Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

What does that have to do with you?

Daylight63 is a fraud.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have yet to meet anyone on JPP who appears to understand the science even at a basic level. So it's hilarious to hear yet another non-scientist talk about how the side that believes the science doesn't know it. LOLOL.

One must understand that what we are dealing with is theology, not a legitimate field of study. As such, only a fool would argue scripture with a true believer. I will not argue the details of engrams with a scientologist who has bought a high level in the religion (which like climatology uses the word "science" so must be scientific, right?)

As a real scientist, I have utter contempt for climatology which utterly discards the scientific method in favor of apologetics for a preordained conclusion. You have your answer, you scramble to find ways to support the answer.

Throughout the entire sphere of the half-century of Climatology we have seen a parade of hucksters, clowns, and grifters. What we have never seen, not once, is any substantiation of the models and whackjob claims of the hucksters, clowns, and grifters.

No other branch of science is 100% wrong 100% of the time yet demanding.

I won't argue with your cut and paste graphs and charts - no more than I would argue with a fanatic about the lineage of Anakin Skywalker. Both are the subject of fanatics embroiled in fantasy.

 

[Diogenes]

Once again, Western political and media wonks find themselves in the unfortunate position of denying reality obvious to anyone with eyes, or a wallet.

This time, they are lying about the economic and now political crises their “green” energy policies are causing, particularly in Europe.

These lies may damage them even more than their Covid fantasies did, because they are even more obvious to people outside their bubble.

Anyone who drives is aware of oil prices.

But Americans may not know about the ongoing catastrophe in Europe’s electricity and natural gas markets.

That crisis is even more directly linked to broader efforts to “sustainable” fuels that - so far - have proven distinctly unsustainable.

Unlike the United States, Europe doesn’t have much oil or natural gas.

For generations, it has used a mix of fuels - coal, nuclear, imported natural gas and a little oil, and renewables - to power its electric plants. That mix worked just fine.

Anyway, in part because they don’t have much of an oil industry to destroy, for the last 50 years or so, Europeans have been comfortable pushing energy efficiency with high gasoline taxes and high-speed trains and wind farms.

Those are all basically harmless ways to prove they aren’t Americans. (Some of the trains are actually nice.)

The entire European Union now emits less carbon than India and about one-third as much as China.

In fact, if every American and European stopped emitting carbon entirely and went back to living in caves, the world as a whole would still produce more carbon dioxide now than it did 20 years ago.

The point is, the (overwhelmingly white) Europeans seem to want to do what some think is "the right thing" so that the Chinese and Indians can do more of "the wrong thing". Like many leftists, maybe think they need to set an example for "the coloreds", being white, and all.

So they’ve cut way back on their coal mining and coal-fired electricity production.

Weirdly, they also don’t like nuclear energy. In any case, Germany - Europe’s biggest economy - closed almost all their nuclear plants.

Which means that Europe has (intentionally) left itself increasingly dependent on the remaining two forms of energy, natural gas and "renewables", to make electricity.

Now I’m going to let you in on a little secret about Europe. Don’t tell anyone, especially not Greta.

Europe is pretty far north.

Which means that during the winter - like now, say - Germany can’t rely on much solar energy, the kind that gets people like Greta excited. The wind is unpredictable, too. Sometimes it blows, sometimes it doesn't. What then?

Now, it’s possible to ship natural gas around the world in cold storage on tankers. It’s possible. But it’s not much fun. Liquefied natural gas isn’t like oil. Bad things can happen if it’s disturbed.

You know how your grandpa's heating oil tank was in the basement but the propane cylinders stayed outside? Just in case? Multiply that by a ship a thousand feet long.

Thus, pipelines are the preferred way to move natural gas. Pipelines over land, or under water (but not oceans). Pipelines from a country reasonably close by.

Lucky for Europe, Russia has natural gas to spare. It provides about 35 percent of all of Europe’s natural gas, and that figure was about to increase as a new pipeline called Nord Stream 2 opened up.

35 percent is a lot - especially when your customers have gone out of their way to increase their dependence on you. Europe simply has no substitute for Russian natural gas in the short- or medium-term - meaning not months but years.

The Russians have already taken advantage of this fact. They have under-supplied their European customers. Natural gas prices have soared. Now electricity prices are about to follow them far higher.

And guess what bungling Biden did?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I don't believe that glass is IR transparent. Normally. I don't know when it is red hot. What i assume you are actually seeing is the IR emissions from the hot surface of the glass....not THROUGH the glass per se. But I could be mistaken. If you can find a reference to explain this please pass it along.

*sigh* we can't see IR. I never said we saw any IR emissions. I choose glass because it is a material that is transpartent in the visible spectrum AND we regularly make it hot enough that the thermal radiation is also in the visible spectrum.

That means it is an easyily found example of a volume being simultaneously: transparent to thermal radiation and emitting thermal radiation.

That is analogous to an IR transparent atmosphere emitting IR thermal radiation.

Here you can easily see the metal rod inside the glass. The glass is transparent, but the glass is also glowing. If it was all from the surface of the glass, then we could not see the metal rod occluding the far side of the glowing glass.

Given that the heat is just IR photons and we KNOW that diatomic molecules like O2 and N2 have almost no IR absorption, the greenhouse gases have to do the heavy lifting.

This doesn't really make much sense. Air conducts very poorly.

It doesn't matter how poorly it conducts. The point is that it has an insulative effect that is not due to IR opacity. To predict how much for that effect would take a lot of math and a system without chaos demon molecules like water constantly phase changing.

Without quantifying this IR irrespective insulative effect you cannot subtract it from your presumed greenhouse effect to come to "greenhouse causes 30C difference". Maybe it's 15C. Maybe it's only 5C.

Actually what is happening is that the IR photons are being absorbed and re-emitted over and over between greenhouse gas molecules.

In this hypothetical the atmosphere is IR transparent, so no it isn't happening. It's just emission.

I'm not entirely certain where you are getting your information about how the greenhouse effect works.

I was not describing the greenhouse effect. I was describing the insulation that atmosphere provides even if there was no greenhouse effect (no IR absorbing gasses).

Why? And why are you talking about "digging" now when we were talking about measuring dissolved CO2 in sea water?

Human emissions of carbon dioxide are from buried carbon, carbon we 'dug up'. That is the carbon you would compare the atmospheric carbon to.

At this point we are primarily interested in the dissolved CO2 per your conversation. For some reason you seem to be focusing on fixed carbon.

Bicarbonate is not very fixed. A perturbation in pH or temperature and it would dissolve carbon dioxide into the ocean, changing potentially changing isotope ratios with ancient sources of carbon.

I'm saying it's a mess can't be simplified away. There is not enough data to say where the recently added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere came from.

...water vapor is not the cause of this warming. This is a critical, if subtle, distinction between the role of greenhouse gases as either forcings or feedbacks. In this case, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. This rising average temperature increases evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Those, in turn, result in additional warming.

This is an assertion, not an argument.

The time it takes to remove an EXCESS of H2O in the atmosphere is relatively short.

That is irrelevant. The behavior of water in the atmosphere is chaotic due to chaotic winds and water phase changes. When you refer to "excess" it's pretty much a meaningless concept.

It can be added quickly and removed quickly but you have no way to determine what equilibrium is supposed to be or whether that is shifting. Indeed temperature changes are most likely the primary factor in changes in humidity.

It's a differential equation, a big complicated one, even more complicated than carbon dioxide. What we can say for sure is the smallest perturbations of the water cycle are orders of magnitude larger than the largest perturbations in the carbon dioxide concentration.

I have explained almost all of these points in my posts.

Good, then addressing your original statements is sufficient.

It is pretty much the basic information one needs to know to discuss the topic with any real knowledge of the topic.

But if you don't even know what CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is then you really don't know enough about the topic to speak in any way authoritatively about it.

I doubt it.

For example I was able to debunk your conclusion about the scale of the greenhouse effect (+30C) without knowing how climate sensitivity is defined. Therefore if one cannot talk about climate without using climate sensitivity then I have used climate sensitivity without knowing the label for the concept.

We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause warming

I don't know that it has a measurable impact. There are many layers of scale insignificance which would make it plausible that the warming effect is insignificant or perhaps even eclipsed by the cooling effect.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you use two separate instances of a browser on your computer when you bounce between socks on here? Or do you just log out and log back in real fast?

I don't need socks, Sybil. Mantra 1b. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

C'mon man....don't insults stones. It's not cool. Stones and rocks are perfectly functional items. Into the Night is not.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not.

Blatant lie.

 

[Into the Night]

Again...I have no problems.

Yes you do.

I'm trying to look at both sides of the discussion.

No, you are pushing your religion as 'science'. It isn't.

What I'm not doing is:

1. Pretending scientists don't exist

Science isn't scientists. You deny theories of science.

1. Pretending I know more than the actual scientists who study this topic

Science isn't scientists. You deny theories of science.

1. Claiming that there is a clear answer either way

The theories of science are clear. You just want to ignore them.

1. Pretending that just saying things makes them true

You cannot just discard any theory of science.

1. Pretending that scientific laws apply when they don't

Theories of science apply all the time...everywhere. You cannot set them aside for even a moment.

1. Misusing scientific laws

....for starters.

Theories of science are 'used'. They are equations. You just want to ignore them.

 

[Into the Night]

You also cannot make things true simply by saying them.

So you think the 1st law of thermodynamics isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think the Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't true. I already knew that.
So you think statistical mathematics isn't true. I already knew that.

Only you fucking religion is 'true', eh?

Calling global warming a religion also does not impact whether or not it is real, which is something that we don't know for certain.

It is a real religion.

The fact that there are grifters trying to make money off of global warming

You mean like the solar power and wind power idiots?
You mean like the government charging 'carbon taxes'?

does not change the reality of global warming, whatever that may be.

The Church of Global Warming is a real religion.

The fact that Trump is a shameless rifter does not mean that he's not president.

Trump has been elected and has already served as President. You can't change that. He has been elected again and will again serve as President. You cannot change that.

 

[Into the Night]

People's responses to, or suggestions regarding, climate change are 100% irrelevant to whether or not it is real.

Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

AOC could double the stupidity of her green New deal and that would not impact reality in the slightest.

The Church of Global Warming is a real religion.

 

[Into the Night]

The fact that you and many others choose not to educate yourself on the topic, doesn't mean that I accept anything on faith.

I fully understand your religion. I fully understand the theories of science you discard. I fully understand the mathematics you discard.
ALL religions are accepted on faith, and faith alone. This includes the Church of Global Warming.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah it is. It's physics.

Your religion is not physics. Religion is not science.

The majority of the gases in the atmosphere (O2 and N2) do NOT absorb IR in any significant fashion.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

That would mean that incoming short-wave radiation (most of what comes from the sun to us) is absorbed by the solid earth and re-radiated out

Absorbed photons are DESTROYED. They are NOT re-radiated.

back as "downshifted" photons in the IR range (lower energy because they are longer wavelengths. The IR photons could then easily re-escape back out into the atmosphere leaving the surface at effectively the blackbody radiation temperature which trurns out to be calculable by Stefan-Boltzman and is about 30degC lower than our actual surface temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

No one is discarding the atmosphere. It is kind of the MAIN PART OF THE GAME.

What game?

Wrong. It has been studied.

Science is not a 'study' or a 'research'.

While I haven't personally studied the isotope data from the deep ocean I was involved in a research cruise in the north Atlantic about 30 years ago in which we were measuring a tracer gas dissolved in the ocean and were tracking a current that dipped down to the bottom of the n. Atlantic off the coast of Greenland to the NADW and we brought up water samples to measure for our gas of interest.

CO2 has no identifier on where it came from. You obviously don't even know what an isotope is.

You simply cannot tell me that we don't know about the carbon isotope fractionation in the deep water CO2.

There isn't one. You don't know what an isotope is.

It is a feedback, not a forcing.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot reduce entropy EVER.

It doesn't stick around in the atmosphere as long as CO2.

Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Which means it's ability to significantly and long-term affect the overall temperature is limited.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

The good folks at MIT can explain it. It is not trivial, but it is a rather different impact:

Science is not a college or university. The Church of Global Warming is popular at MIT.

Wrong. Climate sensitivity studies

Climate does not have a 'sensitivity'. Climate cannot change.

(which also include DIRECT MEASUREMENT METHODS)

Climate cannot be measured.

show that CO2 is a very important greenhouse gas.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Not CO2, not water vapor, not methane...NOTHING. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Here's a graph of relative climate sensitivities of greenhouse gases etc.:

Climate has no sensitivity.

This is an ensemble study which also explains HOW the estimates are made. You can find it here: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo337

It is not possible measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

And, the reason the entire global warming is happening

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

is because the greenhouse effect

There isn't one.

basically just pushes the point at which the IR photons re-escape

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It does not 're-escape'.

You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

back out into space to higher and higher elevations where transfer is less efficient because of less gas molecules per square foot.

You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL materials radiate light. You cannot trap light.

This IS the greenhouse effect in a nutshell.

No such thing, other than a religious artifact.

 

[Into the Night]

there have been zero repeatable experiments on the issue.

the measures all different in every study.

you're just "keeping hope alive" for alarmist eco-fascism.

There are no measurements. He's just making shit up to push his eco-fascism.

 

[Into the Night]

Alarmist eco-fascism?

That's what he calls it. It's accurate.
The Church of Global Warming always pushes fascism and communism as the 'solution' to a problem you can't even state without violating several theories of science and several branches mathematics.

Interesting, considering I've never talked about any changes that we should implement due to climate change.

DON'T TRY TO DENY THE GOALS OF THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING! DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

In fact, without countries like China and India on board, nothing we are going to do is going to make a difference.

But, please, don't let reality slow you down...

Irrelevant. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Have you looked into rigging yet? What is the relationship between constructing the pyramids, bronze, and moving a battery?

Random phrases. No apparent coherency. Are you trying to talk about EVs?

 

[Into the Night]

Alarmists have a narrow vision of Earth's climate.

Basically, the last few decades is what they focus on.

For a longer term perspective, you may want to read Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything"

There is no such thing as a global climate.

 

[Diogenes]

There is no such thing as a global climate.

I'll try to remember that.

 

[IBDaMann]

wtf is this all about goddamit!!!

It's about time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.

 

[Into the Night]

I have yet to meet anyone on JPP who appears to understand the science even at a basic level.

I have already given you the equations. Once again:

1st law of thermodynamics (which you ignore). E(t+1) = E(t), where 'E' is energy, and 't' is time. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has any capability to create energy out of nothing. It takes increased energy to raise the temperature of Earth.

2nd law of thermodynamics (which you ignore). e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is 'entropy' and 't' is time. You cannot heat any object with a colder one. You cannot make hot coffee with ice. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you ignore). r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiated light in watts per square surface area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant (you must accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface to measure it!) and it represents how well a surface absorbs or emits light (as opposed to reflection, refraction, or transparency). ALL frequencies of light are considered at once.

So it's hilarious to hear yet another non-scientist talk about how the side that believes the science doesn't know it. LOLOL.

IBdaMann is a scientist. So am I. I am also a chemist, engineer, and business owner.

I just wrote two lengthy posts loaded with external citations.

Science isn't citations. Science is a set falsifiable theories. You just want to ignore them. I have posted them AGAIN in this post.

Look above, moron. I doubt you'd be able to follow any of it, but just so ya know.

Your religion is not science.

Vide supra. (Google it)

Science isn't Google or any other search engine.

 

[Into the Night]

Perhaps you would like to tell the class how little science education you have. Hmmmm?

Science isn't 'education'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You simply choose to ignore them.