and oxygen have been reduced to a non-existant entity, a concept of a gas with no properties and processes, as they’ve done with “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”, making them ideal gases without properties and processes in the Greenhouse Effect – they have actually become hard dots of nothing without volume travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum bouncing off each other in elastic collisions, as the description of the imaginary ideal gas in a container of real world physics textbooks.
Which means, their AGW Greenhouse Effect atmosphere is empty space. But some real world knowledge of gases needs to be known to appreciate the tweaks of it to create this fictional atmosphere. In which there is no sound.
For the same reason there is no convection, therefore no winds to transfer heat because winds are volumes of gas on the move, all reduced to an imaginary atmosphere of empty space in which radiation only exists. So no Water Cycle because no buoyancy of gases and no separation of gases by weight because no gravity in empty space. Etc. etc.
It might be easier if you understand that I am describing how “the establishment” is using a completely fictional world and its accompanying fictional fisics which are physically impossible as if it is real world. It’s an alternative reality scenario like those in fantasy novels which play around with physics to create their stories’ settings.
But the great difference is they have, through the education process, convinced not only the general population, but scientists, that this alternative fictional world is the one we live in.. Most applied scientists will be able to spot the tweaks from their own fields, but will simply take for granted that something else tweaked from another field is “real world”, they just assume the basics given are real physics. Of course, that is also the object of this fake fisics creation, to add as much confusion as possible by everyone arguing about the different points in it..
What I am attempting to show is how all these arguments come down to a complete package in the creation of a fictional world and its fake fisics.
So, in this imaginary world it was necessary to make visible light the heat energy from the Sun, which in the real world is physically impossible.
Take my science challenge..
And still Myrrh’s scam goes on, with his
…laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.
Myrrh : I haven’t been saying that
Myrrh, only a few lines later : I have been explaining that the science establishment … excised the real direct heat we get from the Sun
Myrrh
You continue with your blatant lie – the laughable claim that the science establishment doesn’t realise we get heat from the sun. What exactly is it that you hope to gain from this ludicrous strawman?
Hint : continually avoiding the question won’t make it go away. It just confirms how dishonest you are.
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 1:49 am said: ”Myrrh Hint : continually avoiding the question won’t make it go away. It just confirms how dishonest you are”
Tomcat, Myrrh is one of the most honest person, that visits this blog.
try some honesty of yours, if you have any: the ”sunligt in many colours” comes from the other side of the dirty clouds. It’s much more sunlight to be intercepted from incoming sunlight, than from secondary reflection from the surface. Water cloud and dirty (CO2).clouds are as ”SUN-UMBRELLAS /. SHADE-CLOTH – they intercept sunlight – that effect was used in the 70’s, by the same shonky ”climatologists” , that: ” BY THE DIMMING EFFECT, CO2 WILL PRODUCE NUCLEAR WINTER EFFECT BY YEAR 2000. Well, GLOBAL warming is just as real as their Nuclear Winter.
Go to my website and learn about the self adjusting mechanisms, You will know that: the amount of sunlight is intercepted, the size of those water clouds & dirty clouds dictate if is going to be milder or extreme climate; NOT WARMER PLANET. Extreme is: cold nights / hot days – mild temp is: not much different temp between day and night. inform yourself and you will sleep better. Otherwise, you will become as gbaikie, will start involving the moonlight, maybe even the earth warming by the reflection from Venus… Save your sanity, Tomcat
You have completely missed the point here Stefan, which is that Myrrh is trying to tell us that Nasa et al don’t realize we get warmth from the sun. This is an obvious, flat-out lie. I can only imagine he is being dishonest in this to way in a pathetic attempt to try and look clever. Do you have any other theories to explain his dishonesty?
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 3:37 am |
You have completely missed the point here Stefan, which is that Myrrh is trying to tell us that Nasa et al don’t realize we get warmth from the sun. This is an obvious, flat-out lie. I can only imagine he is being dishonest in this to way in a pathetic attempt to try and look clever. Do you have any other theories to explain his dishonesty?
The most obvious theory is that you have reading comprehension problems, perhaps discussions on science isn’t really for you. Have you tried painting instead?
Quote my words, and we’ll can try and work out where you’re having problems with this.
In case you missed your own words for the ~20th time, here is your most recent trickery :
And still Myrrh’s scam goes on, with his … laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.
Myrrh : I haven’t been saying that
Myrrh, only a few lines later : I have been explaining that the science establishment … excised the real direct heat we get from the Sun
With these ‘skills’ I just don’t understand why you aren’t a cagw truebeliever like Web and his friends.
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 6:13 am |
In case you missed your own words for the ~20th time, here is your most recent trickery :
Where exactly? You haven’t put anything here.
And still Myrrh’s scam goes on, with his … laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.
Myrrh : I haven’t been saying that
Myrrh, only a few lines later : I have been explaining that the science establishment … excised the real direct heat we get from the Sun
Please give a link to the quote and quote the quote in full, so we can all see that the first words I quote is as response to your lie because I have never said that. Give us the exact quote from me where you claim I have said this.
The second quote you give from me is a different subject altogether. First please give a link to the quote and quote the quote in full. As I’ve said about this one, it’s an interesting subject..
And damn well fetch where I have said “laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.”
Give the exact quote and give the link to the post. I have never said that the science establishment thinks the sun does not warm us..
With these ‘skills’ I just don’t understand why you aren’t a cagw truebeliever like Web and his friends.
Sigh, so you really don’t have any reading skills at all. I’ll try and make this as simple to read as I can:
The AGW claims are as stupid in real physics as are the CAGW, both are using the same basic fictional fisics created for the imaginary fantasy called The Greenhouse Effect set in an imaginary universe with its own fictional planets created out of fictional properties and process of fictional matter and energy. Is that clear? It’s a through the looking glass with Al scenario, where any amount of impossible physics can be thought of before breakfast.
The last sentence in that paragraph is a play on words with reference to Alice Through The Looking Glass.
I’m sorry you find it too difficult to follow explanations from the our real world and our real world physics of energy and matter, but as it’s clearly upsetting you, and I hope you won’t be offended by this, I do suggest a break from these discussions would be salubrious for you.
It can’t be an easy thing to take on board that the Greenhouse Effect has been created out of a completely fictional impossible physics. It is the biggest hoax in science so far, and, I doubt it will be surpassed in its scope and effect both in science and society by any science fraud that comes after. The Missing Link, the Piltdown Man, set back science in one field for half a century, but the general population was unaware of it.
This fictional Greenhouse Effect with its fake fisics takes in many different fields of science and so changing basic real world physical facts to the detriment of future applied science knowledge for all. Promoting it through the education system is far more effective for control over people because insidious brainwashing rather than outright book burning and murder of teachers, which is more noticeable..
As it is now being used to impose authoritarian control over the general population it is as effective as any mass destruction of knowledge or knowledge, pretended or otherwise, kept only for a self assumed elite. It is now to the great detriment of the well-being of people globally who not only cannot make any practical applications by this fake fisics, but have been scared into submissiveness to accepting a greatly reduced standard of living, to the point of serfdom, through their ignorance that this is fake fisics.
Knowledge is freedom.
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 3:37 am said: ”You have completely missed the point here Stefan, which is that Myrrh is trying to tell us that Nasa et al don’t realize we get warmth from the sun”
Tomcat, you cannot even understand Myrrh’s explanations. 2] you and Memphis keep bragging that you have discovered that: going on the sunlight will get you warm… wow! Between two of us: ”my cat has discovered that same thing: after cold night -> he spreads on the sunlight, to warm up” his IQ of 45… he is as clever as you and Memphis. You should inform the humanity of your discovery; in some science magazines, before my Sylvester bits you to it.
It’s much more complicated, to understand that: the sunlight ”in many colours”, comes from the other side of the water cloud and the dirty cloud. It is much more to be intercepted from direct sunlight, than from secondary reflection. b] intercepting part of radiation high up; where cooling is much more efficient – makes milder temperature on the ground.
Tomcat, you have lost your 8 lives, on silly arguing, use your last one, to learn, have an open mind. See, Memphis is even more ignorant than you; because you always talk, instead of listening occasionally -> because of that, in the past you never had a chance to learn. You have two ears and one mouth = to listen twice as much than you talk. Cheers
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 1:49 am |
Myrrh
You continue with your blatant lie – the laughable claim that the science establishment doesn’t realise we get heat from the sun. What exactly is it that you hope to gain from this ludicrous strawman?
Hint : continually avoiding the question won’t make it go away. It just confirms how dishonest you are.
Quote my words. So I can explain the context for you, it’s an interesting aspect of this scam.
I have just posted a reply on another of your variations of what you claim I’ve said which I hadn’t said, do read it here:
Myrrh | October 19, 2012 at 5:34 am
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-256983
Myrh old buddy,
If you want to retract the claim that the climate science establishment doesn’t realize the sun warms the earth, this is would be a good time.
That would allow your debate to move on, eg to the idea of greenhouse gasses.
Memphis | October 19, 2012 at 6:32 am | Myrh old buddy,
If you want to retract the claim that the climate science establishment doesn’t realize the sun warms the earth, this is would be a good time.
I have never said that. Fetch the post and quote my words where you claim I have said that.
That would allow your debate to move on, eg to the idea of greenhouse gasses.
You don’t have real greenhouse gases. You’ve taken out the real greenhouse which is our real world atmosphere of mainly the real gases oxygen and nitrogen, and you have replaced these real greenhouse gases around the Earth with empty space, a ridiculous concept created in the space between someone’s ears who’s having a joke at your expense…
Without the real gases, mainly nitrogen and oxygen which make up c98% of our real Earth’s atmosphere, the temps would be around minus 18°C, with the real greenhouse gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but, without water, the temps would be 67°C.
There is no AGWSF Greenhouse Effect as this is a fiction created by changing the concept of real greenhouse gases around the Earth which is all the real gases, and replacing these with the fictional concept that only some are greenhouse gases, and, these not real gases but the imaginary ideal without any properties of volume, weight, attraction and not subject to gravity.
And further, in the Earth’s real greenhouse atmosphere, the windows can be opened as in a real greenhouse, that is, a real greenhouse has both heating and cooling capabilities – AGWSF the Greenhouse Effect greenhouse has taking out the cooling, created a fictional concept of a greenhouse as only warming.
The fictional AGWSF Greenhouse Effect has been created by taking out the taking out the cooling real greenhouse Water Cycle in a novel fictional version of a greenhouse.
Everything claimed for the Greenhouse Effect is fiction. Get a grip on that and you’ll get back a grip on reality.
So are you now seriously claiming you didn’t say “I have been explaining that the science establishment, as you put it, has excised the real direct heat we get from the Sun [] “.
Myrr when are you going to realise that NOBODY thinks that only visible radiation comes from sun. Not the skeptics, not the alarmists, NOBODY. So your attempt to try and ‘educate’ everyone on the topic is just a joke.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is not Total as defined in ANSI/ISO. The observed range (“Coverage” in the graphic below) is 0.05 to 100,000 nanometers within an Electromagnetic Spectrum of 0.000001 to 100,000,000,000 nanometers. This implies that these instruments do not yet measure Gamma Rays, Hard X-Rays, Far Infrared, Microwave and Radio.
http://mysite.verizon.net/cache.22/SET_EM_TSI_Coverage.jpg
Solar Spectrum, Variability, and Atmospheric Absorption (noting that the graph starts with 10 nm). “This image, courtesy of Dr. Judith Lean at the US Naval Research Laboratory, shows the spectrum of solar radiation from 10 to 100,000 nm (dark blue), its variability between Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum (green) and the relative transparency of Earth’s atmosphere at sea level (light blue). At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun’s extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth’s atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. For Earth-dwelling beach-goers there is no significant difference between Solar Max and solar minimum.”
Comment: despite the opacity of the earth’s atmosphere at more energetic wavelengths, I suspect that the absorbed energy is going somewhere. Does anyone have data on the wavelengths missing from this chart?
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/09/05/sunspectrum_resources/spectrumgif.gif
Does anyone have data on the wavelengths missing from this chart?
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/09/05/sunspectrum_resources/spectrumgif.gif
That chart seems to measure mW rather watt
So the is milliwatts per square meter
And goes from 10^-4 to 10^4
It hard for me to read.
It seems to include even the insignificant amounts of energy [measuring less than moonlight quantities] and at this scale
there is probably a fair amount fluctuation- depending solar activity [which very violent and changing constantly] but other that, it seems to include all the spectrum.
The Sun doesn’t emit gamma ray- few no stars are hot enough:
http://space.about.com/od/astronomydictionary/g/Gamma-Rays.htm
You get gamma in space from supernovas and blackholes.
Btw love to same thing for Moon [and scaled down a couple notches]
Memphis | October 17, 2012 at 10:56 am | Myrr when are you going to realise that NOBODY thinks that only visible radiation comes from sun. Not the skeptics, not the alarmists, NOBODY. So your attempt to try and ‘educate’ everyone on the topic is just a joke.
Lots of people do, it’s one of the variations to explain the AGWScienceFiction’s reasons for the missing direct heat from the Sun.
I hadn’t heard this particular variation phrased like that until a few discussions ago here, when I was told ‘only CAGW’s believe that there is an invisible barrier stopping longwave infrared from entering the atmosphere, AGW’s say the Sun gives off very little longwave infrared and we get only a tiny amount of that”.
I didn’t get a reply when I asked – are you saying that the Sun gives off very little heat?
These are simply variations produced by the meme producing department of AGWSF. AGW itself was produced by this department so they could tie themselves up in arguments with CAGW’s about the differences. AGW’s present themselves as “the skeptics”, but both groups have the same basic fake fisics; AGW’s say “we’re not disputing that carbon dioxide heats the Earth, we’re disputing the amount of warming this is causing”.
AGW skeptics have stolen the description “skeptic” from the real sceptics, those who say as I do, that there is no Greenhouse Effect. No data/empirical evidence is ever presented to show how carbon dioxide can do this, especially difficult to do of course because their carbon dioxide is a supermolecule wearing its knickers on the outside of its pants; it defies gravity and it refuses to join with water in the atmosphere to come down as rain, it just accumulates and accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years, pick your variation, and its powers are so great it’s practically a god because it can make global temperatures soar melting gazillions tons of miles high ice and raising sea levels 350 feet at the beginning of interglacials, it can do all this 800 years before any change in its own amount..
Anyway, there’s actually very little difference in the two versions, the nuances on the doctrinal arguments between the two are still firmly based in the same premise, the claim that the direct heat from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and plays no part in heating land and oceans and its property of heating matter given to shortwave from the Sun in its place” – both these statements are of a physics unknown in the real world, impossible.
The heat we feel from the Sun in real world physics is thermal infrared, a.k.a. longwave infrared, not shortwave infrared nor visible nor uv. The actual heat we feel from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy radiating out to us, the Sun’s visible/shortwave light are not thermal and are physically incapable of heating matter as real thermal infrared heat radiation does. The AGWSF meme “Shortwave In Longwave Out” is nonsense physics for the reasons I’ve given above in this discussion.
So the first explanation for how this works, the original, is the now classic “greenhouse glass like barrier stopping longwave from the Sun from entering the atmosphere while visible travels through and is absorbed heating the Earth’s surface which then radiates out thermal infrared, longwave. This is what I’ve now been told only CAGW’s still claim, the subtext I got implied ‘unsophisticated lot that they are’… grin.
As far as I can see, and typical of ‘rebuttals’ from both, the explanations given change depending on the questions asked, there’s no internal coherence in C/AGWSF as it was designed to obfuscate not educate. The ‘second AGW’ version appears to be emphasising that “the Sun produces very little longwave infrared” because the “invisible greenhouse glass like barrier” has been attributed by some to being the same “greenhouse gases which trap/backradiate upwelling heat from the Earth”, so perhaps this second version is to deflect from the objection that if these gases trap the upwelling heat they must also be trapping the downwelling direct, beam, heat from the Sun, and that contribution is not accounted for in downwelling measurements. So they put more emphasis on the “Planck curve blackbody spectrum showing peak energy output in the visible”, but both use this.
The following is the general beginning of the original version which implies that beam longwave infrared can’t get through, Skeptical Science was set up to give the ‘official’ version:
So why has AGWSF eliminated the real direct heat from the Sun? So it can pretend that “all downwelling measurements of thermal infrared, longwave, are the result of greenhouse gases trapping the upwelling heat and radiating it back to Earth’s surface”, as SkepticalScience explains further:
Except it’s complete gigo, because they’ve excluding the direct heat from the Sun.
So now, all the downwelling heat from the atmosphere being measured is ignoring the changes in the Sun producing this heat, they claim that changes in the Sun are insignificant because all the increases in downwelling heat they measure have excluded that actual real direct heat from the Sun and mis-attributed it to their, also physically ridiculous, “backradiation from greenhouse gases”..
That’s the essence of the scam. Simple sleight of hand deceit to be able to claim that the “increase in greenhouse gases is causing this by “greenhouse gas” “trapping” and “backradiation”, putting the blame mostly on Carbon Dioxide.
And a typical example of how this is taught:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
“Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the sunshine vs. the shade.”
No explanation given about direct thermal infrared heat from the Sun, it has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist and only visible remains as the “heat from the Sun”.
The word “radiant” comes from the science discipline of Thermodynamics where it refers only to thermal infrared, real heat. By using it here, whether deliberately or unconsciously repeating memes, it further confuses the real world physics distinction between Heat and Light. As I explained earlier here, AGWSF has eliminated all differences of property and process between the wavelengths to deliberately create this confusion between light and heat, in the meme: “all electromagnetic radiation is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.
The extrapolations from these fake fisics memes can be amusing, I was told re “backradiation” that a hunter could leave a chunk of raw meat in his igloo and go hunting for a few hours and on his return his chunk of meat would be a cooked dinner waiting for him. I’ve been told a gamma ray is exactly the same as thermal infrared, and, re visible light being heat – I’ve been told to go and ‘bask in the Sun’s visible light because that is the heat I’d be feeling’. Visible light in AGWSF has completely taken on the property of thermal infrared, [which is why I phrase my challenge as I do].
I was also told by the same PhD who told me go bask in the heat of visible light from the Sun, that ‘this was what I would experience from an incandescent lightbulb, the heat from the bulb is the visible light’. In the real world an incandescent lightbulb radiates around 5% visible light and 95% thermal infrared, heat. This kind of real world physics fact is never mentioned, just as rain in the Carbon Cycle is never mentioned.
So, what we have in AGWSF is the complete elimination of the beam heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, and visible light substituted.
That’s the bottom line. It really doesn’t matter how the various Greenhouse Effect believers explain why there is no direct thermal infrared from the Sun heating the Earth, that’s just of academic interest, they have both eliminated it completely from the Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget and both present this as real world physics. The general population is completely dumbed down in the real world basic science of the difference between heat and light, and much more besides. The impossible physics of gases, missing Water Cycle, missing convection so no winds or weather, and so on.
In traditionally written physics the energy from the Sun is simply given as “heat and light” indicating these are two separate categories which are distinctly different from each other and not interchangeable. It’s real world physics shorthand, like “radiant” meaning thermal infrared.
Interesting that skeptics are piling on Myrrrhhh.
By last count there are 40+ crackpots that place comments on this blog who have just as odd theories concerning AGW and climate science as Myrrhh does.
But as the hypocrisy continues on at an astonishingly relentless pace, you will not find much consternation among the skeptics concerning the non-Myrrrhhh wacko ideas. That would not fit into the agenda, which is to assert that conventional science is wrong, whereas Myrrrhh works as a kind of sacrificial lamb to retain some credibility.
Afraid it does not work that way.
yeah, wacko ideas like Peak Oil.
Mystery, Did you catch the last presidential debate? What was the topic that took up almost the first half-hour?
Webby,
Science is too dificult for you to learn, understand and respond, try something else which you can be more contributive and productive. Don’t waste your remaing time here.
As one of the more rabid and intemperant wackos on this site, Web, you are in no position to talk. Instead of your endless crybaby resentment that people dare to question CAGW, why not for once just have an honest go at a debate ?
A rhetorical debate? I personally would not go there.
Get yourself a mirror.
Myrrrhh has lead you down one of the most epic time-wasters I have ever witnessed.
Yes, he and you are pretty much one of a kind.
I concentrate on systems analysis, where the system is the environment and our interaction with it. Climate science by itself leaves out the issues with resource limitations, which is worthwhile to delve into.
You apparently group me in with Myrrhh, which is fine, as I do understand how projection, framing, and transferrence works. As do most of the savvy participants in the discussion.
Cheers.
WebTheCrackpot | October 19, 2012 at 10:53 am said: ”I concentrate on systems analysis”
Just one more lie of yours, will not change the tide. Listen: you cannot concentrate on ”system analysis” and be Hansen’s rusty trumpet. System is controlled by the laws of physics and by my formulas, not by Hansen & Gore and their excrement, like you. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/global-temperature/
I look forward to a debate as to the most appropriate science to investigate climate change. Physics has had its shot and we are still in the dark. Life, c/o the ecology of ecosystems, especially those converted to agriculture, could be more revealing. This might even let us acknowledge some essential properties of water, in all its forms and functions.
Rather then focus too much on what is wrong with Greenhouse theory- such imagining Earth is similar a blackbody [something capable of absorb all radiant energy, uniformly warming from this energy converted into heat and capable uniformly radiating energy it it’s heated temperature]. Earth does not in any way resemble a spherical blackbody.
Instead what is important about Earth is it comprised of material which has a high heat capacity. The most significant material of earth with a high heat capacity is the Earth’s oceans which on average cover 70% of Earth’s surface area. The fictional material envisioned as a blackbody doesn’t imagine that any blackbody includes any specific attribute of it’s heat capacity. If a blackbody had heat capacity near zero, it would change nothing. Or if the material had high heat capacity the only effect would it would take longer warming up before the time in which the energy in equals the energy out- getting to this point is only value of the constructed fictious blackbody. So any heat capacity of a blackbody is an unnecessary distraction and accordingly ignored or imagined to be zero.
But in real world, one should not ignore heat capacity if you want understand Earth’s climate. And the heat capacity of Earth functions exactly like a “greenhouse affect”- it delays cooling.
Another important material on Earth which has significant heat capacity is the atmosphere. And this energy stored by the kinetic energy of the gas molecules of the atmosphere. Kinetic Energy equals 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared.
The Earth atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg.
And the velocity of these molecules is about 500 meters per second. So half this mass: 2.55 x 10^18 times 500 times 500 is the amount joules of energy the motion of these molecules have. Or 6.375 x 10^23 joules.
Or to make atmosphere at near absolute zero become our atmosphere it needs 6.375 x 10^23 joules of energy. And to lower the temperature some fraction towards absolute zero would the same fraction of 6.375 x 10^23.
So say 1/10 of way to absolute zero would be 1/10 of 6.375 x 10^23 joules- roughly speaking. So if it’s 260 K a 1/10th would be 26 K or 26 C cooler.
In day night cycle one generally cools less than 26 C and for the entire atmosphere to by warm or cool by 26 requires about 6.375 x 10^22 joules to lost or gained.
In comparison the sunlight which reaches top of atmosphere in one day period is “The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.” -wiki
So 174 petawatts times the number seconds in 24 hrs.
petawatt :10^15 watts). So 1.74 x 10^17
And seconds: is 3600 time 24: 86,400 seconds. Or
1.5 x 10^22 watts or joules of energy.
Or if all the energy of the sun was absorbed, it is incapable of warming the entire atmosphere by 26 C or even half this amount 13 C.
Now all the energy of sunlight is not absorbed by the atmosphere and one has temperature difference in many regions of the world greater than 13 C in day to night cycle.
All want to point out is scale of this- 6.375 x 10^22 joules on global basis is a lot of energy.
Now the ground or skin temperature generally varies more in day to night cycle than air temperature, but this surface temperature has far less heat capacity than the atmosphere- it’s couple inches of matter.
The sky equals about 10 meter liquid [or frozen solid] over entire surface- so rocks, lawns, dirt, sand, and have little heat capacity as compare to 30 feet worth of liquid air.
But look at earth’s oceans in terms of heat capacity, the oceans dwarf the atmosphere as atmosphere dwarf ground skin temperatures.
The mass of Earth’s oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg.
Atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg vs Ocean: 1400.0 x 10^18 kg.
And in terms of specific heat, water about 4 times as much as air per same mass in kg. So 5 to 5600- or 1000 times more per 1 K or C change in temperature.
And finally another “heat storage mechanism” is the latent heat of H20 gas- or the air’s humidity. Another very significant element- equal to few days worth total sunlight. And related to this is quantity water droplets in the atmosphere [seen as clouds].
If look at earth in terms of it’s heat capacity. And you look where most heat is stored. The location on earth which most heat stored is in the tropics- oceans in the tropics. You have ocean warmed considerable to depth of 100 meters or so, you very high humidity and the air stays warm during the night and day cycle.
And places where little stored heat are sand desert regions- where you get large swings in temperatures during day and night cycle.
It should be noted that the tropics are not seen as hellishly hot, rather people tend to see paradises as connected idea of island tropical paradises. The tropical primate tends to like tropics. Though some also like frozen wastelands for some reason [undoubtedly, directly related to discovery of fire.]
The measured solar radiation which reaches the earth surface is almost entirely within wavelengths of 250 to 2500 nm. And this includes UV, visible, and part of the infrared light spectrum. Most of the energy is in the infrared spectrum and is not visible to human eyes.
Infrared is a large spectrum of light, and it is divided into sections starting near infrared and ending in the far infrared. Wiki:
Near-infrared, Short-wavelength infrared, Mid-wavelength infrared, Long-wavelength infrared, and finally Far infrared
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
But not every classifies them the same way, continuing with wiki:
Near Infrared NIR 0.78–3 µm
Mid Infrared MIR 3–50 µm
Far Infrared FIR 50–1000 µm
And:
Astronomy division scheme
Astronomers typically divide the infrared spectrum as follows:
Designation Abbreviation Wavelength
Near Infrared NIR (0.7–1) to 5 µm
Mid Infrared MIR 5 to (25–40) µm
Far Infrared FIR (25–40) to (200–350) µm.
So 250 to 2500 nm is also .25 to 2.5 µm
And much these wavelengths are in Near infrared.
Or divide in .5µm sections, UW and visible mostly fit in one section and Near IR is more than 5 sections. And the 5 sections of IR have more power than one section of UV and Visible light:
“Sunlight at zenith provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.” -wiki
With Planck curve of your sunlight per each 1 nm of wavelength visible light is most powerful. If our sun was a much hotter star, the UW per each nw would be more powerful than visible light. If sun was much cooler, then there wouldn’t be any UV light, and visible light would weaker per nw of wavelenght, and the IR light would not weaken as much.
So sun would appear orange, our sky probably would not be blue, and the sun would dimmer and we would get less energy from the Sun.
Or course if we were closer or Sun was larger we could receive more energy from the Sun than we do now.
Now the oceans in the tropics is the warmest average temperature and holds the most heat energy.
And the oceans are transparent to visible and near infrared light.
In respect to sunlight, the Ocean is just like the atmosphere- transparent.
And generally roughly equal to10 meters of ocean being is similar to the entire atmosphere. Light passes thru it, and it is diffused, reflected, scattered as goes deeper [in ocean or atmosphere]. And at about 1000 feet depth of the ocean the sunlight is very dim and weak.
How does the transparent ocean “absorb” or gain energy from sunlight, and if the ocean gains energy from sunlight, does the atmosphere also gain energy.
I would say there is significant difference between a transparent sky and transparent ocean. And difference is gas has energy because it moves,
liquids and solids don’t have molecules traveling around, but rather they in a structural matrix and are instead vibrating.
There are similarity between gas and liquid, but they are also different state of matter.
But in terms how the ocean is warmed by sunlight, I have no answers, just questions.
But it seems obvious to me that oceans are warmed by direct sunlight, and I tend to think they absorb a lot of the energy of sunlight- say in range of 50% seems reasonable [plausible]. Which I think is more than the land surface absorbs.
Questions is water split by sunlight to any significant degree?
And could sunlight knock water molecule so it becomes a gas? Again in any significant amount? Or water is evaporating in any case, does it increase evaporation somehow?
Oh, another thing, methane degrades in atmosphere, can degrade in the ocean due to sunlight getting thru the top 100 meters of ocean?
gbaikie | October 19, 2012 at 4:48 am
The Earth atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg.
And the velocity of these molecules is about 500 meters per second.
Is this how carbon dioxide gets “well-mixed”?
Now the ground or skin temperature generally varies more in day to night cycle than air temperature, but this surface temperature has far less heat capacity than the atmosphere- it’s couple inches of matter.
The sky equals about 10 meter liquid [or frozen solid] over entire surface- so rocks, lawns, dirt, sand, and have little heat capacity as compare to 30 feet worth of liquid air.
Do you mean fluid air here? Air is a gas, it is not a liquid. Liquids and gases are fluids.
The heat capacity of oxygen and nitrogen are practically nothing, they heat up very quickly and lose heat quickly. Carbon dioxide has an even lower heat capacity than these two gases, it releases practically instantly any heat it absorbs.
With Planck curve of your sunlight per each 1 nm of wavelength visible light is most powerful. If our sun was a much hotter star, the UW per each nw would be more powerful than visible light. If sun was much cooler, then there wouldn’t be any UV light, and visible light would weaker per nw of wavelenght, and the IR light would not weaken as much.
So sun would appear orange, our sky probably would not be blue, and the sun would dimmer and we would get less energy from the Sun.
Or course if we were closer or Sun was larger we could receive more energy from the Sun than we do now.
Tiny visible light is not a powerful energy, it is so weak it gets bounced around all over our sky by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen as they absorb and spit it out again. Blue visible light being more energetic, think nervy not powerful, is bounced around more. Visible light is not a thermal energy, it cannot heat up matter, it doesn’t have the power to do so.
So now, all the “visible surface” layer in the Sun is showing is the delay of the weaker visible light energy from the scattering of visible light – it is not showing the temperature of heat source which created it. It’s colour is not an indication of the heat source which created it, which is some 15,000,000°C. Just as the blue sky we have does not show that our Earth is a ball of fire 6,000°C.
We have a blue sky because white light from the Sun gets scattered in the density our atmosphere of the fluid gas air by encounters with it. The heavy voluminous ocean of air above us weighs a ton on our shoulders, a stone (14lbs)/sq.inch. In being scattered its transit is delayed through our atmosphere, and each visible wavelength has its own different delay speed in this. In the heavier denser liquid water of the ocean transit is slowed down even further, some fourteen times more than in our atmosphere, as water being a transparent medium for visible light transmits it through unchanged but delays it in each encounter as it tries to absorb it but can’t. This, of course, is still very, very fast..
The heat we receive from the Sun comes from the Corona. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253108
Heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder, 2nd Law. To change that requires work to be done.
So, the actual real source of heat in the Sun creating all this energy is at the Core which is millions°C. That heat, the Sun’s thermal energy which is its matter in vibration, is constantly flowing out from its Core to the outer surface – the visible light layer is just where the light produced is delayed by that particular layer’s density/constitution. It is nothing more than that.
Heat, thermal infrared, just as in our atmosphere, is bigger and punchier than visible light and doesn’t get delayed to any great extent, it has practically exited from the “visible surface” layer of the Sun into the next layer, the Chromosphere, which is around 10,000-500,000°C, mean 100,000°C.
in other words, in its flow from hotter to colder the longwave infrared heat radiating from the core out to the Corona has left behind a thin band of visible light, which is only around 300 miles thick, and is itself the slightly delayed heat in the next layer, the Chromosphere. The visible light from the layer below gets annihilated on entering this next layer.
Most of the full force of the heat from the Core punches its way to the outer edge without much delay at all and ends up in the white light Corona, which is millions of miles thick and millions of °C hot.
This is where we get our great heat from the Sun.
We do not get our heat from the visible surface layer, this does not have its own heat source, it is merely light generated by the massive heat of the core being scattered as it passes through in a thin layer of the Sun.
You will probably notice if you look, as I have done, that there is much ‘discussion’ on the ‘possible heating mechanism of the Corona’, because ‘scientists’ can’t understand why the Corona is so hot when there is a ‘temperature decline to the visible light surface and then a rise to the Corona’.
Present day ‘scientists’ appear to have become extremely confused because they have taken the temperature of the Sun to be from the visible surface layer, which, I point out, and this maybe for the first time by anyone in this subject.., that the visible surface layer of the Sun does not have its own heat source, neither has the Corona. Their confusion would be easily soothed if they had any notion of what the 2nd Law really meant, Heat Always Flows Spontaneously From Hotter To Colder.
AGWScienceFiction has not only dumbed down basic science for the general population who now think visible light heats the Earth, but has made fools of scientists specialising in the Sun who are now looking for the heat source of the Corona..
Now the oceans in the tropics is the warmest average temperature and holds the most heat energy.
And the oceans are transparent to visible and near infrared light.
In respect to sunlight, the Ocean is just like the atmosphere- transparent.
And generally roughly equal to10 meters of ocean being is similar to the entire atmosphere. Light passes thru it, and it is diffused, reflected, scattered as goes deeper [in ocean or atmosphere]. And at about 1000 feet depth of the ocean the sunlight is very dim and weak.
How does the transparent ocean “absorb” or gain energy from sunlight, and if the ocean gains energy from sunlight, does the atmosphere also gain energy.
I would say there is significant difference between a transparent sky and transparent ocean. And difference is gas has energy because it moves,
liquids and solids don’t have molecules traveling around, but rather they in a structural matrix and are instead vibrating.
There are similarity between gas and liquid, but they are also different state of matter.
But in terms how the ocean is warmed by sunlight, I have no answers, just questions.
Transparent means it is not absorbed but transmitted through, this does apply to water in the ocean, it does not apply to our atmosphere where the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light on the electronic transition level.
Something cannot be heated unless energy is absorbed, but, not all absorption of energy creates heat.
Visible light converts to chemical energy, not heat energy in the creation of sugars in photosynthesis; the plant using the energy from visible light to convert carbon dioxide and water to sugar.
In the atmosphere the absorption of visible light’s energy by the electrons of the gas air does not create heat, the energy is used in motion through space ( think petrol in the car used for motion through space), as the electron is moved in its orbit and when returning to ground state when it spits out the same energy as entered; the right kind of energy and an electron can be moved out of its orbit completely.
There’s a wiki page on transparency and translucency and the section on electronic transitions, the second and third possible outcomes are respectively descriptions of reflection/scattering and transmission through a transparent medium.
But it seems obvious to me that oceans are warmed by direct sunlight, and I tend to think they absorb a lot of the energy of sunlight- say in range of 50% seems reasonable [plausible]. Which I think is more than the land surface absorbs.
Water is heated up by the direct, beam, heat from the Sun, not by light from the Sun and it’s beam heat from the Corona not the insignificant 300 mile wide visible light surface blip. Visible light cannot heat water, it is not absorbed at all but even if it was on the electronic transition level, this is not the level capable of moving the whole molecule into vibration which is how something is heated up. It takes the great direct heat energy from the Sun to heat up our oceans and land, and, this has been excised from the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget. They have taken out the direct heat radiating to us from the millions of degrees Corona, thermal infrared.
The claims of the basic fisics of the Greenhouse Effect must be concentrated on, because these are fictions. They are not possible in this real world. That is why there is so much confusion about this. You are trying to work out what is happening based partly on real world physics facts and partly on the fiction meme fisics from AGW Greenhouse Effect.
The basic real problem we have here is the deliberate confusion created by the AGWSF to pretend there is their Greenhouse Effect, and in this they have deliberately created confusion about the differences between heat and light. Which is why you can’t understand how visible light from the Sun heats the oceans because you know that water is a transparent medium for visible..
Something I wrote a couple of days ago expanded on that theme, the first paragraph the last of a previous post of mine:
In traditionally written physics the energy from the Sun is simply given as “heat and light” indicating these are two separate categories which are distinctly different from each other and not interchangeable. It’s real world physics shorthand, like “radiant” meaning thermal infrared.
For example here from a page of questions and answers: http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html
“The Sun gives off light and heat because it is essentially a giant nuclear reactor that is fusing (burning) hydrogen into helium inside.”
“Fusion is a very efficient way of converting mass to energy (light and heat)”
“During this part, the Sun “burns” hydrogen into helium (fusion), which is what generates the heat and light.”
“How long does it take heat created on the Sun’s surface to reach Earth? Is it the same as the speed of light?
Heat is transmitted through conduction, convection, and radiation. The heat that reaches us from the Sun is infrared radiation, which travels at the speed of light. So, it takes about 8 minutes for it to reach Earth from the Sun. Dr. Louis Barbier”
But, you will need to be savvy about the disinformation promoted by AGWSF ‘scientists’ about this.., from the same page an example:
” Because of the very low density, the heat of the corona is not even enough to heat the surface of a tiny spacecraft in any noticeable way. (Heat can, however, build up in spacecraft through its own electrical energy consumption and because of the Sun’s light that the spacecraft intercepts. To stay cool, the spacecraft has to radiate that energy back into space. The particles of the solar wind or of the Earth’s magnetosphere – both pretty hot when expressed in degrees – don’t play a noticeable role in that heat balance. Their input is negligible compared with the Sun’s light.)”
And here’s what really happens:
http://passporttoknowledge.com/sun/interact/faq316.html
“TRACE SPACECRAFT
QUESTION:
If the Sun is so hot why doesn’t it melt TRACE?
ANSWER:
TRACE is up in space and it constantly points the front end of the telescope towards the Sun. So the front of TRACE does get quite hot. There is no air up there to cool it or to spread the heat over the whole satellite. The front part is covered with blankets of “multi-layer insulation,” sheets of plastic and aluminum foil. These reflect most of the Sun’s heat back into space and keep the satellite from getting too hot. Of course, we couldn’t put insulation over the open face of the telescope where the light enters it. So these openings have special filters which let in the light we want to study but which reflect most of the other light and heat back into space. By the way, the back of the satellite is always in the shade and so it gets very cold, about -80 degrees F. So it is also covered with insulation and has electric heaters under the blankets to keep it warm. Designing insulation and heaters for satellites is a tricky job done by specialists called thermal engineers. Susan Morrison was the thermal engineer for TRACE, and she did a great job. ”
Real applied scientists using real world physics to solve real physical problems successfully because they know the differences of properties and processes between Light and Heat.
Please read these two carefully, the second which is real world applied physics is saying exactly what I am saying here. This is working physics. You will not spot the fictions of AGW unless you have real knowledge of physical facts, what things can and cannot do.
That’s why AGW’s the Greenhouse Effect is so obviously a scam, if one knows real world physics basics this is easy to see. I hope this comparison will help you as you read through such pages, so you too can spot the AGW fake fisics more easily.
Question the basics of the AGW Greenhouse Effect, you will find that they are impossible in the real world. That’s why no experiments are ever fetched to prove them, why no examples of them working in real world applied science is ever found.
-Now the ground or skin temperature generally varies more in day to night cycle than air temperature, but this surface temperature has far less heat capacity than the atmosphere- it’s couple inches of matter.
The sky equals about 10 meter liquid [or frozen solid] over entire surface- so rocks, lawns, dirt, sand, and have little heat capacity as compare to 30 feet worth of liquid air.-
“Do you mean fluid air here? Air is a gas, it is not a liquid. Liquids and gases are fluids.”
I mean that if column of meter square by 10 meters high of liquid air [Oxygen and Nitrogen] it has same mass as column air meter square which goes from Earth surface to edge of space.
Specific heat of oxygen is at 300 K: 0.918 kJ/kg per K of temperature
Nitrogen is at 300K: 1.040 kJ/kgK
And CO2 is at 300K: 0.846 kJ/kgK
And H2O gas is at 300K: 1.864 kJ/kgK
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-d_979.html
But H2O liquid is 4.18 kJ/kgK
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
So I was comparing how much energy involved in changing temperature of the atmosphere as compared to changing temperature of the ocean. The ocean has vast amount of heat capacity, but our sky is also has a significant amount [not compared to ocean but compared to the total amount solar energy intersecting the earth in 24 hours]. Or all the sun’s energy hitting the surface of of Earth in day in this context is considered a significant amount of energy- whereas say compared total human energy use in a day, human use is not anywhere near as significant or comparable.
“Tiny visible light is not a powerful energy, it is so weak it gets bounced around all over our sky by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen as they absorb and spit it out again. Blue visible light being more energetic, think nervy not powerful, is bounced around more. Visible light is not a thermal energy, it cannot heat up matter, it doesn’t have the power to do so.”
Visible light has in terms of photon energy: 1.7 eV – 3.3 eV
Infrared has 1.24 meV – 1.7 eV
Ultraviolet: 3 eV to 124 eV
X-Ray: 120 eV to 120 keV
Gamma ray: 100 keV – 300+ GeV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The smaller the wavelength the more powerful the electromagnetic radiation.
“Visible light has in terms of photon energy: 1.7 eV – 3.3 eV
Infrared has 1.24 meV – 1.7 eV
Ultraviolet: 3 eV to 124 eV
X-Ray: 120 eV to 120 keV
Gamma ray: 100 keV – 300+ GeV”
X-ray and Gamma ray have little composition in reaching the Earth from the Sun’s radiation heat. Like CO2 content in the atmosphere. Infrared dominates the heat content of the reached.
“X-ray and Gamma ray have little composition in reaching the Earth from the Sun’s radiation heat. Like CO2 content in the atmosphere. Infrared dominates the heat content of the reached.”
Yes, no gamma, and very little X-ray:
“Meaning of X-Ray Fluxes From the Sun
The Solar X-Ray flux arises from two factors. Firstly, there is flux coming from sunspot regions and other features – the background flux – and this varies slowly from day-to-day. Secondly, solar flares produce large amounts of X-ray flux, but this is concentrated to the duration of the flare which is usually from minutes to several hours.”
Chart:
Solar X-Ray Flux is described as follows:
Level Flux (watts/sq meter) Description
A less than 10^(-8) Very Low Background
A between 10^(-8) and 10-7 Low Background
B between 10^(-7) and 10-6 Moderate Background
C between 10^(-6 )and 10-5 High Background/Low Flare
M between 10^(-5 )and 10-4 Moderate Flare
X between 10^(-4) and 10-3 High Flare
Y greater than10^(-3) Extreme Flare
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/1/3
So, milliwatts per square meter at most
gbaikie | October 19, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
“Tiny visible light is not a powerful energy, it is so weak it gets bounced around all over our sky by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen as they absorb and spit it out again. Blue visible light being more energetic, think nervy not powerful, is bounced around more. Visible light is not a thermal energy, it cannot heat up matter, it doesn’t have the power to do so.”
Visible light has in terms of photon energy: 1.7 eV – 3.3 eV
Infrared has 1.24 meV – 1.7 eV
Ultraviolet: 3 eV to 124 eV
X-Ray: 120 eV to 120 keV
Gamma ray: 100 keV – 300+ GeV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
The smaller the wavelength the more powerful the electromagnetic radiation.
gbaikie – the following is how I see it. The visible part of the spectrum is tiny, what is it, around a thousands of a millimetre? Do your eyeballs get hot looking at the blue sky? The actual wavelengths/photons/particles of visible light are really tiny – all high energy signifies here is that the waves are closer together and smaller in height, they are so because travelling at the same speed as longer waves they have to be considerably smaller, and end up being microscopic like near infrared and visible is even smaller, thermal infrared can be the size of a finger nail.
Note what it says here:
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/spectrum/multispectral_sun_overview.html
“This depiction of electromagnetic spectrum shows several objects with size scales comparable to the wavelengths of the waves of different types of electromagnetic radiation. Note that the range of wavelengths vary by many orders of magnitude, while the waves shown in this “cartoon” do not. For example, visible light waves are typically 100 time shorter than infrared waves, not just slightly shorter as depicted pictorially.”
Not only not just slightly shorter but considerably shorter, but also considerably smaller.
so what does it mean that visible is at the peak in something? It means that a bloody great amount of heat is being generated to create it, because it takes very great heat to create that visible peak, because it takes great heat to move the matter of the Sun into vibration which is how matter gets heated up, it takes a heck of a lot of heat to get visible light. And that heat is still being radiated out even as visible light is being created. It doesn’t stop, the heat doesn’t change into visible light and become non-existant!
I get really tired of reading pages written to AGWSF memes, how can one write a page on the Sun and not say anything about the great heat radiating out from it?
Like this, the paragraph stops before giving all the information necessary to get the full picture.
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/spectrum/multispectral_sun_overview.html
“As an example, imagine a piece of iron that is heated in a furnace. At first, when the iron is not especially hot, it will not glow at all; but if you put your hand near it, you could feel the heat it was giving off. At this relatively low temperature the iron radiates most of its energy in the IR portion of the spectrum, which we cannot see but which we can feel as heat. As the iron gets warmer, it begins to glow deep red; the peak of its radiation has just moved into the lowest energy, longest wavelength portion of the visible spectrum just above the infrared. As the iron grows hotter, its glow becomes orange and then yellow, as its peak emissions creep up the spectrum to higher energies and shorter wavelengths.
So what does this have to do with the Sun?”
What it has to do with the Sun is firstly as the iron gets hotter and hotter you feel greater and greater heat being radiated out! They somehow forgot to mention that. Radiated Heat is Thermal Infrared. Then you get a spectral peak. Colour. All that colour peak shows, all that visible light from the Sun shows, is how much heat it takes to produce it and that great heat producing it is continually radiating out. It’s the heat that will cook you way before you get any visible light from it. The spectral peak isn’t the temperature it took to create it, it isn’t the heat that it took to create it, we know Visible light is not hot, it is not a thermal energy, it is not a heat energy. It is being produced by great heat energy.
What temperature do you set your oven to roast a chunk of meat? When, if, you get distracted and leave it in an hour or so longer than you should have done, do you open the door to find white light flooding out? Any colour light flooding out? Or just a charred shrunken chunk of meat?
What AGWScienceFiction has done in creating its memes is to destroy all sense of difference in scale between heat and light, and all sense of difference in power between heat and light.
YOU CANNOT FEEL VISIBLE LIGHT FROM THE SUN. THAT IS A FACT. A PHYSICAL FACT. A REAL WORLD PHYSICAL FACT.
The heat you feel from the Sun is thermal infrared, which is heat, which is the Sun’s actual thermal energy, its matter in vibration, which is the same as saying its kinetic energy which is heat, and it is this great kinetic energy of the Sun’s matter in vibration which is generating the visible light. This is all the same heat, they are just different words used in different applications, contexts. Thermal energy is the physical matter of Sun in extremely fast vibration, thermal means heat. The Sun radiates out its own matter as heat. The Sun continues to radiate out its powerful heat energy as this is creating visible light which is a tiny little wave compared with the bigger more powerful waves of heat radiating out. This great powerful heat creating the visible light is the actual thermal energy of the Sun on the move to us, it particles of matter/energy on the move to us, this is the Sun’s HEAT. Actual Heat which is its actual thermal energy. This is what we feel as hot when we stand in the Sun. We feel the powerful waves of the Sun’s thermal energy its heat energy of matter in vibration reaching us on the surface of the Earth, so powerful and produced in such great amount that it takes only 8 minutes to reach us. It is invisible. It is the Sun’s great and powerful invisible heat matter. The Sun is a STAR.
WE CANNOT FEEL THE TINY LITTLE EVEN SMALLER THAN NEAR INFRARED VISIBLE LIGHT FROM THE SUN
Which is only a tiny amount of the spectrum.
Just as an incandescent bulb radiates out 95% heat which is thermal infrared, and only 5% visible light. Look what a tiny blip visible light makes on the spectrum.. They have to expand it out for you to even notice it..
There’s a smoothed solar irradiance on that page.
I do hope you can at least now appreciate my perspective on this.. appreciate my sense of the heat that would be radiating off an object that was hot enough to create white light.
Because… there are 93 million miles between us and the Sun. Taking the photosphere, the visible layer of the Sun, which is claimed by AGWSF to be where we get our energy from the Sun, which is around 300 miles thick and whatever that is in size as a hot band 93 million miles away from us, how much of that great heat would actually get to us?
And that band isn’t even hot enough to produce white light.. The Sun’s photosphere is yellowish.
We get white light here on Earth.
And we get UV.
So where does that come from? Oh gosh, looks like UV comes from the Corona: http://cseligman.com/text/sun/sun.htm
“The radiation of the corona consists of emission lines, at specific wavelengths, many of which are in the ultraviolet and X-ray regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, because of the extremely high temperature.”
Since it takes great heat to create UV, and heat is created by matter being in vibration, and the Corona gets to millions °C but you say that it’s cold in there, how are UV and and x-rays being created in the Corona?
Anyway, the light we get is white light, it is not produced in the photosphere of the Sun, neither are uv and x-rays, and, that 6,000°C heat of the photosphere whatever that is as a circumferance band is only 300 miles wide, it’s insignificant in the size of the Sun, even at the speed of light that heat will dissipate to nought way before the 93 million miles it would have to travel to get to us. Would we feel this heat even at the equator?
Therefore, we get neither heat nor all our light from the photosphere, if any.., and since all the AGWSF is hyped on the photosphere then that’s another fictional meme that has messed up anyone trying to explore this subject.
What we do get, is real invisible heat from the Sun which comes to us as thermal infrared which in the real world is how heat is transferred by radiation, and we get white light without which we would have no life on Earth because the blue wavelength is essential for photosynthesis.
So, what exactly what do you mean “the smaller the wavelength the more powerful”?
Show me exactly how powerful, show me how this tiny great powerful energy its claimed to be heats matter when we can’t even feel it. SHOW ME WHAT IT CAN DO!
Please!
“The heat we receive from the Sun comes from the Corona. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253108”
Some things about the Sun’s Corona:
“Surface brightness of the Sun (photosphere):
Compared to full Moon
398,000 times
Compared to inner corona
300,000 times
Compared to outer corona
10^10 times
And:
“Density (water=1):
Mean density of entire Sun
1.41 g/cm^3
Interior (center of the Sun)
160 g/cm^3
Surface (photosphere)
10^{-9} g/cm^3
Chromosphere
10^{-12} g/cm^3
Low corona
10^{-16} g/cm^3
Sea level atmosphere of Earth
10^{-3} g/cm^3 ”
So denser part of the Sun’s corona is 10^{-16} g/cm^3
Or Earth’s atmosphere at sea level is 10^13 times denser
Or 10 trillion times denser
And sea level is only 1 million times denser than the sun’s photosphere.
On earth there is something call the thermosphere:
“The thermosphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere directly above the mesosphere and directly below the exosphere. Within this layer, ultraviolet radiation (UV) causes ionization. Called from the Greek θερμός (pronounced thereos) meaning heat, the thermosphere begins about 80 kilometres (50 mi) above the Earth. At these high altitudes, the residual atmospheric gases sort into strata according to molecular mass (see turbosphere). Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation by the small amount of residual oxygen still present. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 1,500 °C (2,730 °F). Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 1,000 kilometres (310 to 620 mi) above the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere turns into space.
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Density of Thermosphere is apparently:
around 10^(-15) g/cm^3
http://www.spacewx.com/pdf/AAS_07-188.pdf
Or sea level earth is trillion times the density. Hmm, wiki seems to disagree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_model.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Density_and_mass
Anyhow, thermosphere has very thin atmosphere, satellites can orbit this low. And I know it’s density strongly affected by Solar Min and max- which make difference in decay rate of satellite [more dense this atmosphere quicker it decays due to drag. [so range in is days to months depending Solar Min/Max and other factors.
But in any case, the density of the thermosphere is too low for it’s very high temperatures to have any significant effect on earth surface, and it’s same thing with Sun’s Corona- the atoms may very hot but they are very thinly spaced.
btw regarding this:
“The heat we receive from the Sun comes from the Corona. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253108
Heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder, 2nd Law. To change that requires work to be done.
So, the actual real source of heat in the Sun creating all this energy is at the Core which is millions°C. That heat, the Sun’s thermal energy which is its matter in vibration, is constantly flowing out from its Core to the outer surface – the visible light layer is just where the light produced is delayed by that particular layer’s density/constitution. It is nothing more than that. ”
Despite what I said above, it’s vaguely possible one could be correct. But also it’s as possible that earth is heated by geothermal energy of the Earth.
The problem with either, is the measurement of energy from the Sun’s corona or measurements of earth heat do not seem support these ideas.
So could be right, because it’s possible that somehow it has not been measured incorrect.
But with science, we depend on measurements and you are not citing any measured quantities which would support this.
“Transparent means it is not absorbed but transmitted through, this does apply to water in the ocean, it does not apply to our atmosphere where the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light on the electronic transition level. ”
To absorb any electromagnetic radiation or any energy from the Sun,
is it not it via some kind of “electronic transition level”?
Or electronic transition level is involving an interaction with photons.
And my assumption has been we are talking photons from the Sun.
Though it seems to me, you could possibly be talking about something other than photons, which are somehow involved with transferring heat from the Sun. And if so, by what means has this been measured or could be measured?
“In the atmosphere the absorption of visible light’s energy by the electrons of the gas air does not create heat, the energy is used in motion through space ( think petrol in the car used for motion through space), as the electron is moved in its orbit and when returning to ground state when it spits out the same energy as entered; the right kind of energy and an electron can be moved out of its orbit completely.”
Yes. I tend to agree.
Or I have seen no evidence that absorbing a photon by a gas molecule which has velocity of say 400 m/s, is going to increase it’s velocity [and thereby heat the gas].
I generally tend to think that to heat the gas molecules of atmosphere, you need a heated surface [land or water].
I think it’s perhaps possible, but I don’t know how it is possible.
“The claims of the basic fisics of the Greenhouse Effect must be concentrated on, because these are fictions. They are not possible in this real world. That is why there is so much confusion about this. You are trying to work out what is happening based partly on real world physics facts and partly on the fiction meme fisics from AGW Greenhouse Effect.”
As I said above, the energy coming from the sun is in the form of photons. And I don’t think this has anything to do with ” meme fisics from AGW Greenhouse Effect”.
But I use stuff from climate science- like, I read that about 50% of sunlight is absorbed by oceans. And I figure that is pretty good guess,
at least until such time as a better estimate is done. Though when read that 85% of sunlight is absorbed land surface, that has got to be flat wrong.
And generally I believe there whole approach is fundamentally flawed.
Anything they could right about is probably based on an accident, rather than something approaching a sound methodology.
But if you point one meme which is something critically important- just pick one, I will see what I can do to somehow became de-programed from the brainwashing.
“In traditionally written physics the energy from the Sun is simply given as “heat and light” indicating these are two separate categories which are distinctly different from each other and not interchangeable. It’s real world physics shorthand, like “radiant” meaning thermal infrared.”
Way I look at it, heat in practical applications on earth, have do with conduction and convection. And one can *mostly* ignore radiant heat- unless one using lasers or something.
And in regard to what terms are used, different fields may have different definitions, or nomenclature. I don’t care what it’s called, one can define it by the wavelengths involved.
And greenhouse theory and climate science is obsessed with radiant energy.
But do I buy the idea that energy coming from space environment and leaving to the space environment is all about radiant energy.
The other thing they obsess about is the atmosphere and it’s radiant properties of gases. Which seems to me, to be complicated and fairly insignificant and/or perhaps almost completely unimportant.
“But I use stuff from climate science- like, I read that about 50% of sunlight is absorbed by oceans. And I figure that is pretty good guess,
at least until such time as a better estimate is done. Though when read that 85% of sunlight is absorbed land surface, that has got to be flat wrong.”
Its the Sun’s energy reaching the Earth that over 70% of the energy were used to evaporate the water. Land mass has a lower specific capacity than water. Land mass is heated quicker and air gets its most heat via conduction and convection from the land mass. Thats why the higher the altitude, the lower the air temperature within the troposphere.
SamNC | October 20, 2012 at 11:10 am |
“Its the Sun’s energy reaching the Earth that over 70% of the energy were used to evaporate the water. Land mass has a lower specific capacity than water. Land mass is heated quicker and air gets its most heat via conduction and convection from the land mass. Thats why the higher the altitude, the lower the air temperature within the troposphere.”
I had written post yesterday [which didn’t post- it was rambling and I kind of lost interest in it:). But it’s generally on the above subject, so I will tack
here:
-The smaller the wavelength the more powerful the electromagnetic radiation.-
And the whole greenhouse theory is based on longwave IR, and it’s the weakest of this energy and huge bandwidth of wavelength with a small section which absorbed by CO2, which makes me doubt that CO2 can have much affect upon global temperature.
Though *it seems to me* that anyone who has good grasp of the theory and is supporter of it has to realize CO2 doesn’t actually have much affect upon global temperature. And if coupled with this they are also “worried” about CO2 levels, they would have tend to think even small affects upon temperatures is somehow very important.
So according to that theory, water vapor [H2O gas] absorbs a much wider chunk of the wavelengths- and H2O overlaps the wavelength CO2 absorbs. AND there a lot more H2O gas than CO2 gas in our atmosphere.
H20 gas is everywhere and particularly if think .1% or less of a some “greenhouse” is important.
No one has ever experience air without H20 gas in it. Humans create H20 gas, they are mostly water, and they sweat a lot of water. So we have to exhale H20 gas and our skin exudes water- and if had such dry environment, by simply putting a human into it, makes it wetter.
And this what was mulling over today- evaporation. So one doesn’t need for it to be warm for water to evaporate, water could evaporate in the coldest weather ever on Earth. The only significant of temperature is how much water can evaporate, and how much the air can hold.
So I was pondering if evaporation control mechanism for global temperature [rather than a part of global climate]
If it’s raining or snowing, one isn’t just dumping the water which in a cloud but one drawing in water- clouds are machines that make rain.
So, idea can draw water vapor out of the tropics and if this happened to any large extent what effects would this have.
Tropics can make endless amounts of H20 gas if the moisture in drawn out of the tropics.
But like said you don’t need warm conditions to evaporate water- the lack of humidity will cause evaporation. So 30 C temperature water and/or air
can draw and hold a lot water- so tropics has more dramatic effect. But much colder conditions can do the same thing- the factor which drives it is how much moisture is taken away.
So if had magic knob, which could remove every molecule H20 from the air in less than a second. The result would be to cause massive amounts of evaporation. And the immediate result would massive global cooling. It would be a sudden effect and something like removing or blocking the sunlight- but unlike having the sun blocked, the night side of earth cool as rapidly as sunlit side- or night would have the more noticeable than day lite side.
And other thing I was wondering about is how could measure heat capacity of Earth, globally.
One could want to measure amount heating of earth caused by sunlight, and not the heating from geothermal effects. There is little point is measuring the massive ball of molten rock.
So one could measure the daily fluctuation in temperature range. That could a limited definition of Earth heat capacity.
Or one measure seasonal differences.
or decadical differences.
Or one establish where geothermal effect mostly end or where does geothermal heat only explains say 10% or less of the temperature.
gbaikie | October 20, 2012 at 7:36 am | btw regarding this:
“The heat we receive from the Sun comes from the Corona. http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-253108
Heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder, 2nd Law. To change that requires work to be done.
So, the actual real source of heat in the Sun creating all this energy is at the Core which is millions°C. That heat, the Sun’s thermal energy which is its matter in vibration, is constantly flowing out from its Core to the outer surface – the visible light layer is just where the light produced is delayed by that particular layer’s density/constitution. It is nothing more than that. ”
Despite what I said above, it’s vaguely possible one could be correct. But also it’s as possible that earth is heated by geothermal energy of the Earth.
The problem with either, is the measurement of energy from the Sun’s corona or measurements of earth heat do not seem support these ideas.
So could be right, because it’s possible that somehow it has not been measured incorrect.
So hard to say “you could be correct”? Of course I’m correct. The core is 15 million degrees hot, that’s continually radiating out vast amount of heat and light. To compare that with the Earth’s core heat is out of scale and difference in matter, the Sun is a giant Star of gas/plasma.
But with science, we depend on measurements and you are not citing any measured quantities which would support this.
You’ve cited measurements by which you have claimed visible light is a powerful energy, the measured quantity you gave to support this doesn’t bear scrutiny, because the actual properties and processes of visible light hasn’t been taken into consideration. These figures tell us nothing. And that’s the problem with the AGWSF claims, on examination it’s clear that there is no sense of the physical reality around us, no sense of scale and possible processes by that energy.
Until we reintroduce the actual physical world back into The Greenhouse Effect we won’t see the extent of the fictional world it’s describing.
The Greenhouse Effect is missing the whole of the Water Cycle, it has no rain, its molecules defy gravity, because it has no gravity, it has no convection because it doesn’t have real gases with volume, etc., etc.
It has ‘electromagnetic radiation’ from the Sun which can do impossible things, impossible that is in the real physical world around us.
“Transparent means it is not absorbed but transmitted through, this does apply to water in the ocean, it does not apply to our atmosphere where the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen absorb visible light on the electronic transition level. ”
To absorb any electromagnetic radiation or any energy from the Sun,
is it not it via some kind of “electronic transition level”?
Not always, it is also by molecular absorption, it depends on the size and so on. The electronic transition level, which is absorption by the electrons of a molecule, is on the tiny scale which visible light/shortwave impinges on matter.
The example I’ve given is of visible light in the atmosphere being bounced around the sky, actually reflected/scattered, by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen which comprise c98% of our fluid gas atmosphere. In reflection/scattering the electrons absorb the energy and are moved to a higher orbit, as they always want to return to ground state they do, and in doing so emit the exact energy they absorbed. Blue visible light being more energetic than the longer colours gets bounced around more.., that’s how we get our blue sky. Think pinball machine.
Our real world atmosphere is not transparent to visible light.
The reason water is a transparent medium for visible is because water’s electrons can’t absorb visible light. The molecule tries to capture the energy and they dance around a bit in this which has the effect of slowing visible light down, but it fails and is passed along until it comes out the other side, called transmitted.
The bigger photons/particles/waves such as thermal infrared (near infrared is classed with visible as Light, Reflective, not Heat, Thermal), are big enough and powerful enough to move the whole molecule into vibration, it’s too big for electronic transitions. Matter in vibration is heat.
Rub your hands together, that is mechanical energy moving the whole molecules of matter of your skin into vibration. This is what heat from the Sun does, and heat from the Sun is thermal infrared, not visible.
It can get more complicated, some uv energy for example can knock an electron out of its orbit completely, called ionising.
The Second and third possible outcomes in the list describe respectively reflection/scattering as in the gas atmosphere and transmissin through the ocean’s water. Visible light doesn’t even get to play with water’s electrons.
If visible light wasn’t transmitted through unchanged we would have no life in the ocean, where it began by photosynthesis. Which is also how we get the oxygen in our atmosphere, different figures given.., but some say up to 90% of our oxygen is created by photosynthesis in the ocean.
Or electronic transition level is involving an interaction with photons.
And my assumption has been we are talking photons from the Sun.
Photons are packages of particles, light is photons/particles/wave, and usually described by its wavelength.
Though it seems to me, you could possibly be talking about something other than photons, which are somehow involved with transferring heat from the Sun. And if so, by what means has this been measured or could be measured?
Still photons, as “photons are quantized particles” http://www.sparknotes.com/physics/thermodynamics/stats/section2.rhtml
I’ll let you make your own forays into Thermodynamics.., radiation is one of the three methods of heat transfer, conduction and convection the other two.
The only important distinction to be made is the difference between light and heat, because it is this which AGWSF has so thoroughly confused by it memes of “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat when absorbed” and which now has people thinking that visible light can heat land and oceans.
These AGWSF meme is obvious nonense even if you only know about photosynthesis which is the creation of chemical energy sugar, not heat energy, by the plant usilising it in changing carbon dioxide and water into sugar, and, as above I’ve given the description of reflection/scattering which isn’t creating heat on the electronic absorption level.
Heat from the Sun is its thermal energy on the move by radiative transfer. However one describes this, it is not the same as visible light and visible light from the Sun cannot do the work on matter which heat from the Sun does. The heat we feel from the Sun is not visible light.
Way I look at it, heat in practical applications on earth, have do with conduction and convection. And one can *mostly* ignore radiant heat- unless one using lasers or something.
Well, my point is very much that radiant transfer can’t be ignored..
We use this in the real world, to heat our houses, especially good for heating open areas .., and there’s a whole industry producing thermal infrared saunas which are more efficient and more comfortable to be in than convective heat saunas.
Which is why I ask – show me how this ‘powerful energy visible light as from the Sun, which is not a laser, being used to heat our homes and where is the visible light sauna that will heat me up internally and make me sweat?
This is an extraordinary claim that the Greenhouse Effect is making, it is saying “that heat from the Sun, direct longwave infrared, plays no part in heating the land and ocean and that this is done instead by the visible light from the Sun”.
So, my science challenge. Prove visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator intensely which is what it actually takes to get our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems..
If this can’t be shown to be real world physics, then The Greenhouse Effect is GIGO. Full stop.
The rest of the fake fisics it produces is all tweaked real world physics and is like this, sleights of hand which have created a completely imaginary world with its own brand of fisics impossible in the real world.
That’s the bottom line and that’s the only climate question that should be debated..
gbaikie | October 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm
“The smaller the wavelength the more powerful the electromagnetic radiation.”
Its quite true but the quantity of energy (or heat content) of each wavelength has the dominting effect on heating things up. One J of X-ray have less heating effect than one KJ of Infrared. One J of X-ray has very great penetrating power thru power but heats up nothing. One KJ of Infrared has no penetrating power but heat up entirely the matters in their direction of propagation.
“And the whole greenhouse theory is based on longwave IR, and it’s the weakest of this energy and huge bandwidth of wavelength with a small section which absorbed by CO2, which makes me doubt that CO2 can have much affect upon global temperature.”
Longwave IR has a huge range of wavelengths and CO2 is only effective in absorption and radiation at around 15um. 15um geared with 0.04% CO2 is trivial energy in the atmosphere. Electronic shell level energy transfer is small as compared with molecular vibration level energy transfer. Since the air molecules are at the same temperature, no net exchange of molecular vibrational energy transfer. The net kinectic energy exchange between the molecules is zero at the same temperature. CO2 cannot warm up any nearby molecules unless it is at a higher temperature than its surrounding molecules.
“If it’s raining or snowing, one isn’t just dumping the water which in a cloud but one drawing in water- clouds are machines that make rain.
So, idea can draw water vapor out of the tropics and if this happened to any large extent what effects would this have.
Tropics can make endless amounts of H20 gas if the moisture in drawn out of the tropics.
But like said you don’t need warm conditions to evaporate water- the lack of humidity will cause evaporation. So 30 C temperature water and/or air
can draw and hold a lot water- so tropics has more dramatic effect. But much colder conditions can do the same thing- the factor which drives it is how much moisture is taken away.
So if had magic knob, which could remove every molecule H20 from the air in less than a second. The result would be to cause massive amounts of evaporation. And the immediate result would massive global cooling. It would be a sudden effect and something like removing or blocking the sunlight- but unlike having the sun blocked, the night side of earth cool as rapidly as sunlit side- or night would have the more noticeable than day lite side.”
One phrase “Latent heat of H2O is at play behind the global temperature control”.
“And other thing I was wondering about is how could measure heat capacity of Earth, globally.
One could want to measure amount heating of earth caused by sunlight, and not the heating from geothermal effects. There is little point is measuring the massive ball of molten rock.”
We can work out specific heat capacity of the Earth similar to Specific Heat Capacities of Gases in the atmosphere:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nitrogen-d_977.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/oxygen-d_978.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html
Frozen ground depth is less than 3m below ground level. We can assume heat conduction below 3m ground level as little. Geothermal effects can simply ignored. The Earth land mass is mainly composed of silicates and carbonates. Using the weighted average we can find the specific heat capacity of the land mass within reasonable values.
gbaikie,
Excellent analysis but one point about atmospheric molecule velocity. At troposhere, only a tiny amount of air molecules can reach 500m/s.
Another point is that Myrrh has repeatedly pointed out that invisible light or thermal infrared heats up the water including oceans surface water. Huge amount of heat (thermal infrared from the Sun) is required to provide the latent of water to evaporate. This is where the missing heat is that K Trenberth don’t get it. It is just laughable these climate modeling jesters that the warming of the deep oceans will take a million years.
gbaikie,
You missed out latent heat of water evaporation, 2.27MJ/kg or 2270KJ/kg which is huge compared with CO2’s specific heat capacities.
SamNC | October 20, 2012 at 3:11 am | Reply
gbaikie,
Excellent analysis but one point about atmospheric molecule velocity. At troposhere, only a tiny amount of air molecules can reach 500m/s.
======================
This is AGWScienceFiction’s ideal gas world in a container in a lab..
They teach that our atmosphere is empty space and the gases are ideal hard dots of nothing zipping through this at vast speeds by their own molecular momentum bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing that they can’t be unmixed, like ink poured into water, without a practically impossible amount of work being done. There fictional gases never separate out.
So, having the imaginary ideal gas in their fictional AGW Greenhouse Effect world, they have no gravity, no convection so no wind, no weather, no water cycle, their clouds appear by magic and never come down as rain..
Their imagined molecules have no attraction, no volume, no weight so not subject to real world gravity so of course their fictional-CO2 can accumulate for hundreds and even thousands of years, they have no way of getting it back down.
And still Myrrh’s scam goes on, with his oft-repeated, laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.
Myrrh : I haven’t been saying that
Myrrh, only a few lines later : I have been explaining that the science establishment … excised the real direct heat we get from the sun
Well Myrrh, since you are apparently incapable of using the ctl+F Find function on your browser, here is where you make the abovementioned self-contradictory blunder that you are now trying to deny.
How much clearer can this be ffs?! Mind you, you meander and froth so much I’m hardly surprised you have idea what you said before.
Tomcat | October 19, 2012 at 8:18 am | Reply And still Myrrh’s scam goes on, with his oft-repeated, laughable claim that the science establishment thinks the the sun does not warm us.
Myrrh : I haven’t been saying that
Myrrh, only a few lines later : I have been explaining that the science establishment … excised the real direct heat we get from the sun
Well Myrrh, since you are apparently incapable of using the ctl+F Find function on your browser, here [ http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-256931 ] is where you make the abovementioned self-contradictory blunder that you are now trying to deny.
How much clearer can this be ffs?! Mind you, you meander and froth so much I’m hardly surprised you have idea what you said before.
==============
So you link back to your own post where you repeat your lie that this is what I’ve said?
Gosh, you couldn’t even get that right.. It’s the following post you should have linked to if you wanted to make that joke…
You are a deliberate liar because you know I have never said that as my view, and so you can’t come back with a quote where it is clearly my view.
You have continually lied about what I have said and deliberately taken what I have said out of context, which means all that you are doing here, besides confusing others, is a direct personal attack on me.
I have to reluctantly conclude you’re just a twerp.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-256931
Is this supposed to “prove” that visible light cannot be absorbed by the earth, and hence cannot be implicated in the radiation emitted by the earth and absorbed by greenhouse gasses ? Well, if it isn’t absorbed by the earth, where does all this energy go?
Montalbano | October 21, 2012 at 4:24 am | Reply
YOU CANNOT FEEL VISIBLE LIGHT FROM THE SUN.
Is this supposed to “prove” that visible light cannot be absorbed by the earth, and hence cannot be implicated in the radiation emitted by the earth and absorbed by greenhouse gasses ? Well, if it isn’t absorbed by the earth, where does all this energy go?
It’s a statement of fact. Visible light is not a thermal energy and cannot heat matter, it isn’t powerful enough by its size and on the level it works to move whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter.
Thermal infrared direct from the Sun, the longwave infrared which AGWScienceFiction has disappeared from its Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, is not only capable of heating up matter, it is what is actually heating our land and oceans and us.
AGWSF claims that shortwave, mostly visible light, from the Sun has the power to do and is doing this work, it has replaced real world physics with a fiction. It has done this so that all measurements of heat from the atmosphere can be attributed to the fictional concept “backradiation by greenhouse gases”.
This AGWSF claim is in “climate science”, yet in the world it has created there is no weather.. Our great wind and weather systems are created by the real direct heat radiating from the Sun , the invisible thermal infrared.
Visible light energy goes into Life. When Tyndall checked Herschel’s work he was amazed to find how hot the invisible heat from the Sun, he commented that it seemed all visible was good for was seeing by. But he was wrong there, because we now understand how life evolved from the first protoplant in the ocean capturing visible light to turn into food for itself so it could grow and reproduce and spread and as it spread from ocean to land it got more adventurous in creating different forms of itself to spread even further. The biologists have a running gag that plants created insect and animal life forms like us to help them spread..
..plants must be really annoyed at this idiocy which is messing with their food supply.
Plants are truly self-sufficient in this ability to feed themselves, to take visible energy from the Sun and water and carbon dioxide from the air and soil and turn these into sugar to fuel life. Carbon dioxide is the basic foodstuff of all life on Earth, we are made of carbon. Some 20% carbon and the rest mainly water. We are Carbon Life forms because we eat the plants and eat the animals which eat the plants which eat carbon dioxide directly. And we exist because in eating the carbon dioxide during photosynthesis the oxygen in it is released, how Earth got its oxygen atmosphere in the first place.
Real life of our real world which we’ve explored through the different sciences is fascinating, amazing, astonishing. AGWScienceFiction to promote its Greenhouse Effect campaign has not only destroyed our still relatively recently gained knowledge of light and heat and knowledg of real gases making them do impossible things, but has demonised carbon dioxide itself. It calls our Carbon Lifeforms’ basic food stuff, a poison, a toxic. AGWSF not only educates the general population with fake fisics of an imaginary world passing it off as the real world, so dumbing down basic science knowledge, but educates by frightening children about carbon dioxide. You have to decide for yourself where you stand on that.
There is no Greenhouse Effect which “is backradiation by greenhouse gases further heating the Earth”.
Put back the Water Cycle and the “Greenhouse Effect” disappears, it’s an illusion. You just have to draw back the curtain and watch how the magician does his tricks.
“Visible light is not a thermal energy and cannot heat matter, it isn’t powerful enough by its size and on the level it works to move whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat up matter. ”
I will agree that there many people who think they understand “global warming” who state that only visible light warms Earth.
And they are obviously wrong.
And many “climate scientists” imagine they know how much the the Sun’s energy is adsorbed earth. And they are obviously wrong.
And they use the term albedo as main part of their calculation of earth’s energy budget.
And definition of albedo:
“Albedo (play /ælˈbiːdoʊ/), or reflection coefficient, derived from Latin albedo “whiteness” (or reflected sunlight), in turn from albus “white”, is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is defined as the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. Being a dimensionless fraction, it may also be expressed as a percentage, and is measured on a scale from zero for no reflecting power of a perfectly black surface, to 1 for perfect reflection of a white surface.
Albedo depends on the frequency of the radiation. When quoted unqualified, it usually refers to some appropriate average across the spectrum of visible light. ” -Wiki
So it seems they are entirely focused on visible light.
Despite the well know fact that more than 1/2 solar energy reaching Earth surface is infrared [near infrared].
As far as I know Albedo comes from astronomy, and has to do brightness of object and was in to determining the distance of an object. And no doubt also determining it’s approximate temperature. So useful in getting a ballpark temperature. And it seems astronomy seems to be becoming more fond of the term, Bond albedo:
“The Bond albedo, named after the American astronomer George Phillips Bond (1825–1865), who originally proposed it, is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space. It takes into account all wavelengths at all phase angles.
It is an important quantity for characterizing a planetary body’s energy balance.”
But whether someone chooses to use the term Albedo or Bond albedo
it doesn’t appear as though anyone has actually got right the values for the Bond albedo on any planetary body or any object in space- and as result still getting a ballpark number. In other words if the number has with error less than say 5 C +/- we can call that better than ballpark number.
CAGW is certainly religion or pseudoscience. AGW also has truckloads of junk science and could also mostly be considered pseudoscience. In terms of communication to public and therefore what gets taught in schools.
But I don’t accept that visible light is a weak energy, except sense all of the energy from the Sun at the Earth distance and after it passes thru the Earth’s atmosphere could be called weak
In terms of all energy from the sun reaching Earth distance, visible light is narrow part of entire spectrum and is particularly powerful for such small part of compared.
What many call thermal infrared: thermal infrared Infrared radiation which has a wavelength between 3.0 μm and 100 μm. At normal environmental temperatures objects emit infrared between these wavelengths; hotter objects, such as fires, emit infrared at wavelengths shorter than thermal infrared. Compare REFLECTED INFRARED.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-thermalinfrared.html
Wiki:
Mid-wavelength infrared: 3-8 µm
Long-wavelength infrared: 8–15 µm
{This is the “thermal imaging” region, in which sensors can obtain a completely passive picture of the outside world based on thermal emissions only and requiring no external light or thermal source such as the sun, moon or infrared illuminator.}
And:
Far infrared: 15 – 1,000 µm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
And: “Humans at normal body temperature radiate chiefly at wavelengths around 10 μm”
So humans and anything cooler 98.6 F radiate some energy in the far infrared [15 – 1,000 µm]. And is this range which part “climate science”
or the climate science pseudoscience think far infrared is a powerful source warming earth- this is the whole idea of back radiation:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
I do accept the idea that a larger number of visible light is reflected that what the typical climate budget graphs seem to indicate.
And that near infrared light also is reflected.
But I don’t hold the idea that most of infrared spectrum is absorbed- I think the amount of far infrared absorbed is as high as 10%. And generally I think more than 10% of visible and near infrared is absorbed.
So I don’t accept that visible light does not absorb energy- or that dark color objects don’t get warmer in sunlight than light colored objects.
In “climate science” it seems to be presented as “white objects” absorbed no visible light/sunlight and black objects absorb 100% of visible light/sunlight. An extreme point of view.
And you seems to hold the idea color has nothing to do with it- visible light can’t be adsorbed.
And would say it’s somewhere in between this.
Now, it seems that in way, climate scientist have agreed with you, when they have said the Oceans absorb about 50% of the sunlight. Keep in mind, infrared is about 1/2 the sunlight. And you seem to think a large portion of some kind of infrared light is absorb by the ocean.
And as I have said I think 50% of the sunlight is absorbed by the oceans. Though also tend to think a cloud *could* absorb about same amount- 50%, perhaps a bit less.
Article of ocean:
http://biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/pubs/oceanus.pdf
In article it indicate that red light doesn’t get very deep in the ocean- perhaps red light is mostly absorbs, and since near infrared next to red light, possible it too doesn’t get very deep in the ocean [and is mostly absorbed. In article it indicate orange light gets deeper than red, and yellow get even deeper, and blue light gets to deepest depth.
I think land is different issue. Basically because land has limit to how much it can heat up. Land surface can reach 70-80 C. Water can’t under most “natural conditions”. Oceans can sort of keep gaining heat and land reaches a limit. And so oceans can [and do] absorb more energy than land.
So in comparison the Moon also has limit it can warm to, which is about 120 C. Earth land areas at best gets to 80 C. 80 C is Earth’s limit because Earth’s atmosphere prevent the 1360 watts of sunlight to reach the surface- instead it gets about 1000 watts.
If the land could somehow transfer the heat, thereby cool the surface in some way, then it could absorb more energy. But not much energy is conducted beneath the surface or used to warm the air above the land. Throw some water on the hot sand, and more solar energy energy will be absorbed [and it will make the surface cooler from the evaporation- and latent heat of water vapor is stored for some period of time].
So I would say the entire ocean takes forever warm up, but top surface of the ocean in tropics can warm up fairly quickly- a day or two.
If the air already had a high humidity, it takes a shorter time to heat up the surface.
The land has limit to how warm it gets, the ocean has limit in terms of how much can be evaporated. So having high humidity is sort of limit in how energy an ocean can absorb. Having a high humidity allows ocean to get highest surface temperature, but less humidity would allow ocean store energy in form of water vapor [which allow more energy to stored in terms energy of earth’s global budget].
So max temperature land temperature can reach and a limit to how can be evaporated can viewed as negative feedback or limits to temperature and energy stored.
Anyhow, it seems a given that the oceans control global temperature, that ocean provide the “greenhouse effect” if correctly defining a “greenhouse affect” as a mechanism maintain warmer conditions during the night or prevents temperature from lowering.
Whereas if incorrectly use the term to mean make something hotter- the oceans are not making things hotter, but rather they are moderating, and increasing the average global temperature.
And it seems if somehow the ocean’s effect is reduced, one will colder conditions and possibly even higher day time high temperatures, but
there less room to get warmer, as compared to get cooler, and so global temperature lowers. Or wider swings in temperature is average temperature cooling result in more glacial growth.
So it seems rather important to to subject of global climate understand how the oceans are heated.
We know that parts of near infrared radiation does absorb water, it’s indicated in wiki’s graph I post a lot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
According graph the H20 in atmosphere is removing somewhere around 100 watts per square meter of near infrared.
And perhaps unlike scattering or reflected of light, that energy doesn’t “disappear”, rather it is absorbed [and then it would remitted in same or different spectrum- though it could go in random direction- so perhaps 1/2 of it is emitted in to space [perhaps]. But whatever the case, 100 to 150 watts doesn’t seem to be enough, even all it was somehow absorb by ocean.
So if they is about 50% of sunlight absorbed by ocean, one needs around 500 watts per square meter.
Except that tropical oceans don’t receive 1000 watts per square meter for 12 hours a day- no place on Earth does. So the 50% number is 50% of sunlight receive in the area. Which could be around 5000 watts per square meter. So 50% is 2500 watts per day.
Let’s assume that absorption begin below tropopause:
“The troposphere extends upwards from right above the boundary layer, and ranges in height from an average of 9 km (5.6 mi; 30,000 ft) at the poles, to 17 km (11 mi; 56,000 ft) at the Equator. ” wiki
Anything +5 km high will receive more sunlight for longer period of the day. There less atmosphere to go thru at noon, and less will lost when sun at lower angle in sky.
Anyways, one could various way this works. H20 gas if it can absorb a wavelength, then it means it can emit same wavelength- or has some probability of doing it- though if it absorbs x amount energy it will emit x amount energy at some wavelength. And higher in elevation would higher chance exiting to space. But higher elevation also mean more solar energy it can absorb per daytime.
Another aspect could be that H20 isn’t the gas but droplets of water- in clouds or not in clouds. But generally is seems of H20 gas can absorb some wavelength water liquid can also absorb same wavelength.
But in any case it seems this only about 10% of the 2500 watts per day needed. So this point, I would say it’s mostly warmed directly, and significant part is orange/red light of visible and the part near infrared [750 to 1000 nm] which doing most of warming.
Sheesh, what is it with you guys and your marathon posts….?
Briefly – is Myrrh right and the energy from visible basically vanishes? or does it get sent out as longwave?
You can always turn off notifications or ignore the marathon posts if you are incapable of valuable posts for the CO2warming believers to learn something.
Yes, Myrrh is right about the light, the heat and the greenhouse gas nonsense.
Right – the Myrrh line is that energy just vanishes – whooof. And there no such thing as a greenhouse gas with absorption spectra in the infrared range. Got it now.
The tiny energy from visible light is reflected or absorbed thru photosynthesis or thru chemical reactions. The majority thermal infrared energy from the Sun heats the water on the Earth and a small part of it heats up the land mass. The land mass heats up the atmospheric air thru convection. The mass on the Earth including the atmosphere radiates thermal heat to the space when the daily heat absorption is less than radiating out. We have the early morning dews due to atmospheric water vapor lost of latent heat.
Try a bit harder if you still don’t understand science.
This time please address my question : if visible light isn’t absorbed by the earth, WHERE DOES ALL THIS ENERGY GO ?
I suggest you ask the person who told you so, ’twas not I.
Montalbano | October 22, 2012 at 1:14 am asked:: ”if visible light isn’t absorbed by the earth, WHERE DOES ALL THIS ENERGY GO ?”
Montalbano and the rest of you Sods: have an open mind and try to learn from Mirrh; he is got lots of patience for you.
Montalbano, at 7pm after dark, you turn the lights on -> turn them off at midnight -> it will get completely dark in your room… where was all that light / photons gone, that was produced for 5h, between 7-12?! Look and see if it has accumulated somewhere, so you can re-use it – that will give you the answer on your question. Stop confusing photons with radiation!
Ah, so you agree the energy from visible light doesn’t just disappear, I must have misunderstood your very long post. Of course it is absorbed by the earth and radiated out as longwave.
” SamNC | October 21, 2012 at 10:22 am |
gbaikie | October 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm
“The smaller the wavelength the more powerful the electromagnetic radiation.”
Its quite true but the quantity of energy (or heat content) of each wavelength has the dominting effect on heating things up. ”
You have length and width of wavelength but photons have no “heat content”.
Photons can react with matter and cause heat. Heat in gases is motion [movement- meter/second], spin, or vibration [ringing like a bell],
motion of gases only have significant relative to something else [going in a different direction- motion of gases normally only has heat if contained- in a jar or in an atmosphere.
So things with heat content are containers or atmospheres of gas, bodies of liquids, or solids such as rocks.
“One J of X-ray have less heating effect than one KJ of Infrared. One J of X-ray has very great penetrating power thru power but heats up nothing. One KJ of Infrared has no penetrating power but heat up entirely the matters in their direction of propagation.”
This “penetrating power” is just transparency- bones are not transparent to X-rays, whereas flesh is. Water of a temperature emits only certain kinds of wavelengths, these also the same wavelength that water absorbs.
Water can be transparent to some microwaves, though some wavelength of microwave water does absorb. A microwave oven is emitting microwaves at a wavelength which water can absorb.
“Water can be transparent to some microwaves, though some wavelength of microwave water does absorb. A microwave oven is emitting microwaves at a wavelength which water can absorb.”
Microwave ovens are in the KW range powerful enough to set the water molecules in fast vibrations causing heating effect. Lasers and plasma can be made to cut steels. Someday a nerd scientist/engineer will probably produce visible light in KW range output vaporizing diamonds.
“gbaikie – the following is how I see it. The visible part of the spectrum is tiny, what is it, around a thousands of a millimetre?”
Visible light: 390 nm – 750 nm. So, 360 nm
A thousandth of mm is 1000 nm. Or 1 micrometer
So .36 micrometers.
Or .36 of a thousandth of mm.
If start from beginning of the electromagnetic spectrum, so at beginning of gamma rays [near zero] go to end of infrared spectrum it’s about 1 mm and infrared spectrum is 99.999925% of this entire length.
Ocean waves wavelengths can be tens of meters long, but we aren’t talking about height of waves, but rather distance from crest to crest.
Let’s drag in another analogy: Say, train is like X-ray, and train is traveling at speed of light. X-ray has short train cars. The train car may have any other dimension to it, but if it’s short enough, it’s a X-ray.
If train going the speed of light and one has train cars which are 1 meter long, one gets 299,792,458 train cars a second arriving somewhere.
And if the train car length is a micrometer long you get 299,792,458,000,000 train cars arriving each second. And if each car is carrying one grape- one gets a lot of grape juice.
“We use this in the real world, to heat our houses, especially good for heating open areas .., and there’s a whole industry producing thermal infrared saunas which are more efficient and more comfortable to be in than convective heat saunas.
Which is why I ask – show me how this ‘powerful energy visible light as from the Sun, which is not a laser, being used to heat our homes and where is the visible light sauna that will heat me up internally and make me sweat?”
If you want to keep warm, wear a sweater.
To create visible light, you need high temperature. The Sun temperature melts every kind material known.
You can use tungsten, a metal which have withstand very high temperatures], put in glass bulb which has no oxygen in it, and you can make some visible light.
Another way to make light is to only make smaller parts spectrum of light- this is what high efficiency light bulbs do.
The typical heat light uses more filament than incandescent light bulb- thereby having surface area. And the filament isn’t heated to as high temperature as an incandescent light bulb. But other that there is no much difference between a heat lamp and incandescent light bulb.
So we can only make a poor imitation of the visible light of the Sun.
Such as incandescent light bulbs and such things as camera flash bulbs or light produced by electrical welding. Nuclear bombs also make bright flash.
No one wants or needs this much light- the exception is for photography- our eyes work fine with less visible light than direct sunlight
http://www.roperld.com/science/ElectromagneticSpectraofLightBulbs_files/image002.jpg
Interesting graph showing sunlight, an incandescent light bulb, and what human eyes see best. From here:
http://www.roperld.com/science/electromagneticspectraoflightbulbs.htm
If you want to keep warm, wear a sweater.
To create visible light, you need high temperature. The Sun …
Irrelevant to my point. Which was:
“Which is why I ask – show me how this ‘powerful energy visible light as from the Sun, which is not a laser, being used to heat our homes and where is the visible light sauna that will heat me up internally and make me sweat?”
I know you can’t find anything real world to show your AGWScienceFiction claim that shortwave from the Sun heats the Earth and you certainly can’t find any rational sane applied scientist building visible light heating systems for the home..
Real world applied science worked out long ago how to make windows that let it visible light and blocked most of the thermal infrared radiating direct and powerfully from the Sun.., as they did in TRACE, where the physics has to work..
That’s why I call the Greenhouse Effect science fiction, none of the claims are real physics. None of them.
Again:
“So, what exactly what do you mean “the smaller the wavelength the more powerful”?
Show me exactly how powerful, show me how this tiny great powerful energy its claimed to be heats matter when we can’t even feel it. SHOW ME WHAT IT CAN DO!
Please!”
And if you finally admit you can’t, congratulations, you’ve got your mind back. That smell you might have noticed before will get stronger, it’s the stench of corruption, science fraud.
Take my science challenge. Prove visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator intensely which is what it actually takes to get our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems..
“Which is why I ask – show me how this ‘powerful energy visible light as from the Sun, which is not a laser, being used to heat our homes and where is the visible light sauna that will heat me up internally and make me sweat?”
A living human body generates heat and this is what is heating you internally.
Most people don’t want rooms over 100 F, as most people want to be comfortable and profusely sweating isn’t associated with a normal comfortable temperature.
Designing a room so it get the air temperature to be 120 to 140 F, isn’t particularly difficult. But if going to have a room for sauna, most people would like higher temperature such +160 F.
But if you want less warm room and perhaps you want to spend a longer times in the room and perhaps have this room always kept at say 100 F even when no none is in it. I suppose many people could want this.
Anyhow, the important point of such a room is to have it well insulated, and if fairly small, one could use light bulbs, though one probably use infrared light bulbs which mostly in near infrared with a low intensity of visible light- not dissimilar to parts of spectrum of sunlight. And quite possible that people find reddish light to be more mentally soothing rather than brighter light. And generally say, these low temperature sauna are primarily psychology.
The problem with making a light bulb have same spectrum of sunlight is
it’s not easily possible, so a “powerful energy visible light” requires temperature of a filament of around 6000 K, the incandescent light bulbs filament just over 3000 K and infrared light bulbs around 2500 K or lower.
Take my science challenge. Prove visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator intensely which is what it actually takes to get our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems..
..and stop avoiding it.
“Take my science challenge. Prove visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator intensely which is what it actually takes to get our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems..
..and stop avoiding it.”
The Sun emitting most of it’s energy in the wavelengths of 250 to 2500 nm.
This range of wavelengths is called UV, Visible, and the Near Infrared.
The Sun does emit a much broader spectrum but outside the range of 250 to 2500 nm the amount energy per square meter is insignificant and it’s not possible for such small amounts of energy to be able to
*heat the land and water at the equator intensely*.
Therefore until such time that someone can somehow find more energy coming from the sun outside the range of 250 to 2500 nm, it is logical to assume that the energy to *heat the land and water at the equator intensely* must be related to energy from the 250 to 2500 nm part of the Sun’s spectrum.
Myrrh, do you accept the idea that at the moment, most of the measured energy from the Sun is between 250 and 2500 nm?
If there any evidence which dispute this, it would very relevant aspect to your challenge.
And unless you acknowledge or dispute that 250 to 2500 nm is the range of wavelength which comprise most of the Sun’s measured energy, there is little point in discussing this further.
There appears to be no point in further discussion as you appear to have a problem following my argument, I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to explain it well enough for you.
Here’s something I’ve just written for another discussion which encapsulates the main points I make that the Greenhouse Effect is a deliberately contrived fiction.
The Greenhouse Effect is a total fiction, created by sleights of hand manipulation of basic physics facts and terms.
It does not exist because it is an illusion created by a) taking out the Water Cycle. The Earth temps with our atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen but without water, would be around 67°C. Think Deserts.
Water vapour with its high heat capacity takes away heat from the Earth’s surface and releases it higher in the cold atmosphere when it condenses back to ice or water, forming clouds and rain etc., and
b) there is not direct cause and effect from the -18°C to the 15°C.
The sleight of hand here begins by AGWScienceFiction taking the real standard of temp of the Earth without any atmosphere at all of around minus18°C and claiming that the difference between this base figure and the 15°C is produced by the presence of “greenhouse gases” – that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth from the bottom figure 33°C”.
AGWSF claims that the minus18°C is only absent “greenhouse gases”, as it defines these.
The real world’s atmosphere was likened to a real greenhouse which has both heating and cooling mechanisms in place to get optimum growing conditions for plants, in other words, in the real world’s analogy of greenhouse with convection and open windows, all the gases which are our atmosphere are greenhouse gases, primarily nitrogen and oxygen for the stability of temperature by gravity and wind and water for cooling by convection of gases with volume.
The rest of the Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget as KT97 and kin is manufactured to support this scam. Some examples.
Excising the Water Cycle for the reason above also used to produce the fiction that carbon dioxide “accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” – all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, All of it. Every time it rains it rains carbon dioxide in a clinch with water. In this carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle and so with its residence time of 8-10 days.
No water cycle and so no rain in the Carbon Cycle, AGWSF doesn’t have to mention that.
AGWSF has also deemed carbon dioxide to be the hypothetical in real physics ideal gas, that is, AGWSF has created a completely fictional Earth’s atmosphere from the descriptions of ideal gas!
Ideal gases do not have any volume, attraction, weight, are not subject to gravity – so, the claim in this fiction that “carbon dioxide is well-mixed because like the imaginary ideal gas it zips at great speeds through an empty space atmosphere under its own molecular momentum bouncing off the other ideal gases and so thoroughly mixing they cannot be unmixed without a great deal of work being done, like trying to separate ink from the water it was poured into”.
The AGWSF fictional world does not have rain in its Carbon Cycle because it has eliminated the Water Cycle and because its hypothetical gases have no attraction.
Clouds appear by magic, not by lighter than air water vapour rising through the heavy voluminous fluid ocean of real gas as in the real world.
This is the reason the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t have convection, because it doesn’t have the real gas atmosphere we actually have, without which we cannot have any wind and weather..
..or sound, there is no sound in the Greenhouse Effect Fictional World.
The Greenhouse Effect creates by another interesting sleight of hand the illusion of “backradiation of longwave infrared”, by including real world measurements of the direct longwave infrared from the Sun, aka Heat energy, but which they have totally eliminated from their fictional world scenario.
They have done this quite simply but repeating ad nauseum that the “longwave infrared direct from the Sun does not reach the Earth’s surface and plays no part in heating same, that shortwave from the Sun heats the land and ocean”.
In the real world, shortwave visible light from the Sun cannot heat land and water, which is what it takes to get out huge winds and weather systems by these being heated intensely at the equator.
They have, by a variety of sleights of hand, eliminated all real world physics about the differences between heat and light. Two separate and distinctly different energies from the Sun.
Since shortwave from the Sun physically cannot heat land and water and they have excised the real heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, direct longwave infrared, they not only have no weather, they live in a very cold world where’s there is no warming possible at all..
This is the biggest HOAX in Science to date, and probably will be unsurpassed.
The Greenhouse Effect Fictional World is a Comic Cartoon World.
And that, is a real physics fact.
And whoever created it by tweaking real physics from all the wide variety of sciences involved, must be laughing all the way to the bank.
—-
The best question to debate perhaps should be – how long do we have to put up with this nonsense passing itself off as if real world physics?
“There appears to be no point in further discussion as you appear to have a problem following my argument, I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to explain it well enough for you.”
At this point I am addressing, your statement the visible light is incapable of making something warm.
So to repeat the Question: Is not most of the measured energy from the Sun within the range of 250 to 2500 nm?
But you wish to address other issues, which I have commented before and will be so again:
“Here’s something I’ve just written for another discussion which encapsulates the main points I make that the Greenhouse Effect is a deliberately contrived fiction.
The Greenhouse Effect is a total fiction, created by sleights of hand manipulation of basic physics facts and terms.”
As said before, I think it’s mostly stupidity rather than malice.
“It does not exist because it is an illusion created by a) taking out the Water Cycle. The Earth temps with our atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen but without water, would be around 67°C. Think Deserts.”
I disagree that earth would be warmer without water. I think one could increase the average temperature of the Moon or Mars by adding water.
A characteristic of deserts is extreme swings in temperature.
“Water vapour with its high heat capacity takes away heat from the Earth’s surface and releases it higher in the cold atmosphere when it condenses back to ice or water, forming clouds and rain etc., and
b) there is not direct cause and effect from the -18°C to the 15°C.”
I would agree to idea that -18 C is based on the fantasy of Earth being similar to the imagined blackbody.
There is a basic misunderstanding about the fictional blackbody that caused “climate scientist” to form some strange ideas.
A blackbody is suppose to reach a maximum temperature obtainable at a certain distance from the Sun- but this does apply to a spherical blackbody. A flat panel with well insulated back with was a “blackbody” would reach the max temperature at certain distance from the sun.
And for the purpose of finding this blackbody temperature, some panel painted black [and absorbed all the other wavelengths] with well insulated back will reach this theoretical temperature.
There is relation between blackbody and sun temperature. A blackbody temperature at certain distance from the sun IS the Sun’s surface temperature. But this does not apply to a spherical blackbody [assuming you could make such a thing].
“The sleight of hand here begins by AGWScienceFiction taking the real standard of temp of the Earth without any atmosphere at all of around minus18°C and claiming that the difference between this base figure and the 15°C is produced by the presence of “greenhouse gases” – that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth from the bottom figure 33°C”. ”
Yes.
Because they assume that blackbody sphere is the warmest average temperature possible. But in addition they compound their idiocy by subtracting the earth whiteness of it’s clouds.
“AGWSF claims that the minus18°C is only absent “greenhouse gases”, as it defines these.
The real world’s atmosphere was likened to a real greenhouse which has both heating and cooling mechanisms in place to get optimum growing conditions for plants, in other words, in the real world’s analogy of greenhouse with convection and open windows, all the gases which are our atmosphere are greenhouse gases, primarily nitrogen and oxygen for the stability of temperature by gravity and wind and water for cooling by convection of gases with volume.”
Yes, the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere does function as “greenhouse affect”.
“The rest of the Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget as KT97 and kin is manufactured to support this scam. Some examples.
Excising the Water Cycle for the reason above also used to produce the fiction that carbon dioxide “accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” – all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, All of it. Every time it rains it rains carbon dioxide in a clinch with water. In this carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle and so with its residence time of 8-10 days.”
I might agree with idea of “accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” as being a scam. Rather than being just stupid. Or least the religious AGW aspect corrupting common sense.
“No water cycle and so no rain in the Carbon Cycle, AGWSF doesn’t have to mention that.
“AGWSF has also deemed carbon dioxide to be the hypothetical in real physics ideal gas, that is, AGWSF has created a completely fictional Earth’s atmosphere from the descriptions of ideal gas!
Ideal gases do not have any volume, attraction, weight, are not subject to gravity – so, the claim in this fiction that “carbon dioxide is well-mixed because like the imaginary ideal gas it zips at great speeds through an empty space atmosphere under its own molecular momentum bouncing off the other ideal gases and so thoroughly mixing they cannot be unmixed without a great deal of work being done, like trying to separate ink from the water it was poured into”.”
Pure water will of course absorb CO2- and any gas. And clouds are zillions of droplets of water. Think both H2O and CO2 act sort of like a ideal gas, and CO2 is more like an ideal gas as compared to H2O gas.
So, you say it’s scam, I say it’s stupidity mostly. You say without ocean Earth would be 67°C which I think is unlikely/not possible. Maybe warmer, but tend to think cooler than it is currently, due to the there being less heat capacity, and nites and winters would be colder, though certainly accept that days would tend to be warmer. So replacing all oceans with land increase the average day time highs.
I think a big difference would be more wind.
Also a planet without any water would be rather exotic, in the fictional story, Dune, they could get moisture from the air:)
Mars is very, very dry place, but there is still trillions of tonnes of water, and it’s vacuum that people like to call an atmosphere has a tiny bit of water in it.
Moving along.
“The Greenhouse Effect creates by another interesting sleight of hand the illusion of “backradiation of longwave infrared”, by including real world measurements of the direct longwave infrared from the Sun, aka Heat energy, but which they have totally eliminated from their fictional world scenario.”
This gets somewhere close to my question. Question being: “Is Sun emitting most of it’s energy in the wavelengths of 250 to 2500 nm.”
So 250 to 2500 nm is not longwave infrared.
And the idiots who talk about “backradiation of longwave infrared”
are talking in the range of hundreds of watts per square meter.
And it appear you accept that longwave infrared is in the range of hundreds of watts per square meter and this coming from the Sun.
??
Do you understand the words “cannot”, “physically” and “possible”?
Assuming you do, but I really can’t be sure, then why are you having such difficulty with the concept “visible light cannot physically heat land and water”?
And I’ve already explained why not, so if you intend to reply read what I’ve written about it first.
And take the science challenge I’ve given: prove that it can. What’s the problem here? Can’t you find anything from the AGWScienceFiction meme producing department that actually gives any proof of your claim?
“Do you understand the words “cannot”, “physically” and “possible”?
Assuming you do, but I really can’t be sure, then why are you having such difficulty with the concept “visible light cannot physically heat land and water”?”
I understand that you don’t think visible light can heat land or water.
I also understand that you think an Earth with no oceans or water would have average temperature of 67 C.
Either of these ideas is odd, holding both these ideas adds more than the addition to the oddness.
What is known is that the Sun emits the vast majority of it’s energy in the wavelength between 250 to 2500 nm.
The infrared spectrum is considered to start somewhere around 780 nm.
The energy in the sun’s spectrum between 780 to 2500nm is about 1/2 of the known energy emitted from the Sun. This part of the infrared spectrum [780 to 2500nm] is part of shortwave infrared and is also called the near infrared. Also part of this spectrum is called the reflective infrared. It is called reflective because it’s the spectrum which used in infrared photography: “Wavelengths used for [infrared] photography range from about 700 nm to about 900 nm.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_photography
One gets odd photograph in the range between 700 nm to about 900 nm.
Another bit about infrared photography:
“In what follows we will focus on infrared photography, a technique that can capture on film or on a digital sensor the IR radiation reflected by the scene we frame. IR radiation does start below a wavelength of 750nm1 and continues down to 20,000nm or more. However, both film and sensor are seriously limited in their capability to record IR radiation. Digital sensors can go as far as 1300nm. Commercial IR films are unable to record radiations below about 900nm.
What we call “IR photography” then is the technique to capture IR radiation in the limited range between 750nm and 1300nm (in the case of digital sensors) and even less in the case of IR film.”
http://www.infraredphoto.eu/Site/GentleIntro1.html
So with digital [rather just normal commercial IR film] infrared photography extend down to 1300 nm.
Additional quote from above:
“One of the fascinating features of IR photography is its ability to penetrate haze and light fog. As we have discussed above, infrared radiation has a longer wavelength than visible light and can ‘go through haze more easily. This is becoming, unfortunately, more and more important as the level of pollution in the air increases. Some even go as far as theorizing that ‘moderate’ monochrome IR photography3 may become the de facto standard in landscape black and white photography, as finding truly crisp and clear days is getting more and more difficult.”
” Near-infrared (near-IR) – Closest to visible light, near-IR has wavelengths that range from 0.7 to 1.3 microns, or 700 billionths to 1,300 billionths of a meter.
Mid-infrared (mid-IR) – Mid-IR has wavelengths ranging from 1.3 to 3 microns. Both near-IR and mid-IR are used by a variety of electronic devices, including remote controls.
Thermal-infrared (thermal-IR) – Occupying the largest part of the infrared spectrum, thermal-IR has wavelengths ranging from 3 microns to over 30 microns.
The key difference between thermal-IR and the other two is that thermal-IR is emitted by an object instead of reflected off it. Infrared light is emitted by an object because of what is happening at the atomic level. ”
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/high-tech-gadgets/nightvision1.htm
So, Thermal-infrared (thermal-IR) is 3000 to 30,000 nm
As compared Near-infrared and Mid-infrared, combined both are 700 to 3000 nm. So range of both is 2300 nm as compared to 27,000 width of the thermal-IR.
Here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/workshops/09_19_06/pdf_presentations/13_Fontenla_syn_spec.pdf
shows graph of solar spectrum TOA from 300 to 5000 nm.
At 2000 nm the watts per meter per nm is around .1 watt
At around 3500 nm the watts per meter per nm is .01 watt
As guess, from 2500 to 5000 nm one getting an average of .01 watts
so total would around 25 watts per square meter.
At 5000 nm one has around .005 watts per meter per nm.
It reasonable to guess that the even longwave length of +5000 nm continue lower in amount watts per square meter. So SWAG of 5000 to 10,000 would be around 5 watts per square meter or less.
And human body temperature blackbody is around 10,000 nm [I believe] and 10K to 100K would less than 1 watt per square meter in total.
As another guess, I would say that human body would emit far more thermal-IR at 10,000 nm per square meter than compared to sun which is 149 million km away. Or human body probably radiate around 1 watt per square at around 10,000 nm [so say somewhere in range of 9000 to 11,000 nm]
And it would seem to me the sun is quite a bit less than 1 watt per square meter in same region that most of infrared radiates from human body.
[“Humans at normal body temperature radiate chiefly at wavelengths around 10 μm (micrometers)”- wiki]
Conclusion the 2500 to 5000 nm seems a bit higher than I had previously guessed [before seeing above graph] , but it’s still insignificant.
But the effect of CO2 gas warming is also insignificant- in comparison between heating from CO2 and infrared wavelength from the sun starting at 2500 nm to 30,000 nm, it seems to me this entire infrared spectrum could more significant as compared to any purported claim about warming due to CO2.
So for believers that 1 C warming is significant- 25 watt per square meter is not insignificant.
gbaikie | October 27, 2012 at 2:04 am |
Excellent work on infrared wavelengths and watts/m2/nm but you left out related temperature range in the atmosphere or more concisely in the troposphere +40 to -60 degC. The less the temperature the less the watts/m2 at a particular IR wavelength. A 30um wavelength with 1000K temeperature has far more watts/m2 than a 15um wavelength with 300K temperature. Another major factor missing is the mass. The larger the mass the more the watts/m2. CAGW promoters deliberately left out these factors to twist the scientific facts in their greenhouse gas, aerosol, geoengineering BS.
CAGW promoters simply ignore the above factors as well as ignoring major factors such as the specific heat capacity of matters and latent heats of water. Climate modeling can never be improved with the CO2 warming BS. GIGO! Its time to abandon all climate modeling.
gbaikie | October 27, 2012 at 2:04 am | “Do you understand the words “cannot”, “physically” and “possible”?
Assuming you do, but I really can’t be sure, then why are you having such difficulty with the concept “visible light cannot physically heat land and water”?”
I understand that you don’t think visible light can heat land or water.
I also understand that you think an Earth with no oceans or water would have average temperature of 67 C.
Either of these ideas is odd, holding both these ideas adds more than the addition to the oddness.
Both are still taught in traditional physics..
It’s just the oiks who’ve been brainwashed into believing the fake fisics of this fantasy world which AGWScienceFiction inc has created..
An example of brainwashing children through the education system for the plebs: http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0059-infrared-radiation-waves.php
Like all good cons, by that I mean successful.., bits of truth are thrown in to make the lie seems acceptable, here they say:
“Infrared Waves
Infrared waves are commonly referred to has heat rays. Heat is in fact infrared radiation. Hold your hand next to a hot stove. Do you feel the heat radiating off of the stove and traveling towards your hand? If our eyes could see infrared radiation, what would it look like? You would see anything that produces heat, including plants and animals, no matter how dark it was. On average, the Sun produces very little infrared radiation compared to the amount of ultraviolet radiation and visible light that it creates.”
But shrug, since you don’t think heat is heat which is thermal infrared radiation you won’t be able to spot these sleights of hand as easily as I now can, I’ve had rather a lot of practise in the last few years.
The AGWSF meme for the plebs is that “all electromagnetic radiation is the same” and “all create heat on being absorbed”, and it also provides “rebuttal memes” for their apologetics teams, “haven’t you heard of conservation of energy?” and so on. But of course, when it’s pointed out that not all absorption of electromagnetic radiation creates heat, for example in photosynthesis when it converts to chemical energy and not heat energy and in the atmosphere where absorption of visible light by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen which spit out the same non-thermal energy that went in, this is ignored. Either by never returning to continue discussing this or by continual distraction from the point..
The 67°C for the temperature of the Earth without water is still standard physics, think deserts. Picture that if you will, the whole Earth still with the fluid real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen as a desert without water. The Water Cycle cools our real world atmosphere by 52°C. That’s rational thinking.
Here’s a tease for you – wiki still carries that information in a brief reference, but check out the source link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
“86% of the global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling. Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.”
I’ve said this before, NASA used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared and that shortwave infrared isn’t even hot, that we can’t feel it, now it has been interfered with to produce AGWSF fake fisics.
The brainwashed plebs meanwhile can’t get out of the box they’ve been put in, the second concept in the paragraph I’ve quoted which is your position – that the Sun produces very little heat..
Rational? Only to those who’ve been brainwashed into thinking visible light from the Sun is the heat we feel.
Which is why I have phrased my science challenge as I have. I really do wish you’d concentrate on producing exactly what I have requested.
I have explained that you can’t because it doesn’t exist in real world physics. Visible light works on the electronic transition level, it’s tiny and works on tiny tings only. Bigger thermal infrared, the real heat we feel from the Sun, works on the molecular vibrational level. This is what creates heat, this is what it takes to heat up matter such as land and oceans. And in the real world this is exactly what does heat up the land and water at the equator to give us our huge equator to poles wind system and our dramatic convected weather, our storms, our monsoons, our water cycle.
I have explained why AGWSF has taken out the real direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, so that they can pretend, you do understand that word I assume, pretend that the all thermal infrared heat downwelling from the atmosphere comes from their imaginary backradiation from their version of greenhouse gases.
They have learned the technique from masters of the genre.. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie.html
Some say it’s the same people telling this big lie, the fake AGW.
So, you don’t have any real world physics in your world. This is the point I’m making.
Now, go try and fetch exactly what I have requested – this is a DIRECT SCIENCE CHALLENGE to the AGWSF claim that visible light is the Sun’s energy which heats land and water, deal with it.
You have to show how visible light physically heats the land and water at the equator to the intensity it does which gives us our huge and dramatic wind and weather systems.
You might learn something about our real world heavy voluminous fluid gas atmophere and heat transfer by convection while you’re looking..
So, enough of repeating the memes as you’ve been doing to avoid dealing with my direct science challenge.
What is known is that the Sun emits the vast majority of it’s energy in the wavelength between 250 to 2500 nm. etc. etc.
And enough of the other distractions. At the moment I really don’t care how difficult or not it is for you to take on board that I am saying this meme you repeat is a con, it’s quite sufficient for you to take on board that this is what I’m saying, and I’m not looking for any more discussion on these memes, and I am not at all interested in more superflous information about infrared or anything else which you keep digging up to continually distract,
I simply require that you deal with my challenge as I have put it.
-I understand that you don’t think visible light can heat land or water.
I also understand that you think an Earth with no oceans or water would have average temperature of 67 C.
Either of these ideas is odd, holding both these ideas adds more than the addition to the oddness.-
“Both are still taught in traditional physics.. ”
Good then it should easy for to provide a reference saying a world without at Earth distance from sun has average global temperature of 67C and visible light is incapable of heating any kind of material.
“An example of brainwashing children through the education system for the plebs: http://www.kidsgeo.com/geography-for-kids/0059-infrared-radiation-waves.php
Like all good cons, by that I mean successful.., bits of truth are thrown in to make the lie seems acceptable, here they say:
“Infrared Waves
Infrared waves are commonly referred to has heat rays. Heat is in fact infrared radiation. Hold your hand next to a hot stove. Do you feel the heat radiating off of the stove and traveling towards your hand? If our eyes could see infrared radiation, what would it look like? You would see anything that produces heat, including plants and animals, no matter how dark it was. On average, the Sun produces very little infrared radiation compared to the amount of ultraviolet radiation and visible light that it creates.”
Obviously someone is poorly explaining infrared and wrong on about just about everything said.
Myrrh: “But shrug, since you don’t think heat is heat which is thermal infrared radiation you won’t be able to spot these sleights of hand as easily as I now can, I’ve had rather a lot of practise in the last few years.”
I don’t see it as sleight of hand. Considering how many mistakes professional reporters make reporting on science- I say it’s more typical than abnormal.
Heat rays:
“a term formerly applied to the rays near the red end of the spectrum, whether within or beyond the visible spectrum.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Heat+rays
“A term formerly applied to the rays near the red end of the spectrum, whether within or beyond the visible spectrum.”
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/HEAT+RAYS
“The 67°C for the temperature of the Earth without water is still standard physics, think deserts. Picture that if you will, the whole Earth still with the fluid real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen as a desert without water. The Water Cycle cools our real world atmosphere by 52°C. That’s rational thinking.”
“In addition to being extremely dry, the Sahara is also one of the hottest regions in the world. The average annual temperature for the desert is 86°F (30°C) but during the hottest months temperatures can exceed 122°F (50°C)”
http://geography.about.com/od/locateplacesworldwide/a/saharadesert.htm
Great Victoria Desert:
“Summer daytime temperatures range from 32 to 40 °C (90 to 104 °F) while in winter, this falls to 18 to 23 °C (64 to 73 °F).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Victoria_Desert
And:
The days in summer are hot, anything between 30 and 40°C (90 – 105F), but the dry heat is not as uncomfortable as the humid swelter of tropical Australia.
Winter temperatures range from a comfortable 20 to 25°C, but the nights can be freezing. And I do mean freezing, frosts are common.”
http://www.outback-australia-travel-secrets.com/great-victoria-desert.html
“Why are deserts hotter than tropics? (Specific heat capacity).
….
Over the ocean in subtropical latitudes, the difference in day and night air temperatures (diurnal temperature range) is about 0.4 F (0.2C). Over the desert at the same latitude the diurnal temperature range is about 72 F (40C).”
http://faculty.unlv.edu/landau/desertgeography.htm
So dry deserts have wide swings in day and night cycle.
A waterless world would have even wider swings in temperature.
The hottest region during hottest season on Earth does not reach 67°C, but if it did get this hot, at nite it would cool significantly.
So a hot tropical desert can have around the same *average* temperature as tropical ocean. And temperate zone oceans have much much or higher average temperature- on Earth.
But I think on waterless planet temperature zones would have much cooler average temperature.
“Here’s a tease for you – wiki still carries that information in a brief reference, but check out the source link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
“86% of the global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling. Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.”
But this doesn’t say higher average temperature, rather it say one get higher temperatures. So summer, day high temperature could reach such temperature. Especially if entire atmosphere was much drier, so the 100 watts per square meter of near infrared was not block by H2O.
one could expect higher max daytime temperatures.
How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am
Your reply was hollow and subjective – did not contribute to science discussions. You are unable to learn science. Don’t waste your time and make yourself productive somewhere else.
SamNC
Your total lack of relevant comment duly noted.
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am |
How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am |
How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.
But that is the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim. “That shortwave mainly visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the surface and converts to heat”.
So how many times do I have to explain that it does matter?
Because unless you can show that visible light from the Sun directly heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is actually heated in the real world which produces our huge wind system from the equator to the poles and all our real dramatic weather systems, then you have no wind or weather in your AGW Greenhouse Effect world.
And moreover, because you have taken out the real world’s heat from the Sun which is the direct invisible thermal infrared, unless you can prove the AGWScienceFiction claim that shortwave directly heats the surface, you have no heating at all from the Sun unless you can prove visible light from the Sun does this heating.
So enough bs, prove the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that “its visible light from the Sun which gets through to the surface of the Earth and heats land and water”, prove your idiotic fictional meme “shortwave in longwave out”. Prove it by giving me the detail I have challenged you to produce. You prove here that you are totally ignorant about how we get real winds and weather, you can know nothing about climate.
It takes intense physical cooking of land and water at the equator to give us the great wind and weather systems we have in the real world. If you can’t prove your AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that visible light from the Sun does this, then you are bullsh*tt*ng, all of you, all of the teachers, in all the schools and universities teaching the plebs. Prove it. Or grow up and recognise that you can’t prove it because it is a con, a fictional fisics created to support the Big Lie of AGW and its Greenhouse Effect.
Failure to produce proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and water intensely at the equator which is your AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim proves you are utter ignoramouses about real world climate.
In other words, prove it or shut the hell up with all your, generic, fictional claims about AGW/CAGW and Carbon Dioxide.
And still you continue with your ignorant rubbish and lies Myrrh (MSF, MyrrhScienceFiction), constantly failing to address the challenges put to you that
– it is not necessary for visible light to heat the earth, for it to be reradiated as IR
– and anyway, by whatever wavelength, the earth *is* warmed by the sun
– the earth radiates IR, which warms its greenhouse gasses
The longer you ignore these questions, the more we know you have no answer.
As it happens I met a physicist at a party and asked her this. Seems you are the one doing the avoiding – visible light does not *need* to warm the earth for its energy to be re-rediated at longwave. Which is I think what Brandon said too. So your challenge is an (infra) red herring.
“As it happens I met a physicist at a party and asked her this. Seems you are the one doing the avoiding – visible light does not *need* to warm the earth for its energy to be re-rediated at longwave. Which is I think what Brandon said too. So your challenge is an (infra) red herring.”
That seems more obvious with gases, but I suppose it also applies with liquid and solids.
It’s a good point.
But I don’t yet know how quantify it.
But let’s first see if I understand what you mean.
Take a H20 molecule, and H2O molecule can absorb in shortwave- in Near Infrared part of spectrum. The H2O gas molecule could receive this shortwave and immediately re-rediated at the same wavelength or it can absorb it and emit various other longer wavelength protons, or same wavelength and even possibly a shorter wavelength.
But with a gas molecule, unless radiation increases the gas molecule’s velocity [which is actually the average velocity of a bunch of gas molecules] it’s not heating the gas.
Solar energy can push a solar sail [but a solar sail is in fixed location unlike gas molecules- but I would not throw out idea that sunlight can increase the KE of gas molecules in some manner- but would seem in most cases to be rather insignificant].
The point you raise is any molecule [including gas molecules] can absorb [at certain wavelengths] and re-radiate energy [at same or different wavelengths depending on molecule] and not heat up a body of gas, liquid, or solid. Nor is the temperature of gas, liquid, or solid which re-radiates relevant what wavelength are re-radiated.
Yes exactly. So the basic idea I think is
– incoming visible light passes through the atmosphere without affecting it, is absorbed by the earth without warming it, and is transmitted out as infrared
– greenhouse gasses absorb and emit this infrared, some of it back to the earth, which is then heated.
There is not really a dispute over the basic principle, although there is over quantifying and measuring.
Montalbano,
“- greenhouse gasses absorb and emit this infrared, some of it back to the earth, which is then heated.”
You still got it wrong. Think magnitude of energy involved.
Electron shell level jumps emit photons involved with very tiny energy. Molecular vibrations thru absorbing thermal infrared is huge energy.
CO2 electrons absorb 15um infrared and then emit 15um infrared. The energy involved is a tiny part of the tiny energy mentioned. Most of the rest of the infrared spectrum of wavelengths are unaffected. The tiny part of the tiny energy cannot heat up the Earth. CO2 molecules gain its vibrational energy through convection. CO2 molecules then radiate thermal infrared to space. This thermal energy is still very small, 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition only. Land mass and ocean mass surface thermal radiation are orders of magnitudes of more energy than the atmospheric thermal radiations. Atmospheric thermal radiations are trivial compared with lands and oceans thermal radiations. CO2 15um and all other so called GHG radiations are orders of magnitudes more trivial than atmospheric thermal radiations. Got it?
“Yes exactly. So the basic idea I think is
– incoming visible light passes through the atmosphere without affecting it, is absorbed by the earth without warming it, and is transmitted out as infrared
– greenhouse gasses absorb and emit this infrared, some of it back to the earth, which is then heated.
There is not really a dispute over the basic principle, although there is over quantifying and measuring.”
Hmm.
Except quantifying and measuring is the only part which is actually important.
And rather pertain point this suggested basic principle is that lunar surface during the day is 120 C and if only greenhouse gas warm surface [which the Moon lacks]- that points to pretty serious flaw in the general idea.
Instead I was thinking of this aspect as a part of the puzzle, though it’s possible it could possibly be somewhat significant part which helps explains to the warming the ocean.
Also you focused on re-radiating meaning emitting long-wave spectrum- which possible, but I was thinking more about emitting the same wavelength, as mentioned in this quote:
“However, aerosols (which often contain water and if so can absorb red wavelengths) are usually larger than visible wavelengths and therefore absorb and reflect all wavelengths of light equally (this is not technically scattering, although it is often called that; it technically involves absorption and re-radiation, or reflection). ”
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00334.htm
So I was thinking lately about the section solar spectrum [near infrared] which is suppose to be absorbed by atmosphere.
And considered that rather forming heat, some of it could be re-radiate at same wavelength and be adsorbed by ocean [and so heat ocean].
Montalbano | October 25, 2012 at 1:46 am said: ” incoming visible light passes through the atmosphere without affecting it”
Montalbano, please try to use your own brains, instead of parroting what comes from the propaganda machine
1] CO2, H2O and other pollutants intercept part of the sunlight high up; where cooling is much more efficient.,= less comes to the ground
2] by referring ”visible sunlight” you are misleading yourself: a] what’s ”visible” for you, is NOT visible to many animals that see in black and white. b] birds can see colours of the light that human cannot. c] for example: snakes can see infrared, that you cannot d] one in 12 man and one in 20 women cannot see certain colours – cannot pas the Akashi Test.
you are saying: ”greenhouse gasses absorb and emit this infrared, some of it back to the earth, which is then heated” See how parroting. makes you to sound dumb!
truth: during the day, CO2 is lifted high up, same as fog; yes absorbs radiation high up and warms up more than the opaque oxygen & nitrogen can. BUT, that is NOT radiated back to the earth, zero, zilch of that comes back to the earth. Because below those ”phony greenhouse gases” is many kilometers of oxygen & nitrogen; which are perfect insulators. only 2 inches of those gases in the wall of your fridge prevent radiating warmth from outside in. Compare that with 6-7km of thick layer between the ”phony greenhouse gases” and the surface of the earth.
When you say: ”it’s not disputed” it means: ”it’s not disputed only by the zombies like you”
Stefen Denier
To help you get started, here is a link which includes an explanation of what scientists mean when they say “visiible” light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
As you will see there is no need for you to stress about, eg, snakes only seeing in black and white etc etc etc. You really must rid yourself of such confusions if you want to understand science.
Stefan you make a number of frankly fantastic claims
– CO2 does not stay mixed but collects in a layer high up in the atmosphere
Can you point to any experimental evidence of this ?
– You admit that CO2 absorbs and emits longwave, but say this is prevented from reaching the earth because oxygen and nitrogen are perfect insulators
You are getting confused here between radiation and conduction.
Montalbano | October 26, 2012 at 3:46 am asked: ”Can you point to any experimental evidence of this ?”
Mate, people studied 5000BC that warm CO2 goes up; that’s why they invented the chimney. b] I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody using taxpayers money, ”study” and proves the opposite. I have proven that: any study this days regarding the phony GLOBAL warming; are not studies, but legitimizing lies.
2] in the morning, (similar as fog /H2O) the sunlight warms up the carbon atom in the CO2 molecule -> that warms up the two lucky oxygen atoms -> they expand and go up; because the surrounding O&N atoms are opaque, they are cooler. b] that’s how the good Lord made to get read of CO2 away from your nose during the day; yes, in the layer high up; depends on the intensity of the sunlight at particular day, how high up
.At night, the carbon atom loses the benefit from the sunlight -> cools and CO2 molecule nosedives down, to feed the trees and crops. Reason trees and crops are most active after sundown. Most of the time CO2 comes down together with H2O, as dew. Because CO2 can absorb more coldness (on Desperado’s language: can release more heat than any other molecule) reason CO2 is used to make dry ice; that extra coldness promotes condensation -> CO2 is a rainmaker
3] I’m not going to explain to you that: warm goes up / cold goes down. b] Instead of me reading on the tread you are giving me ”to begin learning” I’m asking you to read this post; to see what is regulating the global temp: .
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/,
After reading it, if you are interested in real proofs, please read the 3 posts on my homepage – you will see that: talking about CO2 as GLOBAL warming gas, is the biggest sick joke. See if you have stomach for the truth and real proofs – I don’t need ”to start learning” I HAVE THE FINAL PRODUCT!!!!!
Stefan
By not answering my question, you reveal you have no experimental evidence that CO2 does not stay mixed in the atmosphere, but collects into a layer high up.
As it happens I met a physicist at a party and asked her this. Seems you are the one doing the avoiding – visible light does not *need* to warm the earth for its energy to be re-rediated at longwave. Which is I think what Brandon said too. So your challenge is an (infra) red herring.
Next time, give my science challenge as I have phrased it.
You, and the physicist you met at the party, live in a world without any climate at all..
Take the science challenge.
Prove visible light from the Sun is capable of heating the land and water at the equator intensely which is what it actually takes to get our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems..
Myhrr, you have simply ducked the point – it is not necessary for visible light to heat the earth, for it to be radiated out as longwave. That is just a strawman you have invented.
Unless you accept the science challenges I give you, there is little point in any further discussion.
That’s the sleight of hand you repeat from the AGWScienceFiction meme producing department.
I’m asking you to prove your claim that visible light, shortwave, heats land and water and you keep avoiding it.
Directly heats land and water is your claim.
You have not shown that.
Directly heat means exactly what it says. It means to make something directly hotter, to heat it up. To cook it.
Unless visible light is capable of doing this, you have no wind or weather in your world.
Take the challenge and stop avoiding it. Show how visible light from the Sun physically moves the molecules of matter of land and water at the equator raising their temperature to the intensity this actually happens in the real world which is what physically gives us our great wind and weather systems.
You can’t. Because visible light cannot physically heat up matter.
It takes the direct thermal energy from the Sun to do this, thermal infrared, longwave infrared. This is what actually heats land and water at the equator to give us our huge wind systems from equator to poles and dramatic weather. Your stupid idiotic fake fisics has taken this out of your world’s energy budget.
None of you here claiming this show even the slightest understanding of how our real world gets its wind and weather…
..the great delusion.
Let me see if I can make it even simpler for you Myrrh – NOBODY is claiming visible light heats the earth. THAT CLAIM IS JUST A STRAWMAN YOU CREATED – or to put it another way, it is just you telling lies about what others say, to try make yourself look clever.
So. stop lying, and maybe you can move on to real physics instead of the ignorant rubbish you have thus far presented.
“Let me see if I can make it even simpler for you Myrrh – NOBODY is claiming visible light heats the earth. THAT CLAIM IS JUST A STRAWMAN YOU CREATED – or to put it another way, it is just you telling lies about what others say, to try make yourself look clever.”
I think everyone is making claim that visible light heats the Earth.
And I agree with everyone.
But I would say the infrared light between 750 and 2500 nm heats the Earth more than visible light [and UV] does.
A lot people say visible light passes thru the atmosphere and warms the Earth surface and the heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect. And the Greenhouse Effect is caused by greenhouse gases.
Whereas I would say that less than 1/2 of the visible and infrared light [250 to 2500] reaches the surface as direct sunlight.
About 1/2 of the sunlight at TOA reach surface as scattered or re-radiated sunlight and about 40% of sunlight is reflected, scatter, and re-radiated direct back into space.
And at the surface a unknown but large percentage of indirect sunlight energy and direct sunlight energy is scatter, reflected, and re-radiate and about 1/2 or less of this energy is absorbed and thereby heats the surface.
It seems to me, that the ocean absorbs more energy than compared land surfaces, much of the energy absorbed by the ocean, is used to evaporate water. Also large amount of ocean heat travels poleward [such as with gulf stream heating Europe].
And the radiant effects from all greenhouse gas [including H20 gas, which dominate greenhouse gas] has a rather insignificant effect in terms of trapping radiant energy- H20 gas has large effect due to it’s latent heat.
Montalbano | October 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm said: ”Stefan, By not answering my question”
1] I did answer, here at ”denier | October 26, 2012 at 6:57 am” Maybe we are on different longitude
2] To repeat again: yes, CO2 during the day goes UP!!! (explained above how and why) You are fanatically blinded; so will explain it by your’s cult understanding; anything for you, mate, here: -”pretend that CO2 is ”mixed” in the troposphere evenly – just the way you like it: O.K: you will still have thousands of atoms of O&N -AS PERFECT INSULATORS ”in-between” every CO2 molecule – because O&N are 998999ppm – they would prevent convection or radiation between CO2 molecules. Happy now? (you mix in a bowl 390ppm of brown rice and 998999ppm of white rice =you will not even notice the brown rice)
3] Now is your chance, to apologies for putting Myrrh in a bad light, he is trying patiently, to open your closed mind; so you can get some reality in. Because is obvious that: what you know and what you are paddling – is a cult believes, and restrictions what you are not allowed to know and to believe. From similar brainwashing laundromat as those Madrases; where they ”educate” the suicide bombers. ======= By commenting above that: ”I’m wrong, the planet does get colder in solar eclipse; ”BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEING THERE” shows total absence in reasoning
4]You have being, WHERE? Your ‘planet” is, the cocoon that they have put you in… and no thinking allowed. Because: if you had permitted Myrrh to help you in thinking for yourself – you wouldn’t have proved how narrow-minded person you are; by believing that: because around you was colder – must be the whole planet. b] isn’t it exactly the same as: ”planet is warmer at noon by 12C, than before sunrise”?!?!
5] I’ll help you; if you lost capacity to think for yourself, but; you have to open your mind, not just repeating your gospel – which is so-far your full time occupation; here we go:
6] you don’t have to be under the darkness of solar eclipse; to know what’s really happening / BURT you have been, without knowing what was happening and why —FOLLOW ME: –starts with partial, then total eclipse. people turn the lights on – the town looks like it’s 9pm, even thoug is close to noon – without sunlight -> starts getting colder -> air shrinks -> winds starts the minute when partial eclipse starts – the shadow gets over big part of the continent – air cools / shrinks -> from outside the shadow, lots of air is pulled in, by the instant vacuum / colder air increases density – outside the shade 33% of the air is lost, to benefit inside the shadow -continue;
B] daytime on the earth is much, much cooler, than on the moon – because the moon doesn’t have oxygen & nitrogen (TROPOSPHERE) —-So, if you pinch 33% of the air from outside the shade; because of cooling inside -> outside starts to imitate the moon, BY 33% ONLY! – That makes it to get much HOTTER, than if it wasn’t solar eclipse in the neighborhood. the ”extra” coldness in, is equal to ”extra” heat outside!! I call it: ”The Honest Earth’s Self-Adjusting Mechanism”. As soon as it’s over -> horizontal winds equalize!!! Can you dig it?!
7] That’s why I explain how the laws of physics work, on the polar caps, on the mountain, desert and rainforest. Because the laws of physics were same 150y ago, 400, 1000, 2000. 6000. 15000y ago; it’s like traveling in time: you can know what was happening and what WASN’T happening, AND WHY NOT ==because: if the laws of physics don’t approve of it = MUST be crap!!! Like everything you support / believe and promote. Unless you are completely blinded by the fanaticism – go and study the reality, on my blog. Stop lying, if you cannot, minimize, if you cannot – go to electric shock treatment therapy – every time you tell a lie – zap, ZAP (don’t forget to apologize to Myrrh)
Stefan
No, you have NOT provided expermental evidence that CO2 does not stay mixed, but moves to the stop of the atmosphere in a layer of its own.
It seems you are just another ignorant liar like Myrrh.
Montalbano | October 27, 2012 at 2:07 am saiud: ”Stefan No, you have NOT provided expermental evidence that CO2 does not stay mixed”
You need exclusive experiment for you; if warm CO2 goes up? Do you want another experiment to find out if 2+2=4,?
You go and read the few posts on my homepage; all the proofs are there, CO2 has nothing to do with climate / climatic changes have nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warmings – all proven, beyond any reasonable doubt
Montalbano YOU ARE A COWARD, SCARED TO FACE REAL PROOFS
Stefan
I am *still* waiting for you to come up with EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that CO2 does not stay mixed in the atmosphere, but instead forms a layer on its own high up in the atmosphere. You have not. In other words, this is just some fantasy physics ‘fact’ you have sucked out of your thumb.
“I am *still* waiting for you to come up with EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that CO2 does not stay mixed in the atmosphere, but instead forms a layer on its own high up in the atmosphere.”
Related.
Moonbats:
“Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations – discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago – cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone as well as particles in urban air.”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/march/urban-carbon-domes-031610.html
More bats:
“Misconceptions and Potential Pitfalls
As noted above, this extension topic is important in rebutting the following misconceptions:
A global trend of increasing atmospheric CO2 means that all local regions are also seeing the same increasing trend;
A decline in CO2 locally weakens the well-established claim that global CO2 is increasing significantly;
Students may assume that since the atmosphere covers the Earth, CO2 levels in one location would experience the same rate of change and levels of CO2 as in other geographic locations.”
http://cleanet.org/clean/community/activities/boost_data.html
more bats:
“The following video is a graphic example of where our data for CO2 levels comes from. It shows surface measurements of CO2 varying over different latitudes from 1979 to 2006. The graph is created by Andy Jacobson from the NOAA and includes a global map displaying where the measurements are coming from, a comparison of Mauna Loa CO2 to South Pole CO2 and the graph expands at the end to include ice core measurements back to the 19th Century.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-measurements-uncertainty.htm
Reference with some data:
“This shows that with upslope winds, the data is influenced by local CO2 depleted air. These data are rightfully discarded from the daily/monthly/yearly averages, as they don’t reflect the background CO2 levels, which we are interested in.
Does discarding of “contaminated” data influence the trend over a year or several years? I have asked that question to Pieter Tans, responsible for dataprocessing of the Mauna Loa data. His answer:
The data selection method has been described in Thoning et al., J. Geophys. Research, (1989) vol. 94, 8549-8565. Different data selection methods are compared in that paper, including no selection. The methods give annual means differing by a few tenths of 1 ppm. I assume that you have read the README file [4] when downloading the data. The hourly means are NOT pre-processed, but they are flagged when the st.dev. of the minute averages is large.
The good, the bad and the ugly stations.
Several stations are deemed “good”, as these have minimal influence from local vegetation and/or human emissions (traffic, heating). These are stations in the middle of the oceans, sometimes at coastal points (as long as the wind is not blowing from land side) and/or above the inversion layer. These stations, after discarding outliers, differ from each other within 5 ppmv for yearly averages, of which most is from the delay between the NH and the SH, see next item. 10 of them, spanning the globe from near the North Pole (Alert, Canada) to the South Pole, are used as reference for daily, monthly and yearly averages and yearly trends.”
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#Variations_due_to_local_circumstances:
That there may be variations in CO2 levels at different locations around the globe, is in no way support for the claim that CO2 conglomerates in a layer of its own high in the atmosphere. That is just some baseless claim of Stefan’s.
“That there may be variations in CO2 levels at different locations around the globe, is in no way support for the claim that CO2 conglomerates in a layer of its own high in the atmosphere. That is just some baseless claim of Stefan’s.”
Well, one has to keep in mind that in regard to CO2, our atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen and argon is nearly pure or 99.96% pure. And relative to the atmosphere there are not large sources of CO2 being added to the atmosphere.
To get conglomerates of CO2 you need one of two things. Very accurate measurements of CO2- meaning accuracy within +/- 10 ppm. Or have situation similar as with H20- large concentration [vast oceans] and thereby resulting forming clouds or conglomerates of water droplets and H20 gas.
The places where one has largest absorption and emissions of CO2 such cities are rarely measured accurately- the reason is CO2 varies a lot, and second there is so much CO2 [comparably] , one doesn’t need precise instrument to detect it.
Or normally if you going to measure CO2 accurately, one selects areas which does not have high levels of CO2 and one selects areas with least variation of CO2 levels. With precise instruments, normally one trying to measure global CO2, rather than measuring regional CO2 levels, though fair amount local CO2 levels are measured with easy and cheap [and inaccurate devices] that can measure CO2 levels.
GBAIKIE
I think everyone is making claim that visible light heats the Earth.
Can you provide any references for this? To be clear, that visible light directly causes heat, ie NOT that is it radiated out as lR.
That some IR from the sun warms the earth, is a separate point over which there is agreement.
“GBAIKIE
I think everyone is making claim that visible light heats the Earth.
Can you provide any references for this? To be clear, that visible light directly causes heat, ie NOT that is it radiated out as lR.”
Not sure what distinction you are making.
But to be clear, no [as in none] electromagnetic radiation is heat.
There is no waves or wave-particles of heat.
Heat is characteristic of matter. A photon has questionable mass, but main thing about it, is it’s velocity- ie, it’s going the speed of light.
A photon has mass largely because it’s going the speed of light.
A baseball going the speed of light, is…. disturbing. Any “heat” of any baseball going lightspeed is not the issue- the issue is the ball has more energy than a nuclear weapon. And it has more mass than a normal baseball. As in E=MC^2.
Now to your question.
From above post and your other posts, I get the idea that you think visible light is only re-radiated and does not warm an object. Myrrh and you seem to share a similar idea.
And almost everyone else assumes that all visible light is only absorbed and then once heated from this absorption of energy, it radiates as blackbody [it emits energy according to it’s temperature].
Well, white object doesn’t absorb any energy and black object absorb all energy- sort of thing.
Which I know is wrong.
But you and Myrrh seem to ignoring that a black object does warm more than white object- painting something a color [white, black or pink] does effect what temperature it becomes if it’s exposed to sunlight.
The experiment is dead easy.
Take a black plastic bag, fill it with water, put in sunlight. Also take white plastic bag, fill with water and put in sunlight. Wait an hour, and compare the temperature of the water in each of the bags. If you don’t have white bag, you can use a clear plastic bag- though that might add confusion.
Montalbano | October 27, 2012 at 4:13 am said: ” is in no way support for the claim that CO2 conglomerates in a layer of its own high in the atmosphere.That is just some baseless claim of Stefan’s”
Mate, you are not just lying about the climate; but started lying about me also. Between: going up” and ”.conglomerates in a layer of its own” is few light years difference; WHY ARE YOU LYING?!
.To make it even more clear: I kept repeating that: ”during the day, in the upper atmosphere – one CO2 molecule cannot pas heat to another – BECAUSE THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF oxygen & nitrogen atoms IN-BETWEEN, as perfect insulators. b] The minuscule amount of CO2 doesn’t play any part in regulating the climate, H2O controls the climate! b] The phony global warmings have nothing to do with the big / small climatic changes!!! Can you get that?!
2]c] oxygen & nitrogen control overall to be same warmth units in the troposphere – which is ”the Official Global Temperature” Reason the Warmist are using the sea temp, polar ice and lots of other crap; to sterile the few surviving brains cells in the Fake’s sculls. Get all the correct info on my blog; there are only 10 posts, but you will learn more truth there – than all of you learned since you were in your diapers until today about the phony global warmings – which they started confusing with climatic changes, with every natural catastrophe… Thanks to the lost soul Fakes
“Approximately 50 percent of the solar energy that strikes the top of the atmosphere reaches Earth’s surface. About 30 percent is reflected back to space. The remaining 20 percent of the energy is absorbed by clouds and the atmosphere’s gases. The wavelength of the energy being transmitted, as well as the size and nature of the absorbing or reflecting substance, determine whether solar radiation will be scattered, reflected back to space, or absorbed. The fraction of radiation reflected by a surface is called its albedo. ”
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_lutgens_atmosphere_10/0,6615,3174913-,00.html
Does 50 percent of the solar energy that strikes the top of the atmosphere reaches Earth’s surface?
The short answer is probably not. What certainly not true is that 1/2 of 1360 watts per square or 680 watts per square meter does reach the average sun lit side of surface Earth. One part is the disc area of sunlight intersecting a hemisphere- that halves even if there was no atmosphere.
But with this no atmosphere 100% of sunlight hits the surface- average 1/2 strength but 100% gets to surface. So two different meaning. If assume that 100% of sunlight hits the hemisphere if there is vacuum for atmosphere, how much reduce of 100% occurs if one has Earth type atmosphere but with no clouds. So clear day everywhere on Earth surface.
A clear sky at noon with sun at Zenith stops about 360 of the 1360 watts per square meter at top of atmosphere. And when Sun’s at lower angle more is blocked by the atmosphere. So clear sky blocks about 1/2 of the 100%. Or other way is hemisphere make the average square meter get 1/2 the sunlight, and the clear atmosphere blocks another half. So 25% of sunlight on average reaches an average point on the sunlit side of the planet.
But a third way to look at “50 percent of the solar energy that strikes the top of the atmosphere reaches Earth’s surface” is that the clear atmosphere absorbs and reflects and scatters about 1/2 the sunlight, but this not to say 1/2 “disappears” or goes into space. 1/2 reaches surface *intact* but some of the other portion of 1/2 is absorbed and may be re-radiated and could reach the surface not directly, but reach the earth surface *somewhere*. And same applies to any sunlight reflected or scattered.
So with last meaning, more than 50% “of the solar energy that strikes the top of the atmosphere reaches Earth’s surface” if there was no clouds on Earth.
But of course there are clouds on Earth. And global cloud coverage varies a fair amount but it’s around 30%.
Clouds do a great job of absorbing, scattering and reflecting sunlight- and the degree of this also depends on thickness of clouds.
Now, as rough guide, of the stuff absorbed, reflected, and/or scattered, 1/2 could go directly into space and half goes to earth surface. So clear atmosphere does 50% and clouds does 30%. And halved: 25% and clouds 15%. Or 40% leaves earth.
So 60% reaches Earth surface [affects earth surface in someway], but more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching or affecting earth as first been absorbed, scattered, reflected by atmosphere and clouds.
And once any sort of electromagnet radiation actually reaches the earth surface it can at that point be absorbed, reflected, and/or scattered.
So, “Approximately 50 percent of the solar energy that strikes the top of the atmosphere reaches Earth’s surface.”
Is sort of right, though it could also be really wrong, depending how you look at it.
OK, I see the problem. Myrrh has been claiming that CO2 turns green when visible light passes through it. Myrrh, your science challenge is explain to us how this supposed to happen. And why can we not the see the green CO2 with our own eyes?
I replied above to first part but it’s awaiting moderation.
I thought put rest of it down here.
“I’ve said this before, NASA used to teach that the heat we feel from the Sun is longwave infrared and that shortwave infrared isn’t even hot, that we can’t feel it, now it has been interfered with to produce AGWSF fake fisics.”
And I said this before, NASA the bureaucracy does not provide reliable information.
A NASA article is written by guys in PR section of NASA- bureaucrats- or perhaps college kids, or who knows.
“The brainwashed plebs meanwhile can’t get out of the box they’ve been put in, the second concept in the paragraph I’ve quoted which is your position – that the Sun produces very little heat..”
Sun produces huge amount of thermal infrared or far infared or whatever one wishes to call it.
But the most powerful radiation emitted from the Sun is visible light and near infrared light, and after traveling 149 million km, a large amount of longer wave infrared has diminished over that great distance.
“Inverse-square law
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation
“Rational? Only to those who’ve been brainwashed into thinking visible light from the Sun is the heat we feel.
Which is why I have phrased my science challenge as I have. I really do wish you’d concentrate on producing exactly what I have requested.”
As I have said 250 to 2500 nm is the part of electromagnetic spectrum
which the Sun emits most of it’s energy. And more recently I have guessed that all the wavelength longer than 2500 nm which emitted from the Sun and at Earth distance add up to somewhere around 25 to 30 watts per square meter. Or about 1/50th of energy of spectrum the UV, visible, and near infrared up to wavelength of 2500 nm.
“I have explained that you can’t because it doesn’t exist in real world physics. Visible light works on the electronic transition level, it’s tiny and works on tiny tings only. Bigger thermal infrared, the real heat we feel from the Sun, works on the molecular vibrational level. ”
You know we talking waves and waves have numerous harmonics.
And there zillions of them.
It seems a rather limit view, to say that in theory because something small in one dimension [length] it is somehow incapable heating.
Which reminds me of something, how big is photon?
Look what this guy says:
Silverlancer: “According to Quantum Mechanics, a photon, like any other point particle, has no size at all. It is a point, if treated as a particle. If it is treated as a wave, it has wavelength and amplitude instead, amplitude being the “size”.”
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32102
According to this dude, we aren’t talking about “size”- as we talking in context of a classification of electromagnetic radiation, which classifies according to wavelength, and not amplitude [though there is inverse ratio between them].
And so if we insist in focusing on size, in terms of amplitude visible light is “bigger” than infrared light [or thermal IR] in terms comparing a photon to photon. But size probably little to do with molecular charge-oh I mean, here:
The Electromagnetic Force
One of the four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force manifests itself through the forces between charges (Coulomb’s Law) and the magnetic force, both of which are summarized in the Lorentz force law. Fundamentally, both magnetic and electric forces are manifestations of an exchange force involving the exchange of photons . The quantum approach to the electromagnetic force is called quantum electrodynamics or QED. The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force. ”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
“This is what creates heat, this is what it takes to heat up matter such as land and oceans. And in the real world this is exactly what does heat up the land and water at the equator to give us our huge equator to poles wind system and our dramatic convected weather, our storms, our monsoons, our water cycle.”
The electromagnetic radiation which is in the wavelengths between 3000 to 30,000 nm does not much affect upon temperature of Planet Earth.
Whether talking about this thermal IR from the sun OR the back radiation said to be caused by greenhouse gases.
All of it lack any significant power or ability to do work.
Direct sunlight is diffused energy, and that stuff is really, really diffused energy. Though if you could somehow put it all in a pretty big box, it might be something.
“I have explained why AGWSF has taken out the real direct heat from the Sun, thermal infrared, so that they can pretend, you do understand that word I assume, pretend that the all thermal infrared heat downwelling from the atmosphere comes from their imaginary backradiation from their version of greenhouse gases.”
See above.
Prove the AGWScienceFiction claim that visible light from the Sun directly, physically, heats the land and water at the equator intensely, which is what it takes to give us the huge wind and weather systems we have.
What don’t you understand about the word “physically”. When you brush your dentures the bristles physically move the grot off them, show how visible light physically intensely heats the land and water at the equator.
Your AGWScienceFiction claim is impossible in the real world. Physically impossible.
Visible light from the Sun works on the electronic transitional level which is too small to move the molecules of matter of land and water into vibration which is what it takes to heat these up.
The AGWSF claim is physically impossible.
See my post: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-261238
Deal with this.
Try and prove the MyrhhScienceFiction claim that the sun does not warm the earth.
You can’t.
Try and prove the next MyrrhScienceFiction claim that the earth does not radiate IR.
You can’t.
Try and prove the next MyrrhScienceFiction claim that greenhouse gasses do not exist.
You can’t.
The only debate worth having is the direct science challenge to all who support AGW/CAGW Greenhouse Effect fisics claim:
“That only shortwave mainly visible light from the Sun reaches the surface of Earth where it is absorbed and converts land and ocean to heat”.
Because unless you can show that visible light from the Sun directly heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is actually heated in the real world which produces our huge wind system from the equator to the poles and all our real dramatic weather systems, then you have no wind or weather in your AGW Greenhouse Effect world.
Because you have taken out the real world’s direct heat from the Sun which is the direct invisible thermal infrared and claim this direct longwave infrared doesn’t reach the surface and so has no part in heating land and water, unless you can prove the AGWScienceFiction claim that shortwave directly heats the land and water at the surface then you have no heating at all from the Sun unless you can prove visible light from the Sun does this heating.
So enough bs, prove the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that “its visible light from the Sun which gets through to the surface of the Earth and heats land and water”, prove your idiotic fictional meme “shortwave in longwave out”. Prove it by giving me the detail I have challenged you to produce.
All you are proving here is that you are totally ignorant about how we get real winds and weather, you prove you know nothing about climate.
It takes intense physical cooking of land and water at the equator to give us the great wind and weather systems we have in the real world.
If you can’t prove your AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that visible light from the Sun does this then you are bullsh*tt*ng, all of you; all of the teachers in all the schools and universities teaching the plebs this.
Prove it. Or grow up and recognise that you can’t prove it because it is a con, a fictional fisics created to support the Big Lie of AGW and its Greenhouse Effect.
Failure to produce proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and water intensely at the equator which is your AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim proves you are utter ignoramouses about real world climate.
In other words, prove it or shut the hell up with all your, generic, claims about AGW/CAGW and Carbon Dioxide.
As I understand it, both Memphis & Myrrh think that visible light- electromagnetic radiation from the sun with the wavelength of about 390 to 750 nm. Is not adsorbed [or it’s also possible it doesn’t matter whether visible light is absorbed or not- but rather important aspect is visible light is not a source of heat].
So a warmed sidewalk is not warmed by visible light.
Memphis think the visible light must first be transformed into long wavelength infrared [somewhere in the range of 3000 to 30,000 nm] which warms the air, which then warms the sidewalk.
Myrrh thinks visible light does not transform into heat in any fashion- it’s too small a wavelength and only effects electrons and it provides light and it provide energy for plant life. And for Earth to be warmed requires heat rays from the Sun. Myrrh has never said exactly what wavelength heat rays or dark light or thermo IR are. But he seems to suggest they are somewhere in the range of 3000 to 30,000 nm.
Question for Memphis is there any energy from the Sun which would directly warm the sidewalk. Does UV [10 to 400 nm] directly heat a sidewalk? And/or does 750 to 3000 nm part of infrared spectrum heat the sidewalk. And finally does remaining part of infrared: 3000 to 30,000 nm from the sun directly heat the sidewalk?
Bonus question to Memphis or Myrrh: why and how do magnifying glasses burn paper?
Question for Myrrh: Do heat rays have a wavelength and if so what is it.
And what are watts per square meter of heat rays.
Myrrh what our comment about this *story* from:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_example.html
“As sunlight passes through the prism, the prism divides it into a rainbow of colors called a spectrum. A spectrum contains all of the colors which make up sunlight. Herschel was interested in measuring the amount of heat in each color. To do this he used thermometers with blackened bulbs and measured the temperature of the different colors of the spectrum. He noticed that the temperature increased from the blue to the red part of the spectrum. Then he placed a thermometer just past the red part of the spectrum in a region where there was no visible light and found that the temperature there was even higher. Herschel realized that there must be another type of light which we cannot see in this region. This light is now called infrared. ”
Is it a lie, that Herschel “measured the temperature of the different colors of the spectrum. He noticed that the temperature increased from the blue to the red part of the spectrum. “
See my post: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-261238
Unless you can show how visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator then you have to admit that your AGWScienceFiction fisics is stupid.
It is impossible in the real world.
You can continue b*llsh*tt*ng to avoid dealing with this, but all that shows is your character, lack of integrity.
The second law of thermodynamics says so.
All light entering the earth system which is not reflected back into space, ends up as heat.
Explain how it can be different, without breaking the Second Law.
“Unless you can show how visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator then you have to admit that your AGWScienceFiction fisics is stupid.”
The discoverer in infrared light, Sir Frederick William Herschel (1738-1822) was born in Hanover, Germany, had already shown that visible light warms.
And anyone can repeat the experiment.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_bio.html
” He directed sunlight through a glass prism to create a spectrum (the rainbow created when light is divided into its colors) and then measured the temperature of each color. Herschel used three thermometers with blackened bulbs (to better absorb heat) and, for each color of the spectrum, placed one bulb in a visible color while the other two were placed beyond the spectrum as control samples. As he measured the individual temperatures of the violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, he noticed that all of the colors had temperatures higher than the controls. Moreover, he found that the temperatures of the colors increased from the violet to the red part of the spectrum. After noticing this pattern Herschel decided to measure the temperature just beyond the red portion of the spectrum in a region where no sunlight was visible. To his surprise, he found that this region had the highest temperature of all.
Herschel performed additional experiments on what he called “calorific rays” (derived from the Latin word for heat) beyond the red portion of the spectrum. He found that they were reflected, refracted, absorbed and transmitted in a manner similar to visible light. What Herschel had discovered was a form of light (or radiation) beyond red light, now known as infrared radiation. [The prefix infra means below.] Herschel’s experiment was important because it marked the first time that someone demonstrated that there were types of light that we cannot see with our eyes. ”
Now let’s propose an hypothesis, suppose the color spectrum of violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light which Herschel measured separately and determined were heating his thermometers was not what Herschel was measuring. Instead let’s propose that perhaps the visible light was some sort carrier waves for “heat rays”.
This kind of hypothesis is utterly unimportant scientifically, unless some way can be found to isolate and measure these “heat rays”.
Without being able to isolate and measure “heat rays” the hypothesis
remains just a hypothesis, and not something scientifically proven.
So what I know is, what we identify and name, violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light, does heat up matter.
There could some kind of pixel dust [or unknown part] within the visible light which is “doing the real heating”, but until this “pixel dust” is discovered, one *should* assume for the moment that what is called violet, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red light does actually heat matter.
And I would add that since Herschel time, science has progressed in the century or so since, and we are measuring sunlight in much greater detail and a lot numerous technology are related this, no one has found what could be called “heat rays”- though it’s possible someone will in the future.
“Without being able to isolate and measure “heat rays” the hypothesis
remains just a hypothesis, and not something scientifically proven. ”
Speaking of unproven hypothesis. I once upon time proposed an hypothesis that H2O gas should not form into a liquid or solid without there being pressure involved. Or ice and water should not form from H2O gas in the space environment as there isn’t enough pressure in the vacuum of space. An aspect of this is the latent heat of H2O gas should prevent two or more water molecules from forming- the heat released from the transition for gas to liquid or solid would prevent it.
Some people found this idea VERY annoying.
:)
gbaikie | October 28, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Reply
“Unless you can show how visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator then you have to admit that your AGWScienceFiction fisics is stupid.”
The discoverer in infrared light, Sir Frederick William Herschel (1738-1822) was born in Hanover, Germany, had already shown that visible light warms.
And anyone can repeat the experiment.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/classroom_activities/herschel_bio.html
So, you admit the AGWScienceFiction claim that visible light heats land and water is stupid!
Unable, again, to bring me anything to show how visible light physically does this you resort, again, to a distraction.
We’ve already discussed Herschel… And as I’ve said our measurements are much more advanced than his, thermal infrared is bigger than near infrared and visible, he was measuring overlap because he didn’t know this.
And since Herschel we have in traditional real world physics defined infrared into thermal and non-thermal, near infrared is classed as Light and not Heat, classed as Reflective and not Thermal.
Visible light is Reflective not Thermal, it is Light not Heat. Visible light from the Sun cannot physically move the whole molecule into vibration, which is what it takes to heat up matter.
Unless you can show how visible light from the Sun actually physically heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is heated in the real world which gives us our great equator to poles winds and our dramatic weather systems, then you have to admit that your AGWScienceFiction fisics is stupid. You have no wind or weather in your AGW Greenhouse Effect world.
Or you can continue to try and distract from this, but until you can actually provide proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans as you claim then you are merely obfuscating to cover up the obvious, the AGWSF claim that visible light heats land and ocean is STUPID.
Every applied scientist in the real world physics fields of Optics and Thermodynamics knows this AGWSF claim that shortwave from the Sun heats matter is stupid. They know that the heat we get from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy radiated to us in thermal infrared, it’s called HEAT transfer by radiation, and you’ve taken that out of your Greenhouse Effect energy budget..
The only reason you and your ilk claiming this fake fisics is real aren’t laughed out of real science already is because not many real scientists have examined your basic claims. And because those like you will continue to try and defend the con..
..Herschel was a real scientist, you dishonour him.
The only ‘science’ field where this “visible light from the Sun heats matter” claim is taught is in ‘climate science’, which was created by whoever created the fake fisics of AGW in the first place. And it is brainwashed into the general education system for the plebs so they can’t tell they’ve been conned.
That’s what you’re desperately trying to defend.
A totally fictional world without any climate at all because your fake fisics can’t create it…
“So, you admit the AGWScienceFiction claim that visible light heats land and water is stupid!”
Well, let me put this way, if the earth was only warmed by the visible light,
Earth would very cold. Because infrared light is more than 1/2 of the energy of sunlight.
So if the only energy from the Sun was visible light, I would say Earth would be colder than Mars.
And on Mars CO2 gas freezes out of the atmosphere in the polar region at winter. Daily on Mars [every night time] temperatures drop well above the coldest temperatures ever found on Earth
Mars is a frozen world and would be even more hellishly cold if it had more atmosphere. Or putting say 1000 times more CO2 than currently exist in the atmosphere of Mars would simply create bigger “ice caps” of CO2.
An Earth which only the gets visible light part of the spectrum would probably be warmer than Europa which only has interior ocean of liquid water due tidal heat from it’s orbit with Jupiter.
“So if the only energy from the Sun was visible light, I would say Earth would be colder than Mars.”
Btw, if instead Earth only had infrared part of spectrum and no visible light, Earth would also be as cold as Mars. Though slightly warmer than compared to just having visible light.
And correction at nite on Mars it gets to about same as coldest temperature as have been recorded on Earth. Rather than what I said about it being far colder.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
Also day time highs on Mars in terms skin surface temperature can be around 80 F [nearly 30 C]. And it’s largely due to it’s lack of heat capacity
that explains why it gets so cold [within it’s near earthlike 24 hour length Mars day].
And Mars thin atmosphere allows more sunlight to hit the surface, and because of Earth comparatively very thick atmosphere, that’s why I said that with only visible light it would as cold or much colder than Mars.
gbaikie | October 28, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
“So, you admit the AGWScienceFiction claim that visible light heats land and water is stupid!”
Well, let me put this way, if the earth was only warmed by the visible light,
Earth would very cold. Because infrared light is more than 1/2 of the energy of sunlight.
So if the only energy from the Sun was visible light, I would say Earth would be colder than Mars. etc.
No, let’s not bother putting it any other way, admit the AGWSF claim “that visible light heats land and water” is stupid fisics, or prove that visible light from the Sun can do this, take my challenge.
This is your claim, you make it here:
“So, the problem is I stand in the sun, and I feel it’s warmth. I think it’s from shortwave radiation, Myrrh thinks it’s all from “dark light”.
How can this be resolved?
It can be resolved by you proving the AGWSF claim “that visible light heats land and ocean” and is “what gbaikie feels as warmth”, by taking the science challenge I have given:
Prove that visible light from the Sun heats the land and water intensely at the equator or admit it’s stupid nonsense in the real world.
We cannot feel visible light from the Sun.., it is not a thermal energy…, we cannot feel it as heat, it is not capable of warming us up –
defend your claim that “visible light from the Sun heats matter” and is “what you feel as warmth”, or, admit it’s stupid in the real physical world around us.
Take my challenge, stop obfuscating.
Myrrh, do you believe in photons? Do you believe light photons contain energy? Do you believe the energy is proportional to the frequency as Einstein said? Just trying to establish whether your own fisics predates Einstein, which is what it seems to do.
“This is your claim, you make it here:
“So, the problem is I stand in the sun, and I feel it’s warmth. I think it’s from shortwave radiation, Myrrh thinks it’s all from “dark light”.
How can this be resolved?”
So when say shortwave radiation- I mean the portion of wavelength that is commonly called shortwave. So the near infrared part of the spectrum is part of shortwave radiation.
Infrared is large spectrum, going from 750 to 30,000 nm.
Infrared close to 750 nm is called shortwave. and infrared close to 30,000 nm is call longwave [or very longwave or the far infrared spectrum, or thermal IR- human bodies radiate around 10,000 nm].
And I stated the difference, I think most of warming from direct sunlight
that one feels is from the most energetic portion of sunlight [250 to 2500 nm- or shortwave [though 2500 nm is also fits in where some call called medium wave IR- but if just take just say, 400 to 1200 nm this a large portion of spectrum that has most of sun’s energy. So I am saying most of sun’s energy is causing most of the warming from sunlight.
As compared Myrrh saying *all* heat is from “dark light”.
Or all heat is caused from thermal IR [because *obviously* thermal means heat and why would any one call something thermal IR unless it was causing all the heat in the universe- or something like that:) ].
So I am quite willing to accept that infrared part of sun spectrum does most of the heating, but have seen nothing to make me conclude that visible light is incapable of heating anything.
So, how can this be resolved is still the question.
But must say that this dialogue has provoked me to look for answers.
I had thought that any wavelength beyond 2500 would probably less than 10 watts, and instead it appears to be about 25 watts [which 2.5 times more significant:) ].
And I wonder when it claimed that the solar flux is 1360 watt per square meter whether this quantity of about 25 watts in included in this number.
In my book “Space Mission Analysis and Design” it states TOA solar radiation at Earth distance is 1414 watts per square meter. Perhaps the 1414 watts per square meter includes a broader spectrum than what used for the 1361 watts number.
Such nitpicking might seem excessive- but in the climate science fanstasy world 50 watts per square meter is not considered trivial- instead it’s “world ending” type stuff.
gbaikie | October 28, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
So when say shortwave radiation- I mean the portion of wavelength that is commonly called shortwave. So the near infrared part of the spectrum is part of shortwave radiation. ..
And I stated the difference, I think most of warming from direct sunlight
that one feels is from the most energetic portion of sunlight [250 to 2500 nm- or shortwave [though 2500 nm is also fits in where some call called medium wave IR- but if just take just say, 400 to 1200 nm this a large portion of spectrum that has most of sun’s energy. So I am saying most of sun’s energy is causing most of the warming from sunlight.
As compared Myrrh saying *all* heat is from “dark light”.
Or all heat is caused from thermal IR [because *obviously* thermal means heat and why would any one call something thermal IR unless it was causing all the heat in the universe- or something like that:) ].
So I am quite willing to accept that infrared part of sun spectrum does most of the heating, but have seen nothing to make me conclude that visible light is incapable of heating anything.
So, how can this be resolved is still the question.
The shortwave infrared is credited with 1% of the energy, most simply miss it out as insignificant, and few bother with the UV part. So, you now have to show not only that visible light is heating land and oceans at the equator, you have to resolve how this 1% shortwave infrared “does most of the heating”.
Shortwave infrared is not a thermal energy, we cannot feel it, as NASA says here:
We cannot feel shortwave infrared because it isn’t a thermal energy.
We cannot feel visible or uv for the same reason. These are classified in traditional physics as Light and not classified as Heat. In traditional physics Heat from the Sun is Thermal Infrared.
These shortwaves work on the electronic transition level, see Optics for more information. It is of no interest to Thermodynamics..
Moving the electron of a molecule as visible moves the electrons of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere when these electrons actually absorb visible light, is not moving the whole molecule into vibration – which is what it takes to heat up the molecules. Visible is too damn small to do this, it can’t. It can’t physically move the molecules of water and land into vibration to heat them.
And as I have given many references now, the claim is that it is Visible which is doing the majority of the heating.
Now, whether you want to quibble about that or not, I’m not interested in discussing this. You claim that shortwave does the heating and include visible as doing this, so, prove that visible from the Sun can directly heat land and water.
You can’t, because it can’t.
So, for the gbaikie science challenge…, prove that visible from the Sun can heat land and water.
What’s so difficult here?
Going back to the comment you made here: [because *obviously* thermal means heat and why would any one call something thermal IR unless it was causing all the heat in the universe- or something like that:) ].
In real physics you’re the one who comes across as a joke. All of you who follow the ludicrous AGW memes that “visible light heats land and water and that direct longwave infrared doesn’t heat the Earth”..
Thermal infrared in real physics is also called radiant heat. Because that is what it is, it is thermal energy (which is heat) on the move from hotter to colder (which is heat) transferred by radiation, which is thermal infrared (which is heat).
That’s why it’s called thermal, because it is the electromagnetic wavelengths of heat. Thermal means of heat.
Light is Reflective not Thermal Shortwave infrared is classed as Reflective, not Thermal. Because it isn’t heat.
It’s only “climate science” with its collection of fake fisics which says differently..
that’s why the electromagnetic spectrum has been divided up into what it can and cannot do, into distinct properties and processes, given distinct names.
For example:
AGWScience Fiction claims that we do not get radiant heat direct from the Sun! Stupid isn’t a strong enough word for this…
Sunlight consists of IR, visible and UV. What I find particularly strange is Myrrh’s attempt to try and misrepresent the basic agw argument to be that it is specifically and only the sun’s *visible* light that warms the earth. What does he hope to gain from this strawman? To ‘prove’ that the sun does not warm the earth, and that ‘therefore’ agw is not possible? The mind just boggles…
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 6:07 am | Sunlight consists of IR, visible and UV. What I find particularly strange is Myrrh’s attempt to try and misrepresent the basic agw argument to be that it is specifically and only the sun’s *visible* light that warms the earth. What does he hope to gain from this strawman? To ‘prove’ that the sun does not warm the earth, and that ‘therefore’ agw is not possible? The mind just boggles…
The standard AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect energy budget claims “shortwave in longwave out”, claims that “shortwave from the Sun reaches the Earth’s surface and is absorbed converting to heat and direct longwave from the Sun doesn’t reach the Earth’s surface and plays no part in heating land and ocean”.
Standard as taught to the plebs in general education and ‘climate science’, but not taught in traditional physics. It is not taught in traditional physics because it is nonsense.
Perhaps you are confused by “infrared” in the meme “shortwave in” not being explained as shortwave? It is anyway mostly discounted in the AGWSF energy budget, given an insignificant 1% of the “shortwave in”, the claim is that most of the “shortwave in” is visible light.
It is visible light from the Sun which AGWSF Greenhouse Effect energy budget says “is the main energy from the Sun heating land and ocean” which is why I use visible in my arguments. AGWSF also calls this “Solar” or “Sunlight”.
AGWSF Greenhouse Effect fisics is created by sleights of hand, by tweaking real physics, one of the techniques used in this con is to play on word meaning, as I gave example in its use of the word “absorbed”, this is deliberately done to confuse further; another is juxtaposition of real physics facts next to word play sleight of hand or a meme from AGWSF.
This is a very clever con, it is only possible to see the con, to see the manipulations, if one knows real physics and if one knows at least some of the techniques used. Sometimes these are written by people who know what they’re doing because they know real world physics, but most of the time it is simple repetition of fake physics memes by people who have had no reason to question this.
Here some explanations of what is meant by “shortwave in” from AGWSF:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-252513
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/05/week-in-review-10512/#comment-253602
Myrrh
You still haven’t explained why you keep lying about the standard account. What exactly do you hope to trick people into believing? That the sun doesn’t warm the earth? And that the earth does not radiate heat which is absorbed by greenhouse gasses?
And for once try directly answering the question. Don’t bother with your long boring MyrrhScienceFiction nonsense ‘lecture’.
Memphis | October 29, 2012 at 2:52 am |
Myrrh
You still haven’t explained why you keep lying about the standard account. What exactly do you hope to trick people into believing? That the sun doesn’t warm the earth? And that the earth does not radiate heat which is absorbed by greenhouse gasses?
And for once try directly answering the question. Don’t bother with your long boring MyrrhScienceFiction nonsense ‘lecture’.
I am not lying about the standard account. This is what is taught, I have given examples from universities etc., gbaikie has told you you are wrong and it is the standard account.
I’m not responsible for your inability to understand the standard model..
You owe me an apology.
Oh, and in MyrrhScienceFiction, what happens to the energy from visible light. Does it just disappear?
Memphis | October 29, 2012 at 2:56 am |
Oh, and in MyrrhScienceFiction, what happens to the energy from visible light. Does it just disappear?
Do your own research, you can start by reading what I’ve already written here about this..
So that’s confirmed then. In MyrrhScienceFiction, the energy from visible light that reaches the earth just vanishes.
gbaikie
As regards the question as to how exactly the sun warms the earth – shortwave, longwave, whatever – does it really matter as far as agw is concerned? What difference does it make to the IR the earth radiates as a result of the sun’s warming and which is trapped by greenhouse gasses ?
“As regards the question as to how exactly the sun warms the earth – shortwave, longwave, whatever – does it really matter as far as agw is concerned?”
How exactly the sun warms to the Earth is relevant to climate science.
Yes of course. But is it specifically relevant ro AGW?
iow, what difference does it make to the whole greenhouse gas argument, if the earth is being warmed by
(a) visible light
(b) IR
(c) a bit of both ?
My guess is, the answer is : nothing.
Oh. The connection to agw.
It is commonly said that a greenhouse works by allowing in
visible light and this radiant energy gets absorbed and
then the glass of greenhouse blocks the infrared light.
This is false.
As greenhouse works by inhibiting the convection of heat.
Anyhow this story “explaining how a greenhouse works” is common
way to explain Earth’s “Greenhouse Effect”.
Actually the whole religion of “global warming” is based on this
false idea.
Uh… no. Nobody says that’s how a greenhouse works. That’s how the greenhouse effect works, but the fact it has “greenhouse” in its name does not mean it works in the same way as a greenhouse works.
Please don’t use such obvious straw men.
gbaikie, you said:
It is mind-boggling you would now claim it is something nobody who is “vaguely serious” would say.
Uh… huh? If convection (and thus conduction) isn’t a primary concern, the only form of heat transfer left is radiative. What else could the greenhouse effect be about?
“Uh… huh? If convection (and thus conduction) isn’t a primary concern, the only form of heat transfer left is radiative. What else could the greenhouse effect be about?”
Convection is absolutely a primary concern.
Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is described as all about radiant effects:
Wiki:
“The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.”
All about radiant energy.
Next:
“Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.”
The only mention of convection is the explanation of how greenhouse works. But the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect continues to be about radiant energy.
And the rest:
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So “Earth’s Greenhouse Effect” is said to be all about radiant energy.
So one uses analogy of greenhouse- which all about convection- and then proceed explain Earth’s Greenhouse Effect as all about radiant energy.
And no one see a problem with this?
gbaikie, your central claim appears to be:
But you offer no explanation or justification for it. Instead:
Most everybody agrees the phrase “greenhouse effect” is a misnomer, but why should that be a problem? That a name is a poor descriptor of a scientific theory says nothing about the scientific theory. It certainly doesn’t mean all the belief in the scientific theory is based upon a “false idea.”
gbaikie,
What greenhouse and greenhouse effect have in common is that there’s something that lets solar radiation to get in but restricts the loss of energy. That’s about where the common features end.
In case of greenhouse the something is glazing and restriction is mainly mechanical stopping of convection.
In case of greenhouse effect the something is formed by GHG’s. The immediate effect GHG’s is to influence radiative heat transfer, but nobody knowledgeable thinks that convection would not be important as well. The changes in convection are, however, indirect and result from the modified temperatures, not directly from additional GHG’s.
All this is well known and every physicist who has studied these issues agrees on all that (I exclude crackpots who don’t want to understand or who talk against their better knowledge). All this can also be read from numerous text books, including some that can be obtained from net (search for Rodrigo Caballero, whose lecture notes of May 25, 2012 are a good example of that).
“Pekka Pirilä | October 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
gbaikie,
What greenhouse and greenhouse effect have in common is that there’s something that lets solar radiation to get in but restricts the loss of energy. That’s about where the common features end.”
But there are other much larger factors involved which restrict the loss of energy:
The Kinetic energy of the entire atmosphere.
The potential energy of latent heat of H20 gas.
The heat capacity of the ocean.
And heat capacity of land surfaces.
So, by your definition [the delaying/restricting of loss of energy] the world’s oceans are the largest and most significant “greenhouse effect”.
And Earth atmosphere with mass of 5.1 x 10^18 kg with average kinetic velocity of a few hundred meters per second, is also another large “greenhouse effect”.
“In case of greenhouse effect the something is formed by GHG’s. The immediate effect GHG’s is to influence radiative heat transfer, but nobody knowledgeable thinks that convection would not be important as well. The changes in convection are, however, indirect and result from the modified temperatures, not directly from additional GHG’s.”
Ok, I know, nobody knowledgeable thinks that convection would not be important as well.
But convection isn’t just “as important as well”, rather, it’s basically how the atmosphere is warmed.
“Uh… no. Nobody says that’s how a greenhouse works. That’s how the greenhouse effect works, but the fact it has “greenhouse” in its name does not mean it works in the same way as a greenhouse works.
Please don’t use such obvious straw men.”
I object, to the idea that what I said was a straw man argument.
As in: Reynolds: “I start fightin’ a war, I guarantee, you’ll see somethin’ new.”
I agree that no one who is vaguely serious about the topic, thinks a greenhouse works by trapping radiant energy and they understand that greenhouse works by inhibiting convection of heat.
But rather the story or analogy of a greenhouse is used to explain what the “Earth’s Greenhouse Effect” is.
A greenhouse is metaphor used in in subject of AGW.
The problem with this; is the suggestion and the focus that the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect is all about radiant energy. And this suggestion become a full blown obsession- among “AGW scientists”.
Er, I replied to the wrong comment. You can find my response just above.
gbaikie | October 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Reply
It is commonly said that a greenhouse works by allowing in
visible light and this radiant energy gets absorbed and
then the glass of greenhouse blocks the infrared light …
Anyhow this story “explaining how a greenhouse works” is common
way to explain Earth’s “Greenhouse Effect”. Actually the whole religion of “global warming” is based on this false idea.
This is utter nonsense. The “greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with what happens in greenhouses. What’s more nobody believes or says it does. Just put that strawman on the fire right now,
Of course it matters.. Because, if the real beam heat from the Sun is re-instated into the energy budget of the faked fisics Greenhouse Effect, then the Sun goes back to being a major player and “backradiation from the greenhouse gases” will be much more difficult to use in the scam.
Because, all the real world measurements taken of downwelling longwave, thermal, infrared are now attributed as “from the atmosphere” and not from the Sun direct, beam, and therefore bounced back by these claimed greenhouse gases and so real rises in amount, as for example in the recent warming period we had from the Sun’s activity, are fraudulently attributed to Greenhouse Effect backradiation.
In other words, “because there is a) an invisible barrier which prevents thermal infrared direct from the Sun entering the atmosphere or b) the Sun gives off very little thermal infrared and only a tiny bit of that reaches us, so it must be backradiation from the increase in greenhouse gases”
Of course it’s extraordinary that they, who created and promoted this fake fisics of AGW, have been able to obliterate the real direct heat from the Sun, but that’s the great delusion they’ve pulled off.
What is more difficult to understand is how those taking part in these discussions keep avoiding the reality here..
If you cannot show that visible light direct from the Sun can heat land and water at the equator to the intensity it is heated which gives us our huge winds from equator to poles and all our dramatic weather systems, then YOU HAVE NO WIND OR WEATHER IN YOUR WORLD.
Because you’ve taken out the real direct heat from the Sun which actually accomplishes that. The real thermal infrared direct from the Sun to the Earth which is what we feel as heat, because it heats us up.
We can’t feel visible light.
Visible light is not a thermal energy.
Visible light cannot move land and water into vibration which is what it takes in the real world to heat up land and water, to raise its temperature.
Now, take the science challenge. Because if you can’t prove that visible light heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is heated, you have no heat from the Sun..
..so there’s no heated Earth in your fictional world, no upwelling of claimed heat therefore no backradiation of it.
You have no heat from the Sun.
I’m still waiting for you to explain how a visible frequency photon from a laser is somehow not the same as a visible frequency photon from the sun. Specifically how photons from visible laser can raise the temperature of something it strikes while photons from the sun cannot.
Entertain me, goofy!
I don’t find your rudeness entertaining.
Grow up. Take my science challenge.
Myrrh, one of the more rude bloggers here, is still hiding behind a claim of rudeness in order to avoid David Springer’s question about photons.
I don’t imagine you do. But I still find your imbecility entertaining.
So what’s the difference between a visible light photon from the sun and a visible light photon from a laser? I’m dying of curiosity here. ;-)
What difference does it make to the AGW theory if the earth is warmed by the sun’s IR or its visible light ?
Myrrh : it matters.. Because, if the real beam heat from the Sun is re-instated into the energy budget of the faked fisics Greenhouse Effect, then the Sun goes back to being a major player and “backradiation from the greenhouse gases” will be much more difficult to use in the scam.
This completely ducks the question. Unless you are going to deny the earth heats the sun at all, then it makes no difference HOW the sun heats the earth, the result is the still the same – the earth then radiates all/some of this heat, which heats greenhouse gasses, which in turn return some of this heat to the earth.
Myrrh says the sun’s IR is wrongly attributed to backradiation by greenhouse gasses.
Though he doesn’t seem to deny that greenhouse gasses are warmed by IR, wherever it comes from.
Which means he is still ducking the question.
What might help quantify AGW, is measuring
(a) downwelling IR from the sun in space, before it encounters the earth’s atmosphere
(b) upwelling IR
Myrrh says visible light cannot warm the earth (land and oceans)
Besides being complete nonsense (where does he think the energy from visible light goes? Does it just vanish, fail to get conserved? Or perhaps he denies visible light has any energy at all?), he is still ducking the question. One more time then : even if it were true that only the sun’s IR warms the earth, there would still be a greenhouse effect.
“Myrrh says visible light cannot warm the earth (land and oceans)
Besides being complete nonsense (where does he think the energy from visible light goes? Does it just vanish, fail to get conserved? Or perhaps he denies visible light has any energy at all?), he is still ducking the question. One more time then : even if it were true that only the sun’s IR warms the earth, there would still be a greenhouse effect.”
Myrrh seems to think the backradiation measured is actually from the Sun.
I have problem with “backradiation measured” and Myrrh’s replacement for it. The magnitude of this energy is said to be hundreds of watts per square meter. Which is in ballpark range of the solar energy collected from solar panels- yet this energy can’t be made to do any work. Or you can’t warm a gallon of water with this theoretical energy.
But I think visible and infrared light is reflected/diffused/scatttered/re-radiated significantly more than solar budget’s generally assume.
Or far less energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth.
Which means far less energy is radiated as a blackbody.
Or if each day vast amounts of sunlight is absorbed, then vast amount of sunlight in a day must be radiates as heat.
A common myth that this these models suggest is if not for the “greenhouse effect” Earth surface would very rapidly lose heat.
Radiant energy is poor conductor of energy- it takes a while for something to cool down if it’s only emitting the energy as radiant energy.
Though if it’s really hot it emits a lot more radiant energy.
A hot frying pan can cooled much quicker by pouring water on it- probably around 100 times faster- than compared simply letting it radiate the heat.
A sidewalk in sunlight of 800 watts per meter per second, is not absorbing 800 watts per second. Nor is it absorbing 600 watts per second. Nor if in the vacuum of space would the warmed sidewalk emit and thereby cool by 800 or 600 watts per second.
If a sidewalk was the mythical blackbody it would do this- but it’s a sidewalk not a blackbody.
Painting the sidewalk black would help, but it still doesn’t make it a blackbody. We have black paint. We have no blackbodies.
gbaikie,
Most solid and liquid surfaces are very close to a blackbody as emitter and absorber of LWIR (that’s true even for the whitest snow). Typical emissivities are in the range 0.95..1.0. Only the best black coatings make bodies as black for visible light and near IR.
Therefore most bodies emit around 400 W/m^2 at room temperature. They don’t cool fast due to this emission because they absorb about as much IR that comes from their surrounding, i.e. both from other nearby bodies and from the atmosphere. The net heat flows are much smaller like 60 W/m^2 which is a typical estimate for the average net energy transfer from Earth surface due to LWIR taking both emission and absorption into account.
” Pekka Pirilä | October 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
gbaikie,
Most solid and liquid surfaces are very close to a blackbody as emitter and absorber of LWIR (that’s true even for the whitest snow). Typical emissivities are in the range 0.95..1.0. Only the best black coatings make bodies as black for visible light and near IR.”
So LWIR would be, say 8000 to 15,000 nm?
Or within the range IR that most of the radiant energy a human body emits?
If i were to look for emitter of LWIR could do much better than say electrical heater?
Would it be a true statement that electrical heater is emitting mostly radiation of a shorter wavelength than LWIR?
In other words, suppose I had an electrical heater which was rating at 2000 watts. This how much electrical energy it requires, but also indicates roughly how much infrared energy it will produce.
And if I had meter square sheet of steel and place the heater in front of sheet of steel and reflected as much as could the infrared energy from the heater. The result would be that the sheet of metal would radiate more LWIR. I would be converting more the shorter wave infrared into LWIR. But also would not necessarily be making a “better heater”- but my point is I’m trying to make as much LWIR as I can from the electrical heater. If made the sheet 1 meter by 2 meters, I would making even more LWIR [assuming I can evenly heat the 1 by 2 meter sheet of metal].
Other than the heater and sheets of metal what would better way making LWIR which had highest power per square meter and how much is possible per square meter?
Now we have the best emitter of LWIR [whatever it is] and we want test how much LWIR is absorbed at the 9000 nw wavelength at a distance of 10 feet from emitter a meter square. How energy is it? Say, between 8950 to 9050 nw wavelengths.
And so are we sure it doesn’t matter what kind of material is used to absorb this energy?
The best and standard place to put the threshold between SWIR and LWIR is around 3um. Almost all radiation from sun is at wavelengths shorter than this threshold and almost all radiation from surfaces cooler than 100C is at wavelengths longer than this threshold.
Radiative heaters operate at temperatures of several hundred C which makes them radiate strongly at both longer and shorter wavelengths than 3um. Most of the energy is still radiated and wavelengths longer than 3um.
The strongest absorption in air occurs around 15um where CO2 has its absorption peak. At that wavelength most of the IR radiation is absorbed in a couple of meters, but there’s also a lot of radiation from the nearby air.
The absorptivity/emissivity of surfaces may get more clearly less than one at the lower end of the LWIR region, i.e. around 4-5 um but that has very little influence on the energy radiated by Earth surface, because most of the energy is radiated at longer wavelengths anyway.
The heating power of a radiative heater is not affected much by the average emissivity at the temperature of the heating element but a lower emissivity increases a little its temperature when the power is kept the same. That compensates for the lower emissivity. Metal surfaces reflect also IR but less when the wavelength is more than a couple of um. Some well polished surfaces reflect also LWIR but most surfaces do not. Thus many metal surfaces are still rather effective reflectors for radiative heaters which have a high temperature heating element, but less effective when the temperature is lower.
Memphis | October 31, 2012 at 3:19 am | Reply
Myrrh says visible light cannot warm the earth (land and oceans)
Besides being complete nonsense (where does he think the energy from visible light goes? Does it just vanish, fail to get conserved? Or perhaps he denies visible light has any energy at all?), he is still ducking the question.
——————————————————————————–
I think he’s a double agent working for Al Gore on a mission to make skeptics look bad. The sad thing is it seems to work on people like loltwat, tempterrain, Joshua, and assorted other ass clowns. Of course those imbeciles might be double agents working for big oil.
I try not to take any of it too seriously. Life’s too short.
“Pekka Pirilä | October 31, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
The best and standard place to put the threshold between SWIR and LWIR is around 3um. Almost all radiation from sun is at wavelengths shorter than this threshold and almost all radiation from surfaces cooler than 100C is at wavelengths longer than this threshold. ”
Ok, so you divided IR into two parts: SW and LW.
So, next go back to your statement:
“Most solid and liquid surfaces are very close to a blackbody as emitter and absorber of LWIR”
If true, then it seems also the most solid and liquids aren’t transparent or reflective to LWIR.
Of course one thing is LWIR is huge chunk of spectrum.
And small parts of this LWIR is transparent to Earth’s atmosphere.
Another aspect is low intensity of any power signals in the 3um to 30um range. And the part 3 to 8um has more powerful sources, than compared to other part of 8 to 30um.
A normal 100 watt incandescence light would more energy emitted in 3 to 8um as compared to 8 to 30um.
Whereas large and near object which was 100 C would give more energy in the 8 to 30um range.
Hmm, I had a question how powerful one make light in this spectrum, but apparently there lasers that function in this wavelength:
“QCLs currently cover the wavelength range from 2.75–250 μm (and extends to 355 μm with the application of a magnetic field).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cascade_laser
And:
“Quantum cascade laser (QCL) is a construction of such alternative. It is a solid-state semiconductor laser that can operate continuously with output power of over 100 mW and wavelength of 9.5 µm. A prototype was already demonstrated. and potential use shown”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-infrared_laser
More QCL:
http://www.daylightsolutions.com/technology/qcl_technology.htm
Which graph of atmosphere absorption [0 to 15 microns] and btw, “A key application for QCLs is stand-off explosives detection”
More:
“While quantum cascade lasers serve as the engines for new techniques in spectroscopy in the mid-IR, they also can provide raw power at new performance levels. Powers exceeding 5 W have been demonstrated from single room-temperature devices.[19] Combining performance such as this with ruggedized packaging has enabled a new generation of Infrared Countermeasure (IRCM) devices. High-power, solid-state lasers that operate in mid-infrared “atmospheric windows” can be used by pointer-trackers to disable the heat seeking mechanism employed on surface-to-air missiles, thus safeguarding soldiers in battlefield situations. Multiple “socket” architectures where a set of QCLs have been made to be collinear have been productized in militarily hardened packages. These units can produce in excess of 15 W and have completed a series of stringent environmental tests, including helicopter flight testing.”
Anyhow main question was how get enough energy and tight enough “beam” to measure it- and it seems I answered my question :)
No of course not. On footnote 177 on page 176656 of MyrrhScienceFiction : A Brief Primer, it clearly states that visible light passes through the earth, comes out the other side, and carries on going. This is why visible light cannot warm the earth.
Why is it so difficult for you all to grasp what I’m saying? I have set a science challenge which you should be able to prove if your claim that shortwave from the Sun heats the Earths land and water and longwave infrared from the Sun doesn’t.
This is your basic, standard, energy budget.
It’s for you to say how this claimed great heating energy of Visible Light is doing this, and if you can’t, which you clearly can’t, then you cannot claim this is real world physics.
The problem is as I know, you can’t find any detail of how shortwave/visible heats the Earth and you’re just obfuscating because you know sod all about the subject. I’ve given you enough real physics information about this for you to see this is a scam. Your attempts to avoid confronting the issue do you no credit at all, and certainly, do not show any science bent on your part.
The Greenhouse Effect comic cartoon energy budget has taken out the real direct heat from the Sun and substituted visible light for it. You have no heating in your comic cartoon world. You’re having all these weighty arguments amongst yourselves, AGW v CAGW, about carbon dioxide in a world which is the most ludicrous fictional scenario that could be imagined.
That’s why it’s comedic. Great for a micky mouse cartoon, but really, you’re now teaching at university level that the real heat from the Sun “doesn’t get through the atmosphere or the Sun produces so little of it that it’s insignificant”
And you really, it appears, can’t see anything wrong with that! You just don’t know, yet, how funny that is.
Because you don’t know that you don’t have any real physics in your Greenhouse Effect world, that it is all fiction, tweaked from real physics. You keep trying to make sense of fake fisics, to make it logical, but it has no logic, no internal coherence because it was designed to confuse, not to describe the real world. I have given you real world physics explanations of how these tweaks have been made, and why.
Maybe you can’t hear this because you have no sound in your world..?
Maybe one day you’ll get that joke.
I’ve already explained what happens to visible light energy in examples of photosynthesis and reflection/scattering in the atmosphere. You’re the ones who don’t have any idea what visible light can and can’t do.. I have already explained it in order to show you that it is not a thermal energy and can’t do what the Greenhouse Effect energy budget says it does.
But you’re so brainwashed by the meme “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat when absorbed” and the silly rebuttal “conservation of energy”, that you can’t understand when I give example of non heat conversion of visible light which is also energy conserved..
Because you actually know nothing about real physical properties and processes of matter/energy.
I’m giving you an opportunity to prove to yourselves that your “visible light heats the Earth” fisics is real or not. You appear too scared to take the challenge.
Science Challenge to all holding the Fictional Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget of Shortwave/Mainly Visible from the Sun directly heating the Earth’s Land and Water:
Show how Visible Light from the Sun directly heats the land and water at the Equator to the intensity these are actuallly heated by the Sun to give us our real huge Wind and Weather Systems, in the real world.
Myrrh,
How could anybody show you anything when you dismiss all arguments including the best and most certainly correct ones?
You have your own ideas. Nobody seems to take you seriously and that includes also all other skeptics as far as I judge. Can you imagine why?
You don’t have any arguments.. You, generic, just keep regurgitating the fake fisics of the Greenhouse Effect.
Put your science where your mouth is, take up my challenge. How is it so difficult for you to show that visible light heats the land and water at the equator intensely to get us our great wind and weather systems? This is your BASIC CLAIM!
You’ve never heard it put like that? Of course you haven’t, your fake fisics doesn’t describe the real world.
Why won’t anyone here provide the simple information I’m asking for here? Show how visible light heats land and water to get our great weather systems? Don’t you know anything about how we get our winds and weather? Don’t you know anything about how different electromagnetic energies interact with matter? If you can’t provide real physical science, don’t b*llsh*t with your continued pretence to know what the hell you’re talking about..
Show how Visible Light from the Sun directly heats the land and water at the Equator to the intensity these are actuallly heated by the Sun to give us our real huge Wind and Weather Systems, in the real world.
Do you even understand what I’m asking for?
What is wind?
What is wind?
—————————————————–
One definition would be 98.6F methane-rich gas coming out of my tuchus in your general direction.
I showed you videos of visible light laser lighting stuff on fire. You said lasers aren’t the same as the sun. I asked what’s the difference between a photon from a laser and a photon from the sun. You refused to give me an answer. You therefore have no more use except as the butt of jokes so long as you deign to show your ass clown name on this blog. Write that down.
No, I don’t.
I asked you how anything can be proven to your satisfaction. You don’t have an answer for that. Therefore there’s no way of answering to you.
Full answers have been given many times to you based on criteria that others consider relevant but that’s not what you accept, because you don’t accept anything based on known valid physics.
What would you accept?
Pekka Pirilä | November 1, 2012 at 5:18 am |
Do you even understand what I’m asking for?
No, I don’t.
I asked you how anything can be proven to your satisfaction. You don’t have an answer for that. Therefore there’s no way of answering to you.
Full answers have been given many times to you based on criteria that others consider relevant but that’s not what you accept, because you don’t accept anything based on known valid physics.
What would you accept?
But you haven’t given me any answers based on known valid physics.
Known valid physics says that visible light can’t heat land and water.
The problem here is that you don’t have any real known valid physics, but you don’t know you don’t have this.
Which is why I phrased my challenged as I have, the only way it can be answered is by providing real world known valid physics, of properties and processes of matter and electromagnetic energy. By doing so you might learn along the way the real valid physics of heat transfer in fluid dynamics which is how we get out great wind and weather systems from the equator to the poles, because you would then understand that the atmosphere around us is a heavy voluminous fluid and the dynamics of heat transfer in this is by convection which is what wind is, created out of differential heating of volumes of this fluid.
But the challenge iself is simple, very simple. I am simply asking you to show how visible light direct from the Sun heats land and water at the equator. I am asking you to show how visible light physically heats the land and water at the equator. Do you understand what “physically” means?
How does visible light direct from the Sun which you claim directly heats the Earth’s surface when it is absorbed, do this? How does it physically do this? Show me how it physically does this. Show me how it physically does this using real known valid physics.
I have already given real world known valid physics to say it can’t. It can’t because light is not a thermal energy, it takes real valid known thermal energy to move matter into vibration which is what it takes to heat matter. Visible light from the Sun cannot physically do this as you claim it does.
Visible light from the Sun cannot heat water, ergo, it cannot be heating the oceans and water at the equator to the intensity this is heated to create our great wind and weather systems. Water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is not absorbed it is transmitted through unchanged. Visible light cannot be heating water anywhere on the Earth’s surface, because it physically can’t.
Show me real valid known physics to say visible light heats matter which is your AGWScienceFiction claim.
Until you can show it can, you have no science right to claim it can.
This is your claim, I am challenging you to provide all the detail.
How can you not understand what I’m asking for? You’re supposedly all here scientists or interested in science..
Show me how visible light from the Sun physically heats land and water at the equator to the intensity this is actually physically heated which gives us our great wind and weather systems.
This is your claim, how can you not easily provide me with this physical information? Don’t you have anything explaining the different properties and processes of electromagnetic energy from the Sun and how visible light physically heats matter?
Show me how visible light from the Sun physically heats land and water.
Myrrh | November 1, 2012 at 8:52 am |
Known valid physics says that visible light can’t heat land and water.
Unless you can provide actual evidence for this, it will just remain a bald claim of your own. This is really your basic science challenge here. And “It can’t because light is not a thermal energy” is just another bald claim.
Water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is not absorbed it is transmitted through unchanged
And when it reaches the ocean floor, does it get absorbed or is it transmitted though unchanged, emerging at the other side of the globe? (Similarly visible light that that hits land).
And why does it get darker as you go deeper?
” **Water is a transparent medium for visible light, it is not absorbed it is transmitted through unchanged***
–And when it reaches the ocean floor, does it get absorbed or is it transmitted though unchanged, emerging at the other side of the globe? (Similarly visible light that that hits land).
And why does it get darker as you go deeper?– ”
Mainly the light is diffused.
If you really good transparent glass- if made thick enough, 1 km or 100 km thick it would prevent light from passing thru it. Or fiber optic are very transparent and you have limit to how far light will transmit thru it [and you are using lasers] . Oh, better transmission length than I thought:
“For comparison, while single-line, voice-grade copper systems longer than a couple of kilometers require in-line signal repeaters for satisfactory performance; it is not unusual for optical systems to go over 100 kilometers (62 mi), with no active or passive processing. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Comparison_with_electrical_transmission
Anyhow, I doubt ocean are as transparent as fiber optic cable, nor is the sun a laser beam.
Now suppose light is absorbed at 1% per meter depth as some kind of guess, so if have 1000 watts, first meter gets 10 watts per cubic meter.
That doesn’t seem like much heating. And I wonder how heats anything.
It said red light does not penetrate very deep and blue light
goes down 100 meters or so. So blue light might around 1%. and other parts of light spectrum are 2% and red light and infrared are 10% or more per meter depth. So you might have around 100 watts or more in first meter depth.
But it still does not make much sense.
And exactly how ocean is warmed by sunlight seems rather important to know about if you going to have any understanding of global climate
Addressing the question : what happens to visible light reaching the ocean
gbaikie : Mainly the light is diffused.
Where TO though ?
An additional question for gbaikie to ponder:
What happens to the photons when light gets diffused?
None of this down-in-the-weeds stuff you guys are arguing about is relevant to the topic of this thread. The is thread asks: “What’s the best climate question to debate>”.
Arguing about photons, temperature trends, start and end dates for the trends etc seems to keep most Climate Etc bloggers occupied indefinitely. It’s down-in-the-weeds irrelevant nonsense compared with what is important.
“Addressing the question : what happens to visible light reaching the ocean
gbaikie : Mainly the light is diffused.
Where TO though ?”
The light is diffused and absorbed. It may finally be absorbed in the eye of alien a thousand light year away.
Say you in fog. You have headlights of car on. This light maybe absorbed by the road, it may reflect back to the driver so driver can see the road. The headlights also going to diffused by the fog, and if headlight are are high beams, it’s going light up road, but also going directed mostly at fog, and make you unable to see the road or anything other than bright fog.
If outside the car with it’s headlights on, you going have glowing light where headlights are pointed and it’s going increase light levels in broad area in front of the car. One might able to read a book in some locations which you couldn’t do, if there was no fog.
If you in this fog and go say 100 feet away you going see the brighter areas and less bright areas are not going to not be visible. They might detectable by something, but not your eyes- though your eyes are pretty good at seeing poorly lit things.
Say, the fog ended at some point- your car was in thick fog and you were not in fog. The light might look more spherical, or like blob of light- weaker light may reach your eyes.
So it seems light under water is sort of similar to fog- light is fuzzier at distance as compare non fog condition in atmosphere.
I would find interesting how far a laser would go thru water.
So in Ocean the water glows from sunlight- the light is less directional.
Laser beam in fog:
Most of the energy of solar radiation that passes through the ocean surface is absorbed in the topmost ten or twenty meters. Under best conditions some light can be observed at depths of kilometers but little energy gets that deep.
In other words, what happens to visible light* reaching the ocean, is that it is diffused into the top 10-20 meters, thereby heating it, which inter alia results in increased radiation back up again.
And I imagine a similar principle applies to visible light reaching land.
* Understood to include near-infrared
Diffusion means scattering where almost no energy is transferred, but that makes light to go longer distances in the top layers increasing absorption there. Energy is transferred in absorption which is mostly due to all kind of impurities. Longer wavelengths are absorbed more strongly also by pure sea water. Therefore near IR does not penetrate as deep as visible light and red not as deep as blue. Longer IR wavelengths are absorbed in a very thin layer. See a graph in this text. There we can see that violet light penetrates hundreds of meters in pure water while red penetrates only meters and near IR less than that. Absorption coefficient of 0.001 1/cm means that half of energy is absorbed in 7m and 100 1/cm that half is absorbed in 0.7 mm.
Chlorophyll is also green, because it absorbs strongly red light. That energy goes in part directly to heating while part of that is transformed first to chemical energy and only later to heat when the organic material is destroyed.
We’re all still waiting for Myrrh to tell is what happens to the energy from visible light after it strikes their earth. In his MyrrhScienceFiction ‘explanation’, this energy just vanishes by magic into thin air, and sadly he is proving very resistant to showing us *how* this magic works. Perhaps he’s beavering away at a Nobel prize folks. Or perhaps he’s the most ignorant person that has ever blogged here.
BatedBreath | November 1, 2012 at 4:48 am said: ” Or perhaps he’s the most ignorant person that has ever blogged here”
Bated, ignorance is in the eyes of the beholder. It’s not Myrrh fault for you people being too ignorant to understand what he is saying!
1] what is ”visible light” for you, is not for other animals – b] birds can see colours of light that you can’t.
2] .some colours of the light / photons are accompanied by higher radiation, others not. Radiation that creates heat, Heat is accumulative. BUT, strictly speaking of the photons as ”visible light’ is not / it turns to nothing: If you have strong light in a chamber for 10 days, chamber without windows, to prevent it of escaping – will not accumulate – when you turn the lights off, will instantly get dark. You can transfer / calculated heat created by radiation parts, but cannot accumulate / transfer the photons – otherwise you would be able to accumulate photons in pots and buckets during the day and use it at night home, to save electricity. When somebody surfers from hypothermia – they use illuminating blanket. b] mirror reflects sunlight, because those different colours of light have radiation effect + photons, as light. Myrrh’s only fault is: wasting so much time on ignorants like you, Springer and Memphis, thugs with a ”closed parashoot brains”.
“Radiation that creates heat, Heat is accumulative. BUT, strictly speaking of the photons as ”visible light’ is not / it turns to nothing: If you have strong light in a chamber for 10 days, chamber without windows, to prevent it of escaping – will not accumulate – when you turn the lights off, will instantly get dark.”
Strong light in chamber will warm up the chamber.
The visible light of the Sun is far more powerful in terms of it’s intensity than light bulbs. The filament of incandescent bulb is just over 3000 K and the Sun is twice as hot.
So one can’t make the light of sunlight.
But if had chamber 10 by 10 meters [pretty big room] so it has 100 square meter of floor space. Sunlight is 1000 watts per square meter- almost 1/2 of energy as visible light.
So roughly one light the room with 1000 100 watt incandescent bulb.
And this room would light less bright than sunlight.
Something more similar to Sunlight would 1000 100 watt Short arc lamps- which “are usually used in movie theater projectors, searchlights, some stage spotlights”
http://www.uvcuring.com/TechArt/shortarc.htm
Or 100 1000 watt Short arc lamps.
“Short arc lamps have numerous hazards. The arc is about as intense as a welding arc or a carbon arc. One should not look directly at the arc. If your eyes are already adapted to bright light, you may get away with looking at the arc for up to a few seconds with no permanent eye damage – but doing this is NOT a good idea. You won’t hurt your eyes looking at the arc through #12 welding glass – but there are other hazards. Filters made for looking directly at the sun will also make the arc safe to look at directly. Most other dark transparent materials will not protect your eyes since they let through enough infrared to risk cooking spots on your retina.
The arc emits almost every kind of ultraviolet in the book, including large amounts of UV-A, UV-B, and some UV-C. These different ultraviolet bands are bad for different parts of your eyes. Number 12 welding glass and sun-viewing filters will protect your eyes. However, the UVC, UVB, and the shortest UVA wavelengths can sunburn your skin. Serious sunburn and increased risk of skin cancer may result from significant exposure to this radiation. These wavelengths are blocked by ordinary glass, but for other reasons below it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to only operate short arc lamps in fixtures designed and made for them by qualified personnel – typically engineers and technicians who work for the fixture manufacturers. ”
So this room with 100 1000 watts Short arc lamps would very similar to amount of visible light of sunlight.
And it would like the room quite warm.
Stefan
1. Here is a link to help you with what scientists means by “visible light”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
2. Your closed room story. So your position is the the energy from light simply disappears then?
Doesn’t that violate some basic laws of physics?
BatedBreath | November 2, 2012 at 3:45 am asked: ”Stefan 2. Your closed room story. So your position is the the energy from light simply disappears then?”
The energy you are referring is kinetic / heat. Photons that allowed you to see for the previous 10h; as soon as you switch off – gone. Please don’t mix ‘energy and the photons as same thing. you can have heat without photons; as in microwave’s cooking. b] you can accumulate heat in the pot of water and carry it in the next room, but accumulating ”light photons” in the pot – I heard only one story about it, do you have the second?… cheers
Stefen,
That you cannot accumulate photons does not mean they do not have energy. So when photons strike an object, the associated energy does not just disappear.
Just to clarify Myrrh’s position :
1. Visible light cannot warm the earth
2. Therefore visible light cannot warm the earth
“Just to clarify Myrrh’s position :
1. Visible light cannot warm the earth
2. Therefore visible light cannot warm the earth.”
And a more interesting question is how much does the visible light part of spectrum warm the Earth.
I think it’s an easier question to ask how much does visible light part of spectrum warm the Moon.
One could say that the lunar surface of around 120 C during the lunar day is close to the Sun’s temperature at Earth/Moon distance.
Or if you had two objects in space, one generating heat- so it was say 1000 C. And the other object was not generating heat but was instead various distance from the heated object. These various distance could called the sun temperature at whatever the distance.
The object not generating heat can never exceed 1000 C of the warmed object. If it’s very close it can be around 1000 C.
If near object was a blackbody and a sphere, it could have average temperature fairly near 1000 C. And if not the mythical blackbody but instead say made of iron and one side always faced the sun, the sun lit side could hotter than the mythical blackbody [closer to 1000 C] and nite side could be far cooler. And therefore it’s average temperature could be
much lower than compared to mythical blackbody.
So temperature of lunar surface during day is the sun temperature if the sun diameter increased to Earth/Moon distance but was also emitting the same total energy as the current sun does at it’s much smaller diameter.
So a blackbody with a lot more surface area to radiate the energy.
So such enlarged sun generating same energy output instead being 6000 K would be around 400 K.
Our sun temperature is controlled by how much fusion reaction are occurring in the sun, if less fusion reactions were occuring the sun would have lower surface temperature- and would emitting less visible light.
If the Sun’s temperature was 4000 K, it would emitting far less visible light- it would slightly warmer than an incandescent light bulb- therefore
around 10% of light would visible light rather than about 1/2 of the energy being visible light. So around 70% reduction from 6000K
And about 80% reduction in visible light.
So roughly the main difference between a sun which was 6000 K as compared to 4000 K is a loss of visible light.
And sun would be red- orange, rather than yellow- white.
And very roughly, the sun temperature at Earth/Moon distance would around 300 K. And Lunar day surface temperature would be around 0 C rather than 120 C. Or lower “average temperature by around 60 C.
It seems to me that Earth’s average temperature would less affected as compared to the Moon. Earth average temperature would lower by about 30 C. Or the tropics would well below freezing during the day.
Memphis and all CAGW promotors did not understand any science in between these 2 statements. That’s why we such a fraudulant CO2 warming the atmosphere.
And anyway the whole Myrrh thing is so utterly pointless, unless he is going to further claim that the sun doesn’t warm the earth AT ALL, ie by ANY wavelength.
If the sun somehow warms the earth, and the earth radiates longwave that is increasingly trapped by increasing CO2, we still have an AGW situation of some or other magnitude.
gbalkie has usefully clarified something from Myrrh’s long ramblings : Myrrh thinks the longwave coming to earth is directly from the sun, and is wrongly being attributed to backradiation.
Couldn’t this be easily settled by measuring incoming longwave out in space?
Also, as regards the issue of the what effect visible light has on land and oceans, what is the actual evidence?
(And it simply passes through the atmosphere without affecting it, does it?)
Seen in a bar and applicable to some of the denizens here?
Myrrh : Known valid physics says that visible light can’t heat land and water.
Reference?
And Myrhh, in your scenario, what happens to the energy from visible light? Where does it go? It obviously can’t just go out of existence, so where does it end up?
Myrrh
1. The sun warms the earth (the wavelength is irrelevant)
2. The earth radiates heat
3. GHGs trap some of this heat, slowing the earth’s cooling
With me so far ?
Since Myrrh ignores the question, I’ll repeat it :
1. The sun warms the earth (the wavelength is irrelevant)
2. The earth radiates all/some of this heat
3. GHGs trap some of that heat, slowing the earth’s cooling
With me so far ?
Tomcat | November 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm said: ”Since Myrrh ignores the question, I’ll repeat it’
Tomcat, your question has being answered; by answering the gbaikie’s question: NO EXTRA HEAT IS EVER TRAPPED FOR MORE THAN 10 MINUTES!!!
1] as fanatic carbon molester; you are conveniently overlooking the important factors: 1] the sea, 2/3 of the surface area has a ”mirror effect” – reflects lots of the sunlight. When the sun is on the horizon, look at the sea – you will start sneezing, same as looking at the sun = when the sun is at the zenith – a lot is instantly reflected; get that on board; ”most” is NOT absorbed.
:2] second and most important factor: extra heat in the troposphere is NOT ACCUMULATIVE!!! Example: in Sahara, from sunrise to midday, temp goes from 5C to 45C ==== on same latitude, in Brazil, goes from 20C to 35C === next step: if cooling was the same in goth places; in Sahara after a month, the temperature would have accumulated to 1000C
Instead, in Brazil cooling at night slows down, by the same molecules that prevent overheating during the day. in Sahara is always clear sky + no H2O present = heats more during the day / cools faster during night === extra heat in the atmosphere is NOT accumulative == you the Warmist, and the Fakes don’t have a case!!! Visit my formulas and stop playing dumb!!!
Every EXTRA heat, INCLUDING the geothermal heat, including heat from burning fossil fuel, is instantly wasted == therefore: ”the earth’s atmosphere releases MORE heat than what the sun produces on the earth”. Thanks to the O&N, expanding more when extra warm / shrinking more when extra cooled. My formulas are 100% correct, rely on what is reliable. DISREGARDING the function in regulating the warmth in the atmosphere by oxygen & nitrogen, is the precursor of all contemporary evil: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
read it and stop being ignorant like the ”chief” OR admit that you are scared from the truth and from real proofs!!!
Tomcat | November 2, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Since Myrrh ignores the question, I’ll repeat it :
1. The sun warms the earth (the wavelength is irrelevant)
2. The earth radiates all/some of this heat
3. GHGs trap some of that heat, slowing the earth’s cooling
With me so far ?
You’re obviously not with me so far..
My argument here is about the fake fisics in the claim “shortwave in longwave out”, the standard AGW model which says no Thermal Infrared direct from the Sun has any part in heating land and ocean and which has instead substituted shortwave from the Sun claiming shortwave does this heating when it is absorbed, mainly visible as I’ve given examples – I’m asking you, all, to prove this claim.
I am asking you to prove that visible light from the Sun acually, physically, heats land and water at the equator. Show how visible light from the Sun actually physically moves the molecules of land and water into vibration which is kinetic energy which is heat. Unless you can prove this you have no wind and no weather systems in your world.
Unless you can prove this you have no heat at all from the Sun in your world, because you have taken out the direct thermal energy of the Sun in transfer, thermal infrared, and your shortwaves are not thermal energies and can’t heat matter.
Are you with me now?
This is your basic standard AGW/CAGW claim.
You all show remarkable ignorance of what power heat has..
..haven’t any of you cooked a meal?
You are the ones who claim that the Sun’s thermal energy, its actual heat, doesn’t reach us. This is total gobbledegook in traditional physics.
Answer my science challenge, as I have put it, or stop your bs.
I am not interested in what you “think” might be happening, I’m asking you to return with proper scientific proof that visible light from the Sun physically heats the land and water at the equator to the great intensity these are actually being heated which is what gives us our HUGE equator to poles winds and DRAMATIC weather systems, in the real world.
Stefan your reply is completely non-responsive; which is to say, you have not even begun to address it. So let’s try again:
1. The sun warms the earth (the wavelength is irrelevant)
2. The earth radiates all/some of this heat
3. GHGs trap some of that heat, slowing the earth’s cooling
Which if any of these s wrong, and why? Stick to the questions in as concise a way as possible. Cheers.
It is impossible to “trap heat”, heat is a process.
When you say “heat”, try to replace it in your head with “transfer of thermal energy”, so questions like “where does this extra amount of ‘thermal energy transfer’ go” or “how does this cause the surface to ‘transfer of thermal energy’ up” are fundamentally broken, aren’t they?
You DO however reach the right conclusion: the rate of cooling is slowed.
The Earth is not producing extra thermal energy, it receives a given amount of thermal energy from the sun (a smaller amount that it would with no atmosphere) and it releases a given amount of thermal energy into space.
The rate at which the system transfers thermal energy (heats) can be reduced.
A warm body transfers thermal energy towards a colder body. This process can be described as cooling of the warm body.
Reducing the rate at which a warm body releases thermal energy is not the same as increasing the temperature of said body unless you compare it with a situation like the moon.
Comparing it to a hemispherically averaged insolation is incorrect, we have an example right next door of what an atmosphere does for the temperature of a planet.
It reduces the rate at which the system gains energy enough to reduce the maximum temperatures by around 60 K, and it reduces the rate at which the system loses energy to increase minimum temperatures by around 80 K. The atmosphere combined with the difference in absorptivity/emissivity and rotation leads to the moon having an average temperature around 60 K colder than we find here.
You may notice 60 K is different from the value often given according to certain theoretical calculations: 33 K. I am curious what the same calculations would suggest for the temperature of the moon, supposing it had an atmosphere with the same composition and surface pressure as found here.
Maxtm
Seems we’re on the same wavelength here :), but I think you’re being mistakenly picky about the “heat” and “trapping heat” metaphors. The heat in a warm body surrounded by insulation can reasonably be said to be trapped, couldn’t it?
Tomcat | November 3, 2012 at 6:03 am said: ”Stefan your reply is completely non-responsive; which is to say, you have not even begun to address it. So let’s try again”
Hold your horses Tomcat – I leave on different longitude; if you know what that means + i have different commitments also.
O,K., #2: the earth radiates MORE heat than is created by the sun – don’t forget the constantly released geothermal heat + burning fossil fuel
#3: get in your scull that: .GHG is complete crap!!! a] H2O + CO2 (the dirty cloud) intercept part of the sunlight high up – where cooling is much more efficient -> less sunlight comes to the ground = cooler days – I have given it in my book the name: ”Shade-cloth Effect”. Greenhouse effect is 100% crap)
b] because of cooler on the ground / warmer upper atmosphere when is more CO2 + H2O high up ”DIMMING EFFECT” (the proportion in difference in temp less between the ground and upper atmosphere -> the cooling at NIGHT slows = cooler days / warmer nights (that factor dimming effect was originally used in the 70’s, for their ”Nuclear Winter Effect for year 2000” More CO2 + water vapor / milder temp; doctor’s order for growing bigger and more prolific trees &crops. Doesn’t fit with: ”less CO2 &H2O in the air = green, does it?!
Go and read the post I gave you; you, as a free thinker can help me with your English, to spread the good news and expose the scam. Maybe you are reliable, gbaikie has sold his soul to the devil cult; he hates real proofs, do you?
StefanD
get in your scull that: .GHG is complete crap!!!
So you want to deny the well-established absorption spectra of CO2, water vapor, methane etc?
Do you know of any science that support this view?
Stefan
So, skipping past the bulk of the answer that avoided the question, you’re saying you DO accept that GHGs absorb longwave, including longwave radiated by the earth, and that they therefore trap heat, which results in the earth being warmed ?
Myrrh
Yet again you ignore my points, so yet again I must repeat them
1. The sun warms the earth (the wavelength is irrelevant).
2. The earth radiates all/some of this heat.
3. GHGs trap some of that heat, slowing the earth’s cooling.
With me so far ? Which of these do you dis/agree with?
In your reply here, please stick to these points put to you here. You are quite free to write other posts on other ideas if you feel so inclined.
Tomcat | November 4, 2012 at 3:49 am said: ‘So you want to deny the well-established absorption spectra of CO2, water vapor, methane etc?”
Tomcat, please, don’t play smart arr/se with me as you do with Mirrh; don’t lie that i said something, that i didn’t!!! I have all the detailed proofs, you should concur your fear from the truth, go and learn, in details:
1] CO2 & water vapor during the day go UP!!! They reflect / intercept / ABSORB – high up, where cooling is much more efficient!!! = less comes to the ground!!! it’s being given the name by me: ”Shade-cloth Effect” not greenhouse effect!!!
experiment: make one fire 7km away from you, another one on tour lap – see which one will burn you more?
2] methane is destroyed by the UV, in minutes, if in the air – most of it sinks in the ground, because is ALWAYS produced together with other compounds!!!
3] ”Do you know of any science that support this view?” YES, my science is proving the lot; http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/
honest science has being upstaged / silenced by the propaganda machine. Don’t let them to keep you in darkness!!! All the proofs ”beyond any reasonable doubt” exist. Go and read it; or, I will take you to a Vet, snip, snip!… Stop twisting what me and Mirrh say, because by that; you are only showing that: you are dumber than people that can understand correctly. can you dig it?
Pekka what is your take on the claim that visible light is too weak to cause any significant warming of the globe, and that it is IR that is doing it ?
And even if this claim is true, does this make any difference at all to the basic mechanism of AGW (mean free photon path with GHGs) ?
Tomcat,
That’s of course total nonsense. We have here a few people who have invented their own physics that has almost nothing to do with the real world. It should be easy for everyone to see who they are.
There’s one point where the formulation is often inaccurate and that may cause some confusion. By that I mean referring specifically to visible light in connection of solar radiation although near infrared is equally important and UV also of some significance. Thus it’s not really correct to refer to visible light without specifying that near infrared has to be included as well.
For the basic mechanism it’s enough that most of the solar radiation reaches the Earth surface and is absorbed there. Near IR is absorbed somewhat more by water vapor in the atmosphere and is therefore not as effective as visible light, but the difference is not very large.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
“Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
The atmosphere is presumably transparent to the latter two, but incoming IR (and nearIR) is presumably partially absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, and so heat it, exactly as outgoing IR heats the GHGs in the atmosphere.
@Myrrh
You appear to have a belief that visible light (which includes near-IR) does not warm the land and oceans. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
“Sunlight’s composition at ground level, per square meter, with the sun at the zenith, is about 527 watts of infrared radiation, 445 watts of visible light, and 32 watts of ultraviolet radiation.”
So what exactly happens to this ~45% by energy of the sun’s radiation, the visible light component ? Land is not transparent to visible light, and nor are the oceans beyond a certain depth (20m?). Some is reflected, but not all. Which means whatever is not reflected, must be absorbed.
Which means your belief is groundless.
@Myrrh
And there is the further fact that even if it was true that it’s only the sun’s IR that warms the earth, that would make absolutely no difference to the basic AGW theory. Increased GHGs would still mean increased amounts of upwelling IR were being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in a warmer earth.
So why do you even bother trying to make this point?
“@Myrrh
And there is the further fact that even if it was true that it’s only the sun’s IR that warms the earth, that would make absolutely no difference to the basic AGW theory. ”
It make the AGW theory *stronger* or the climate guys are underestimating the effect of CO2 and water vapor [as greenhouse gases].
Or earth would around 200 K without greenhouse effect. Of course, it’s ignoring much warmer day time temperature of the Moon, which lacks any “greenhouse effect”
gbaikie suggests that if it was true that only the sun’s IR is warming the earth, and not visible light, that would imply an even bigger AGW effect (the idea presumably being that increased GHGs would trap heat from incoming as well as outgoing IR).
Yes, but only if you assume incoming IR was being ignored in the theory in the first place. Which is not true (although Myrrh needs to deny this).
Also I think incoming and outgoing IR may not be of exactly the same frequency, so may have slightly different impacts.
As greenhouse theory is describe to lay public- Earth is suppose to be like a blackbody. And Blackbody fictional construct is defined as body that can absorb all electromagnetic radiation. Meaning all incident radiation is absorbed and converted into heat [and addition this fictional blackbody can radiate perfectly in all wavelength, though all needs be able to radiate is the wavelength which correspond to it’s blackbody temperature- if blackbody temperature is say 500 K- it would *not need* to be able to radiate visible or shorter wavelengths].
So if total solar flux at Earth distance is 1360 watts per square meter, the blackbody would absorb all of this 1360 watts per square meter of this energy.
So Earth which absorbing all 1360 watts per square meter according to this theory would have average temperature of 5.3 °C:
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
So since the vast majority of the 1360 watts is visible light and near infrared light. So if visible light and near infrared light is not heating the Earth- Earth is much cooler [before one “adds” the magic of the Greenhouse Effect]. And therefore is in even more desperate need of greenhouse effect keeping it warm.
Or the only opposition of Myrrh to Greenhouse theory is it takes bad theory and makes it even worse.
Though perhaps added frustration might encouraged one to throw out this whole wacky idea that Earth has anything to do with being something like a blackbody. Which would be a step in the right direction.
“For the basic mechanism it’s enough that most of the solar radiation reaches the Earth surface and is absorbed there. Near IR is absorbed somewhat more by water vapor in the atmosphere and is therefore not as effective as visible light, but the difference is not very large.”
I believe even after one account for the blocked near infrared, most of the energy from the Sun is infrared light- and therefore it seems more than half of heating is from infrared portion of solar spectrum.
But also you say IR is absorbed and I agree that it’s blocked in some manner, but I lack the information to assume it’s all or most absorbed.
If this part of near infrared is mostly absorbed, rather than diffused, scattered, re-radiated without heating, and/or reflected it seems there a lot energy absorbed by the atmosphere [and water therein]. There seems to more than 100 watts per square meter of it blocked, and if absorbed it seems like an enormous amount heat added to atmosphere.
It would greater than at first blush it would appear, because it’s dissimilar to the solar flux which directly reaches the surface of Earth.
No where on earth do get 1000 watts per square meter 12 hours a day reaching the surface- it’s less than 1/2 of this amount, but if atmosphere is absorbing +100 watts per square meter it be closer to 12 hours per day or
around 1200 watts per square meter.
It seems rather than warming the atmosphere to any significant amount this energy is being blocked rather than absorbed.
And if these near infrared wavelengths is being re-emitted then there is roughly a 50% chance of reaching the surface and 1/2 chance being emitted into space. If it’s being diffused then larger percentage get to the surface and if being reflected than larger amount is going into space.
One also has a varying amount H2O in the atmosphere and seems the amount H20 in atmosphere [very high percentage in Tropics] would affect how much is blocked.
I didn’t find any specific information about this, but this is somewhat related:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
gbaikie | November 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm said: “For the basic mechanism it’s enough that most of the solar radiation reaches the Earth surface and is absorbed there”
gbaikie, as fanatic carbon molester; you are conveniently overlooking the important factors: 1] the sea, 2/3 of the surface area has a ”mirror effect” – reflects lots of the sunlight. When the sun is on the horizon, look at the sea – you will start sneezing, same as looking at the sun = when the sun is at the zenith – a lot is instantly reflected; get that on board; ”most” is NOT absorbed.
2] second and most important factor: extra heat in the troposphere is NOT ACCUMULATIVE!!! Example: in Sahara, from sunrise to midday, temp goes from 5C to 45C ==== on same latitude, in Brazil, goes from 20C to 35C === next step: if cooling was the same in goth places; in Sahara after a month, the temperature would have accumulated to 1000C
Instead, in Brazil cooling at night slows down, by the same molecules that prevent overheating during the day. in Sahara is always clear sky + no H2O present = heats more during the day / cools faster during night === extra heat in the atmosphere is NOT accumulative == you the Warmist, and the Fakes don’t have a case!!! Visit my formulas and stop playing dumb!!!
Every EXTRA heat, INCLUDING the geothermal heat, including heat from burning fossil fuel, is instantly wasted == therefore: the earth’s atmosphere releases MORE heat than what the sun produces on the earth. Thanks to the O&N, expanding more when extra warm / shrinking more when extra cooled. My formulas are 100% correct, rely on what is reliable.
“gbaikie | November 2, 2012 at 9:42 pm said: “For the basic mechanism it’s enough that most of the solar radiation reaches the Earth surface and is absorbed there”
gbaikie, as fanatic carbon molester; you are conveniently overlooking the important factors: 1] the sea, 2/3 of the surface area has a ”mirror effect” – reflects lots of the sunlight. When the sun is on the horizon, look at the sea – you will start sneezing, same as looking at the sun = when the sun is at the zenith – a lot is instantly reflected; get that on board; ”most” is NOT absorbed.”
I agree more with you than with Pekka Pirilä, who btw I was quoting.
I didn’t say: “For the basic mechanism it’s enough that most of the solar radiation reaches the Earth surface and is absorbed there”
I was quoting these words.
But I don’t agree about *how* you characterize how most of sunlight is reflected- as I think, most of Sunlight is reflected by the atmosphere. As a guess, around 40% of it.
And then I think there is further reflection and re-radiation [or anything other than absorption of energy and making heat] related to the surface of earth- both land and ocean.
So my ballpark guess would be less than 1/2 of the energy of the sun is absorbed and thereby heats the the Earth surface.
But I don’t have firm idea of how much is absorbed other than somewhere around 50% or less. So Pekka Pirilä is saying more than 50% and I didn’t want to quibble in regards to that point since I have no firm number. Except it’s my guess it less than 50%. So don’t feel comfortable saying less than 40% or 33%. And grant the possibility that it could be as much as 50%. And only reason I think it could as high as 50% is that the ocean may be absorbing the highest amount of the Sun’s energy. And Ocean is 2/3rd. If we just talking about land area, I think land absorbs significantly less than 40% of energy of Sunlight.
Instead I interested in idea that incoming near infrared sunlight is “absorbed”- in sense that it’s heating the atmosphere.
As for the rest:
“2] second and most important factor: extra heat in the troposphere is NOT ACCUMULATIVE!!! Example: in Sahara, from sunrise to midday, temp goes from 5C to 45C ==== on same latitude, in Brazil, goes from 20C to 35C === next step: if cooling was the same in goth places; in Sahara after a month, the temperature would have accumulated to 1000C”
I disagree. Heat is accumulated, but the max temperature on Earth surface caused by sunlight is less than 80C.
So wave magic wand heat entire earth to 80 C and I expect the Earth cool down and returns to current temperatures. It’s possible it returns to slightly warmer temperature than we have currently, though also possible it could cool below our current temperature.
gbaikie | November 3, 2012 at 12:46 am said: ” It’s possible it returns to slightly warmer temperature than we have currently, though also possible it could cool below our current temperature”
Now you are talking as a fortuneteller…NO ”maybes” in the laws of physics!!!
gbaikie, it’s ”possible” for you to eat a kilo of salt in a day – but will not happen. It’s possible a baby in a virgin, but will NOT happen.your wishful thinking!… Here is why: if it warms up; for any reason -> troposphere EXPANDS, and releases extra heat, until equalizes.
Also will NOT get cooler, the WHOLE planet; because O&N when get ”cooler” they shrink accordingly to the extra cooling -> release LESS heat for 5-10 minutes and equalize. Do you know how much heat is created on the earth in 5-10 minutes? If 5% of that heat is saved by shrinking O&N, can get read of any GLOBAL Ice Age. reason ice ages and ”GLOBAL” warmings are NEVER GLOBAL!!! Stefan’s formulas will win
“gbaikie, it’s ”possible” for you to eat a kilo of salt in a day – but will not happen. It’s possible a baby in a virgin, but will NOT happen.your wishful thinking!… Here is why: if it warms up; for any reason -> troposphere EXPANDS, and releases extra heat, until equalizes. ”
Don’t see how an expanding atmosphere releases heat. Rather the surface cools and with cool surface the expanding atmosphere shrinks.
Heat up something to 80 C and put in the sunlight- it will cool.
If you expanded the atmosphere or warmed the ocean, these would take some time before they cooled- atmosphere days, oceans centuries.
But if you starting from 80 C as average temperature the skin surfaces will cool within minutes to an hour. In terms of average going from say 80 to 30 C- and in terms getting everything back to normal- depends how long it takes to cool oceans- a relatively very slow process.
“Also will NOT get cooler, the WHOLE planet; because O&N when get ”cooler” they shrink accordingly to the extra cooling -> release LESS heat for 5-10 minutes and equalize. Do you know how much heat is created on the earth in 5-10 minutes? If 5% of that heat is saved by shrinking O&N, can get read of any GLOBAL Ice Age. reason ice ages and ”GLOBAL” warmings are NEVER GLOBAL!!! Stefan’s formulas will win.”
Well in terms average temperature the average temperature can’t increase by .0000001 C in 5-10 mins.
But in terms of regional areas warming from cooler night time temperature to day time highs. Well one can have increase as much as say 40 C in about 6-8 hours of sunlight. Or about 5 C an hour. So about 1 C increase in 5-10 min. And night time has twice much time so can cool about 1/2 C in 5-10 mins- in terms of air temperatures. Skin temperature can have much faster increases and decreases in temperature.
gbaikie | November 3, 2012 at 2:26 am said: ”Don’t see how an expanding atmosphere releases heat. Rather the surface cools and with cool surface the expanding atmosphere shrinks”
Correction: you are trying to put wool over the zomby’s eyes; so they can’t see. Here is the truth: wind is cooling the surface -> collects the heat -> that heat warms the air -> O&N / troposphere expands extra; same as if enlarging the car radiator, when engine gets hotter. Troposphere O&N is the earth’s radiator – which expands when warmed / shrinks when is cooler than normal as a piano acordian. Where the troposphere / O&N expand upwards when warmed extra; the air is very thin -> discharges the heat -> atoms shrink by 80% because become the coldest – heavier per volume than the rest -> they fall to the ground with extra coldness as shotgun pellets; and push the hot ones up = convayer belt ”SPEED UP”
When troposphere is colder than normal, for ANY reason -> troposphere shrinks -> releases LESS heat for few minutes until equalizes -> then instantly expands to normal volume. The good Lord has inserted a thermometer in every oxygen & nitrogen atom – so they expand / shrink ”precisely” as necessary. The lord’s ‘laws of physics” made fools of every Warmist & Fake Skeptic
a] forget about ”skin surface” ===troposphere is gas, very thin high up!
b] forget about ”warmer sea” === heat in the sea is ”STORED HEAT” same as energy in the trees, coal, plutonium, hot magma. Troposphere cannot get read of that heat; before is released in the air – when released, then air gets read of ANY EXTRA heat in 7-10 minutes!!!
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/
if you read the few posts on my homepage, your ”informed knowledge” will increase by a million percent. Don’t be a chicken, take the challenge!
People developing solar energy technologies need to know how much sunlight reaches the surface. It’s also important for them that people use the same data when they determine efficiencies of competing technologies. For that purpose some standard distributions have been determined:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The purpose of these standards is not to tell worldwide averages for climate science but spectra relevant for solar energy applications in US, which is not the same thing. Even so the curves tell rather well what the spectrum is in space and on the surface. For the surface two curves are given, one for direct radiation only and the other including also scattered light. The data is available also as an Excel file.
From the data one can see that a lot of visible light does not reach the surface. That’s mainly due to scattering from the clouds, i.e. due to albedo. IR is absorbed totally at some wavelengths but it penetrates even trough the clouds at other wavelengths. Thus the average share of solar IR that reaches the surface is not very different from visible light. This picture from Wikipedia article on GH gases is rather informative and describes many of the influential factors.
“People developing solar energy technologies need to know how much sunlight reaches the surface. It’s also important for them that people use the same data when they determine efficiencies of competing technologies. For that purpose some standard distributions have been determined:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/”
It seems surprising to me that with sun at 37 degree above horizon
there isn’t has much loss as thought there would be.
Copied some of it:
wavelength watts per nm
350 to 400 around 1
400 to 450 around 1.6
450 to 500 around 2 at 37 degree from hortizon also near 1.2
500 to 550 around 1.9
550 to 600 around 1.8
600 to 650 around 1.7 watts per nm
650 to 700 around 1.5
700 to 750 around 1.4
750 to 800 around 1.2
800 to 850 around 1.0 at 37 degree from hortizon also near 1.0
850 to 900 bit less 1.0
900 to 950 .92
950 to 1000 .85
Some of these wavelengths get reduced fair amount for angle [mainly about visible spectrum]. But most aren’t as much I would expect. And the near IR: 800 to 850 has very change.
I take it, these are at noon and 37 degrees is latitude, but would 37 would also seem to apply to time of day- 30 degree is two hours after sun come up- or before sun goes down.
Hmm.
gbaikie | November 3, 2012 at 6:14 am milead: “People developing solar energy technologies need to know how much sunlight reaches the surface”
gbaikie, when is cloudy, or plenty CO2 high up -> less sunlight reaches the surface; you are ignoring the ”dimming effect” because it doesn’t fit your extremism… naughty boy! More sunlight reaches Sahara, than on same latitude, where is good climate, with plenty H2O &CO2 in the air.
Obviously you are suffering from inferiority complex, constantly bringing irrelevant numbers from Wiki-leaks and other places, desperate to show yourself as knowledgeable…same as WebTheCrackpot
“gbaikie, when is cloudy, or plenty CO2 high up -> less sunlight reaches the surface; you are ignoring the ”dimming effect” because it doesn’t fit your extremism… naughty boy!”
CO2 has very little effect upon most of the energy of Sunlight reaching the surface. H2O and O3 has some effect. H2O blocks just over 100 watts per square meter. The manner which H2O prevent solar spectrum
from being detected at earth surface is not clear to me- It could absorb the energy and warm up H2O, it could absorb the energy and re-emit [or re-radiate] without warming up the H2O, the H2O could reflected it and/or diffuse the wavelengths.
The biggest effect of Earth atmosphere upon solar energy is it reflected/diffuses all the wavelengths of solar energy, so that at top of atmosphere it’s around 1360 watts per square meter and by time reach a point on the earth which has clear skies and sun directly overhead the solar flux is only about 1000 watts per square meter.
The spectrum of sun which is more affected by Earth atmosphere is the
visible portion of sunlight which had the most amount energy per each nm of spectrum. As this graph indicates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
So about the 400 to 600 nm part of spectrum about 200 watts is scattered/reflected and the remaining 160 watts is blocked.
But this is sun sun is directly overhead, when the sun is less an 90 degrees overhead more solar flux is lost. I know from solar energy harvesting with solar panel, and significant reduction occurs by time angle gets as low as 45 degrees away from directly over head [ or less than 45 degree above the horizon]. Or between 9am and 3pm one gets most amount solar energy.
My current problem is that according to the above reference:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/
When sun at 37 degrees above horizon it doesn’t appear that much of the spectrum is lost as I would have expected.
“More sunlight reaches Sahara, than on same latitude, where is good climate, with plenty H2O &CO2 in the air. ”
I would assume that Sahara has far less clouds [it being a desert] and this main factor in causing it to be good location to harvest solar energy- which the similar case with the southwestern US.
Stefan
You say global warming is “not possible”, because the atmosphere will expand, release the extra heat, and the system return to the previous equilibrium temperature.
This though was just an empty claim – you haven’t explained WHY this is. WHY will expanding the atmosphere make it release more heat ?
And WHY will this extra amount of heat released, be exactly the amount needed to return the system to the previous equilibrium point?
Yeah, kinda curious there myself. I see what he’s getting at, though I don’t quite think a description of the atmosphere instantly expanding/contracting makes any physical sense.
I don’t think he’s taking adiabatic processes properly into account.
As for equilibrium, the system is never at equilibrium, but the incoming energy level is fairly constant, so the system should remain within a given temperature range, given the negative feedbacks operating during any excursions.
Max™ | November 3, 2012 at 8:20 am said: ”Yeah, kinda curious there myself. I see what he’s getting at, though I don’t quite think a description of the atmosphere instantly expanding/contracting makes any physical sense”
.Max™, you know how to be wrong, read the whole post I recommended!
b] ”atmosphere instantly expanding/contracting”
A: O&N expand INSTANTLY so fast, when warmed – they are propelling the bullet from the beryl of the gun
c] you will find in that post, this: ”in atom bomb explosion – 10kg of plutonium is not demolishing the concert buildings – but the EXPANDING heated O&N ===== after 3 minutes; the O& N shrinks INSTANTLY and demolish even more, the already weakened trees / buildings.
If the O&N didn’t cool after 3 minutes – WOULDN’T HAVE BEING SHRINKING!!! Looks like you have much more brains than the Tomcat – please go to my website and learn real proofs. cheers!.
Tomcat | November 3, 2012 at 4:24 am asked: ”And WHY will this extra amount of heat released, be exactly the amount needed to return the system to the previous equilibrium point?”
Tomcat, you have a legitimate question, congratulation! It means that you are a free thinker, I respect that. gbaikie is restricted by his sick ideology. Question is: can you recognize and aknowledge real answer? Here it’s, do your best::::
CHALLENGE TO ALL: DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS, TO THOSE QUESTIONS:
Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that where they expand upwards, on the edge of the troposphere is minus -90⁰C? Q: why O&N expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to intercept more, extra coldness, to equalize. Q: if O&N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A#2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units ‘’OVERALL’’ in the troposphere, every hour of EVERY year and millenia!
Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept / extra heat to release? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds -> that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O&N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm prevent oxygen + nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding, when they warm up? A: O&N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist / Fake Skeptic cults? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder > air shrinks -> releases less heat on the edge of the troposphere -> retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they doo -> troposphere expands extra ->releases extra heat / intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before start expanding, or expand instantly extra when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? All those things can be experimented / replicated now; no need to wait 100y and see that, all they come up with, are lies.
Tomcat, find something wrong, or join me, to spread the truth,in details:
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/hello-world/
Stefan
You haven’t managed to address the actual questions, so here they are again
1. WHY will expanding the atmosphere make it release more heat ?
2. WHY will this extra amount of heat released, be exactly the amount needed to return the system to the previous point?
It is important to answer (1) before (2). And assuming you’d like to influence others, you really need to start trying very hard to be clear, focussed and BRIEF, qualities that are I’m afraid generally noticeably absent in your postings.
It might actually be a idea to only have a go at (1) to start with. Depending on how it goes, we could then move on to (2).
Tomcat | November 4, 2012 at 1:29 am said: ”Stefan You haven’t managed to address the actual questions, so here they are again”
Tomcat, don’t play smart ar/se with me as you do with Mirrh!!!
Q#1:”WHY will expanding the atmosphere make it release more heat ?”
A: because: the O&N atoms (by the wind) collect the warmth from the soil, where is created – (NO radiation is involved by the O&N) – those atoms get warmer than all the rest above – they expand and personally are taking that heat to the edge of the troposphere -> they jump few feet into the stratosphere (depends how much extra heat they carry. Any moron knows that: it’s easy to cool something in minus -90C, than on +25C, on the ground (that’s why people put things from the kitchen, to cool in the deep freezer (freezer is only -17-18C; up there is – 90C. Cools in 3,5 seconds -> becomes colder than any other below -> they SHRINK because cooled -> fall down to the ground to bring that extra coldness.
Q#2: ”WHY will this extra amount of heat released, be exactly the amount needed to return the system to the previous point?
A: in my comment above, clearly states: ” O&N don’t wait to shrink / expand until they get warmer / colder by 1C, but they start expanding / shrinking when get warmer / colder by 0,0000001C ==== That is: when change temp by one millionth of a degree, they shrink / expand, instantly! They are very sensitive in change of temp, for reason – they regulate ”OVERALL TEMP TO BE ALWAYS THE SAME IN THE TROPOSPHERE”. Proves everybody WRONG!!!
B] my comment above is THE most important comment in the climate changing confused as GLOBAL warmings GLOBAL coolings lunacy – You not being able to understand / appreciate it === asking question, but not reading the answer = is exposing your low intelligence and fear from real proofs. When me, or Mirrh waste time, to explain to you, because of respect – you are looking for exit; it proves that: you don’t have respect for yourself; because you know yourself best: that you don’t deserve any respect! Go back, read the lot, you will see that I gave you the best and most solid proofs Learn and don’t stay ignorant forever…
3] complex issues cannot be explained in less than 7 words! If you don’t have memory, to remember the first few sentences, when you are reading the rest – don’t blame me or Mirrh!!! Your Alzheimer’s disease; should tell you that: you should go playing bingo, if incompetent in science;
Regarding my English: is not my first, not even second language. If you have capability to understand my proofs === English is your first language – you put it in proper English. Gore, Hansen don’t speak foreign languages; but in other countries – other people are translating it. Go and read the post I recommended to you – will see tons of the best proofs; use them by your correct English. Or, if you intend to play smart arr/e with me as you do with Mirrh – I will advise you: where to shove your sick attitude; but only if you buy me a 6pack of beer, otherwise, you have to ask somebody else for that advice. cheers!!!
Please see my post | November 3, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/08/whats-the-best-climate-question-to-debate/#comment-263597