Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: championoftruth on 23/07/2023 13:29:14
-
We're told 97 percent of scientists agree the world is made hotter by humans burning fossil fuels. Less well-known is the fact that number was conjured into being by having a team read the abstracts, which is to see just the front pages of nearly 12,000 scientific papers dealing with climate change. 3,896 were judged as blaming humans for the changes, 7,930 didn't endorse a position, 78 exonerated humans altogether, and the final 40 were unsure. This meant 32.6% of the scientists held humans to blame. Only when the decision was taken to discard, simply to chuck in the bin, the nearly 8,000 papers with no position whatsoever was 32.6% magically transformed into 97%. What a scam.
Oh, brace yourselves, for we are once again graced with the all-mighty "97 percent of scientists agree" chant! Cue the dramatic music! But guess what, folks? This magical number didn't just fall from the sky, oh no! It was summoned into existence by the wise ones who decided to play a little abstract peek-a-boo with 12,000 climate change papers. I mean, who needs to read the whole thing when the abstracts hold all the secrets, right?
Oh, those precious 3,896 papers had the nerve to point fingers at us mere mortals for making the world hotter. How dare they! But hold your applause, 'cause a staggering 7,930 papers were too cool to take a stand. They were probably sipping pi?a coladas on some tropical beach while the planet heated up!
Wait, wait, here comes the highlight! 78 papers, yes, just 78, played hero and cleared us of all guilt. Hallelujah! We are absolved! But wait, there's a cherry on top: 40 papers were caught sitting on the fence, forever undecided. Must be tough being so indecisive in the world of climate science!
Now, get ready for the real magic trick. Poof Those undecided papers vanish into thin air! Abracadabra! And voil?! Suddenly, 97 percent consensus is born, like a phoenix rising from the ashes! It's a miracle, folks!
So, let's give a round of applause to the masterminds behind this statistical circus. They've managed to turn a bunch of indecision and uncertainty into an awe-inspiring 97 percent! Bravo! But, hey, who needs accurate data and genuine consensus when you can have a grand spectacle like this, right? Climate change might be serious, but let's not forget to enjoy the show!
-
It has been challenged and, if you didn't notice, then that says a lot about you.
It has been regularly questioned.
I think what you mean is "why hasn't it been challenged successfully?", and the simple answer is that it's true- or at least, "near enough".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=7b904cd61157
-
There is a clear correlation between global mean temperature (however measured or defined) and atmospheric CO2 concentration, but a number of mysteries remain, which throw doubt on causation.
1. There is a historic cycle of about 100,000 years with the temperature rising rapidly to somewhere near its present level, then declining asymptotically towards an extended ice age at about 12 degrees below present level. We have evidence of at least 4 such cycles and whatever the mechanism, we are now living at a time when we should be reaching another peak.
2. The CO2 level has always followed the same cycle but historically some 500 years behind the temperature curve, so clearly CO2 cannot be the primary driver of temperature
3. There is no suggestion of where the CO2 came from or went to in the geological record. The CO2 curve is not synchronised with volcanic ash
4. It seems most probable to me that the cycle is driven by water, not CO2, which is completely out of human control
5. My hypothesis is that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is governed by the ratio of animal (CO2 emitting) activity to plant (CO2 absorbing) activity. The expansion of agriculture in the last 10,000 years has indeed altered that ratio.
Problem is that there is no money in saying "nothing can be done" and a lot of problems associated with blaming human aspiration for animal respiration, so it is hardly surprising that 97% of any group prefer to cleave to the anthropogenic hypothesis, either because it is profitable, or because of some predilection for Original Sin and Guilt, or sheer vanity in thinking that we can do anything about it, or some idea that you can get money from rich people by claiming it is their fault that you can't feed your family on the desert that you and your ten siblings inherited from your two parents.
Fact is that the world is going to become very uncomfortable for humans for the next 500 years unless we reduce the population to a sustainable level of about one tenth of the present number.
-
1 the historic cycles did not have as steep a rise of either temperature or CO2- so, whatever caused them, it's probably not what's happening now.
2 Ditto.
3 Ditto
4 The thing about water is that, if "more than usual" gets into the atmosphere , it falls out as rain.
5 We can "radiocarbon date" the excess carbon in the air. It's "ancient" which says it must have come from some old source, not current biology. Also, the additional CO2 is in good agreement with the tax revenues on fossil fuels.
Whether or not "nothing can be done" depends very strongly on what's happening.
If (and you personally might think it's a big if) it's down to CO2, then we can do something.
-
1. Depends on the finesse of your analysis.
2. You can't determine phase lag until one or other variable begins to decrease
3. "Ditto" misses the point. If previous cycles were not caused by anthropic or volcanic emissions of CO2, what else could have caused the change in CO2 levels? The only obvious cause is temperature.
4. Not true. If the temperature rises, so does the dewpoint for any given concentration of H2O - the feedback is positive. Whilst cumulus (water droplet) clouds form at around 2000 ft in the UK, the base of the same type of cloud over Texas can be 10,000 ft. More interestingly, warm wet air often rises until it forms cirrus (ice) clouds at 20 - 40,000 ft altitude. These have a profound effect on surface heating and don't precipitate. I surmise that the rather consistent maximum surface temperature of the globe is determined by cloud cover, particularly cirrus, increasing to the point that reflection and absorption eventually reduce insolation.
5. There is a significant "carbon deficit" of about 30% that is not accounted for by direct combustion of fossil fuels. Obviously the figures are debatable as we are talking about the difference between crude estimates of the excess above an unknown baseline, but the concept of animal/vegetable balance does at least consist with the seasonal fluctuations of the CO2 level at Mauna Loa, which are out of phase with anthropogenic emissions.
My concern is that people concentrate on an improbable but psychologically satisfying scapegoat, spend vast amounts of time, money and emotion on comforting "solutions" like electric cars (which in the short term actually increase global carbon emissions) and fail to prepare for the wholly avoidable disaster of an overpopulated and underwatered planet.
-
Alancalverd has a strong argument that the current rise in temperature is a natural phenomenon. Most of the climate scientists argue that anthropogenic co2 is the culprit. Me, I don't know, not being competent to analyse such a complex problem. But I do know one thing for certain and that is the future for mankind is utterly bleak. In the situation where climate change is natural there is virtually nothing we can do about it and all the prophesies of doom will arrive in the next~50 years. In the case of man made climate change, correcting the problem would required global concerted action. All one has to do is a brief look at history to understand that global concerted action has never happened and will never happen. The very nature of the human creature rules out any possibility of such action.
-
If the temperature rises, so does the dewpoint for any given concentration of H2O
No
Air with a concentration of 17.3 grams of water per cubic metre has a dewpoint of 20C.
As the earth warms up, more water will evaporate and more of it will stay in the air before it rains out.
And, yes, that's a positive feedback mechanism- (unless it isn't because clouds cause cooling- but that's a separate issue.).
But water can't spontaneously cause the heating.
And you still have to recognise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
More of it will result in more warming.
And we have produced more of it.
1. Depends on the finesse of your analysis.
No.
It's just the observation of reality.
" Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years (Fig. 2). The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "
from
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
So, do you see why I don't really care much about what happened ages ago.
I'm wondering what is causing this roughly order of magnitude faster change.
So, all the stuff about the cause of what happened before (i.e. your points 1,2 and 3) is largely irrelevant.
-
Alancalverd has a strong argument that the current rise in temperature is a natural phenomenon.
Not really.
The current rate of rise is much faster than any historic natural rise.
I keep pointing this out to him.
As I already pointed out to you, the current rise is about 100 times faster than the previous ones.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83465.msg661680#msg661680
-
Compared with the average (1 degree every 800 - 1000 years), yes, but within that average we have some very sharp spikes, particularly near the maximum. Perspective, my friend!
-
So, do you see why I don't really care much about what happened ages ago.
Pity, that. Scientific evidence is usually the results of experiments previously conducted.
-
But water can't spontaneously cause the heating.
Nobody said it does, but IPCC has stated that it is the most important greenhouse gas, and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with such an ex cathedra statement.
-
Air with a concentration of 17.3 grams of water per cubic metre has a dewpoint of 20C.
And if you heat your sample to 30 C, does the RH increase, decrease or stay the same?
-
So, do you see why I don't really care much about what happened ages ago.
Pity, that. Scientific evidence is usually the results of experiments previously conducted.
Was mankind dumping CO2 into the air back then?
Or was it a completely different experiment?
-
Air with a concentration of 17.3 grams of water per cubic metre has a dewpoint of 20C.
And if you heat your sample to 30 C, does the RH increase, decrease or stay the same?
Did you not read what I said, or did you not read what you said?
Compared with the average (1 degree every 800 - 1000 years), yes, but within that average we have some very sharp spikes, particularly near the maximum. Perspective, my friend!
The rate of change of CO2 is unprecedented.
But that's only what the data says.
-
Nobody said it does
Somebody seems to have said it's driven by water.
4. It seems most probable to me that the cycle is driven by water, not CO2, which is completely out of human control
but IPCC has stated that it is the most important greenhouse gas, and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with such an ex cathedra statement.
If you look really really carefully, you will see that nobody said otherwise.
-
Was mankind dumping CO2 into the air back then?
Or was it a completely different experiment?
The experiment shows only that CO2 followed temperature, which is entirely to be expected in the earth's ecosphere.
Since the CO2 IR absorption lines are all saturated at about 200ppm, and "pressure broadening" depends not on the partial pressure of CO2 but on the total atmospheric pressure, adding more won't have any effect. Apologies for quoting a more recent experiment but the numbers are from a NASA-funded PhD study in the 1970s - I'll see if I can find it again!
40 minutes later - just found it! "The effect of several infrared transparent broadening gases on the absorption of infrared radiation in the 15μm band of carbon dioxide" HG Reichler Jr, University of Michigan May 1969 under NASA contract NASr-54(03). IIRC NASA was interested at the time in the use of CO2 lasers to "punch holes in the atmosphere" to provide temporary line-of-sight waveguides.
-
Did you not read what I said, or did you not read what you said?
You won't get nucleation and precipitation until the RH reaches ~100%. So the hotter the atmosphere gets, the more water it can hold before it rains, and (thanks to the greenhouse effect) the hotter it gets, until something (ice cloud cover? there's nothing else) reduces the heat input.
-
Did you not read what I said, or did you not read what you said?
You won't get nucleation and precipitation until the RH reaches ~100%. So the hotter the atmosphere gets, the more water it can hold before it rains, and (thanks to the greenhouse effect) the hotter it gets, until something (ice cloud cover? there's nothing else) reduces the heat input.
Yes.
But what you said was still wrong, wasn't it.
You said this
If the temperature rises, so does the dewpoint for any given concentration of H2O
And, as I pointed out, reality is this
Air with a concentration of 17.3 grams of water per cubic metre has a dewpoint of 20C.
Since the CO2 IR absorption lines are all saturated
That's still meaningless.
Why do you keep saying it?
-
For the record, it was Alan's point about the absorption being saturated that got my attention and not the historical record. I do accept that there has been an unprecedented rise in co2 due to use of fossil fuels.
-
But what you said was still wrong, wasn't it.
You said this
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 11:10:33
If the temperature rises, so does the dewpoint for any given concentration of H2O
And, as I pointed out, reality is this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:36:22
Air with a concentration of 17.3 grams of water per cubic metre has a dewpoint of 20C.
I stand corrected. Brain temporarily in neutral! What I meant was that hotter air can hold more water before it condenses into liquid drops, which is pretty obvious.
-
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 13:45:19
Since the CO2 IR absorption lines are all saturated
That's still meaningless.
Why do you keep saying it?
Because the absorption of the entire atmosphere at 15 microns is almost 100% and has been for as long as anyone could measure or calculate it.
Adding more CO2 might increase the absorption in the first 1000 ft or so of altitude but won't affect the total radiative heat exchange of the planet.
-
15 microns
Other wavelengths are also available.
-
What I meant was that hotter air can hold more water before it condenses into liquid drops, which is pretty obviou
which is pretty obvious.
It was obvious and wasn't in any way in dispute.
Not sure why you bothered to say it.
But I'm glad I only had to point out your error twice before you saw it. That's good going.
-
For the record, it was Alan's point about the absorption being saturated that got my attention and not the historical record. I do accept that there has been an unprecedented rise in co2 due to use of fossil fuels.
Hi Paul.
I think it might have been before you joined the forum that I explained why "saturation" isn't the killer that Alan thinks it is.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg485680#msg485680
I have had to explain this to him more than twice...
-
BC, I had a quick look at that thread but my brain is not in gear( rotten broken sleep last night ). I will digest it tomorrow and thanks again.
-
BC, I had a quick look at that thread but my brain is not in gear( rotten broken sleep last night ). I will digest it tomorrow and thanks again.
TLDR version is "there are always wavelengths at which CO2 is a bad enough absorber for the spectrum not to be saturated, but not so bad that the absorbance is zero."
So adding more CO2 will always increase the amount of IR absorbed.
But the links here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65677.msg485704#msg485704
also make a different point.
Imagine we just pick a wavelength - say 15 μm
Alan nearly gets the point when he says
"Adding more CO2 might increase the absorption in the first 1000 ft or so of altitude but won't affect the total radiative heat exchange of the planet.".
In order for heat to leave the earth, it has to go through that first 1000 ft.
Then the 2nd 1000 ft
Then the third ...
And so on.
Now imagine we double the CO2 concentration.
Now the 15 micron radiation will only travel 500 feet.
So, it takes twice as many steps before it can leave.
And, if you make it harder for the heat to leave, more heat builds up.
So, there are two problems with people getting excited about saturation.
First it doesn't strictly happen.
Second, even if a particular absorption is (very nearly) saturated, that doesn't mean the effect on warming is saturated.
-
You forget that there is a lot of vertical movement in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter where the 15 micron component is absorbed: if the lower layers heat up a bit more, the upper layers heat less (because there is less 15μm radiation reaching them), you get more convection, and the result is the same. More weather, perhaps, but no change in the overall heat balance between insolation and radiation.
-
15 microns
Other wavelengths are also available.
But of little consequence. The blackbody emission spectrum at 280 K peaks around 15 μm and CO2 has no other absorption bands in the significant region
https://667-per-cm.net/2016/05/28/absorption-of-long-wave-or-thermal-radiation-by-co2-at-667-per-cm (https://667-per-cm.net/2016/05/28/absorption-of-long-wave-or-thermal-radiation-by-co2-at-667-per-cm) has some neat graphics. Sadly, they imply that 99.5% of the 15μm radiation is absorbed in the first meter of the atmosphere, never mind 500 ft - and this paper is by a Believer!
-
Sadly, they imply that 99.5% of the 15μm radiation is absorbed in the first meter of the atmosphere,
I guess you mean metre.
Fine; I apologise for believing your figure without checking it.
In order for heat to leave the earth, it has to go through that first 1000 3 ft.
Then the 2nd 1000 3 ft.
Then the third ...
And so on.
Now imagine we double the CO2 concentration.
Now the 15 micron radiation will only travel 500 1.5 ft.
So, it takes twice as many steps before it can leave.
That argument is still valid. The harder you make it for the heat to reach space, the warmer the surface gets.
-
You forget that there is a lot of vertical movement in the atmosphere.
And if it happens at nearly the speed of light , then it matters to radiative heat transfer. if the lower layers heat up a bit more, the upper layers heat less
Yes! Finally! you realise why it matters, with the outermost layers unheated, they can't radiate the excess heat into space.
Not sure why you described this as "It doesn't matter
but maybe we can work on that later- after the celebration.
-
More weather, perhaps, but no change in the overall heat balance between insolation and radiation.
Exactly.
The incoming and outgoing heat must balance.
But, if you put better lagging round the earth, the only way for it to lose the same amount of received heat is for its temperature to rise.
That's the whole point of the greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming.
-
Nobody is denying the greenhouse effect. I'm only questioning whether increasing the CO2 concentration above 200 ppm has any significant influence on it.
As I see it, you might create slightly stronger turbulence close to the surface but convective mixing will still dissipate the heat throughout the atmosphere. The key to net heat gain or loss is the transmissivity and emissivity of the upper layers, and these parameters are dominated by water vapor and ice. Water vapor is fairly transparent to incoming shortwave radiation but strongly absorbent (and not saturated at atmospheric concentrations) in the outgoing infrared, and ice is of course reflective across most of the spectrum.
-
I'm only questioning whether increasing the CO2 concentration above 200 ppm has any significant influence on it.
Still?
Even after I pointed out why it clearly is?
As I see it, you might create slightly stronger turbulence close to the surface but convective mixing will still dissipate the heat throughout the atmosphere.
It's not an "either or" thing.
How fast can air travel?
How fast can radiant heat travel?
The key to net heat gain or loss is the transmissivity and emissivity of the upper layers,
How do you define "upper"?
In this context it's roughly the mean free path of a photon- because, if a molecule below that level emits radiation that radiation doesn't escape.
and not saturated at atmospheric concentrations
If your "upper" layer isn't optically thick enough to be nearly saturated, it's not "upper"
So, adding more CO2 makes the layer thinner.
And that means more of the atmosphere is in the way of getting heat to that outermost layer which can actually dump heat into space.
And that retards the process by which heat is lost.
-
Incidentally, "In the thermal infrared, ice is moderately absorptive, so snow is nearly a blackbody, with emissivity 98?99%. The absorption spectrum of liquid water resembles that of ice from the ultraviolet to the mid-infrared. "
From
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2018.0161
It also absorbs hard UV.
It's only really shiny in the visible and UV
-
Depends on your definition of "mid-infrared" but my interest in high altitude ice is its albedo (the clue is in the name!) compared with wet air.
-
Neither ice nor air reflects much of the IR at wavelengths where liquid or vapour phase water absorb.
One's black; the other is clear.
Neither is white- unlike clouds observed with visible light.
Having said that, the clouds I can see from my window are a bit too much like black bodies.
-
But the clouds I see from the plane or satellite images are white, and so is snow. Thus high level cloud reduces surface insolation, exactly as observed - you very rarely see cumulus (convection cloud) forming under even a thin layer of cirrus. It is also the case that you rarely get radiation fog forming at night under cloud cover - the surface doesn't cool as quickly as under a clear sky.
-
Thus high level cloud reduces surface insolation
Across the visible range.
But it's black as coal at other wavelengths.
Try to be less anthropocentric about your em radiation.
You seem to be missing your own point. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas because it absorbs lots of IR.
It still does that if you cool it down until it liquefies or freezes.
-
Pity that meteorology and common observation doesn't agree, but the essence of climate science is not to let the facts get in the way, so I won't bother to argue.
-
Pity that meteorology and common observation doesn't agree, but the essence of climate science is not to let the facts get in the way, so I won't bother to argue.
In what way do "common observation" and "meteorology " tell you much about IR spectroscopy?
-
They tell you everything about insolation and radiative loss from the surface. A cirrus veil reduces surface heating during the day and reduces radiative loss at night.
But as I say, please don't let the bloody obvious get in the way of a profitable theory. Careers are at stake!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud#Effects_on_climate
-
Hi BC, I had a quick look at the suggested thread( reply #23 ) and read several pages from 25 on. That sure brought out the nutjobs and keyboard warriors which made difficult reading. I have to be clear here, I am not referring to you, Alan or agyejy or anyone else who made cogent arguments. And yes, this was way before my time here. I noticed one error from agyejy that was not challenged: the op kept referring to the solar light being the cause of the heat in a glass house, this may have a slight effect but the main cause is the solar ir. One would be waiting a long time for a kettle surrounded by high power zenon flash tubes to boil it's water.
-
Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.
However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.
The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.
In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed, but the transmission of IR has.
Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.
-
Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat
That is true, but why is the stuff inside warm anyway? As you say, most of the incoming solar energy is in the visible to UV spectrum and heats the solid and liquid surface that absorbs it, and the greenhouse roof reduces convection and thus conductive loss from the surface to a colder boundary layer of gas.
One of the misleading school experiments that is promulgated by climate Believers is to illuminate a black card at the bottom of an opentop cylinder, and measure its temperature rise. They then fill the cylinder with CO2 and show that the temperature rises faster. Why is this misleading? First, because the CO2, being denser than the ambient air, doesn't mix and convect as easily (your point) and second, because whilst it may well be absorbing 15 micron radiation very strongly (so why doesn't it cool the card?) the depth is well short of the extinction length so it doesn't actually model atmospheric radiative transfer.
-
BC, from what I can find online is that of the incident solar radiation reaching the surface 49.4% is ir and 42.3% is visible and that the ir is the principle cause of heating. I have worked with what I would call medium powered zenon tubes and have often seen the tube become red hot after a few flashes( together with a lot of ozone ) but very little radiant heat in comparison to the blinding levels of light. Going to really high power levels with a flash tube could of course have sufficient thermal effects to do some damage.
-
While it's true that xenon lamps are quite efficient and produce less IR than, for example, a tungsten lamp, they produce plenty of IR. And, of course, a red hot glass or quartz bulb will also produce some more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_arc_lamp#/media/File:Xenon_arc_lamp_profile.png
[ Invalid Attachment ]
If the light from the sun carries 42% of the energy, it's difficult to see how it only has a slight effect
The point remains, the absorption of visible light hasn't changed; that for IR has.
So only one is responsible for a change in the earth's temperature.
If we are talking about a glass house, given that the glass isn't good at transmitting long IR or UV beyond about 350nm, it's fair to assume that the visible light does its fair share of the heating.
-
Ok, I stand corrected.
-
Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.
However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.
The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.
In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed, but the transmission of IR has.
Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.
The Sizzling Spectacle: How Climate Boiling Became the Hottest Fad
Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round and witness the most scorching show in town ? the grand spectacle of Climate Boiling! Yes, you heard it right, forget about climate change, because that's so pass?. It's time to turn up the heat and embrace the fiery craze that's taking the world by storm. Move over, global warming, and make way for the hottest trend since sliced bread, or should I say, since sun-baked bread!
Picture this: a world where every scientific prediction is as accurate as a weatherman's forecast, a world where icebergs melt faster than ice cream on a summer day, and where every natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of the Climate Boiler. It's as if Mother Nature herself decided to throw a BBQ party, and we're all on the guest list whether we like it or not.
In this sizzling new reality, logic and reason take a backseat while alarmist headlines take center stage. Have a cold day in winter? Clearly the Climate Boiler is taking a quick coffee break. A hot summer day? The Climate Boiler must be pulling an all-nighter to keep us warm, because why not? The beauty of Climate Boiling is that it conveniently explains away any weather pattern or anomaly, no matter how contradictory.
But wait, there's more! With Climate Boiling, you can guiltlessly blame everything on the poor old Climate Boiler. Overcooked your dinner? Climate Boiler's at it again! Traffic jam? Clearly, the Climate Boiler is causing all the cars to overheat. And don't even get me started on bad hair days ? it's all part of the Climate Boiler's cunning plan to give us that "windswept" look.
Now, you might ask, where's the evidence for this red-hot phenomenon? Fear not, my friends, for evidence is as abundant as sand in a desert. Just look around, and you'll see politicians pointing fingers at the Climate Boiler, activists passionately waving their "Climate Boiling Now!" banners, and social media influencers posting selfies with the latest Climate Boiler-themed merchandise.
But don't be fooled by those pesky skeptics who dare question the unquestionable. They're just a bunch of party poopers who insist on bringing actual data, scientific methods, and common sense to the conversation. How dare they? It's not like we need objective analysis when we have hashtags like #ClimateBoilingTruth trending on Twitter, right?
So there you have it, folks ? Climate Boiling, the blazing sensation that's turning science into a sideshow and reason into a roasted marshmallow. So go ahead, embrace the heat, join the march of the Climate Boilers, and let's all collectively fan the flames of this spicy trend. After all, in a world where the weather's hotter than a jalape?o pepper, why not add a dash of sarcasm and wit to keep things interesting?
-
Climate change is not a fad. It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry, and has been going on for as long as this planet had an atmosphere (i.e. for ever). It has been a disaster for many species and civilisations.
The current problem is that we can see it coming and measure it very precisely, but by denying its inevitability and pretending we can change the laws of physics by giving up fossil fuels, the human race is simply accepting a forthcoming humanitarian disaster instead of adapting to a predictable change of circumstance.
-
Ironically, the reason greenhouses work is not really the greenhouse effect.
It's mainly that they stop warm air rising and carrying away the heat.
However the effect of CO2 etc on the temperature of the earth's surface is different.
The CO2 is transparent to the short wave incoming radiation, but more opaque to the longer wavelength outgoing radiation.
The sun emits more light (per unit wavelength) in the visible than in the IR.
So the heating of the earth is, at least largely, due to light. The near IR is also a contributor and some of the near UV does too.
In the context of global warming, the transmission of visible light by the atmosphere has not changed, but the transmission of IR has.
Incidentally, high power xenon flash tubes are capable of igniting flammable materials near them.
The Sizzling Spectacle: How Climate Boiling Became the Hottest Fad
Ladies and gentlemen, gather 'round and witness the most scorching show in town ? the grand spectacle of Climate Boiling! Yes, you heard it right, forget about climate change, because that's so pass?. It's time to turn up the heat and embrace the fiery craze that's taking the world by storm. Move over, global warming, and make way for the hottest trend since sliced bread, or should I say, since sun-baked bread!
Picture this: a world where every scientific prediction is as accurate as a weatherman's forecast, a world where icebergs melt faster than ice cream on a summer day, and where every natural disaster is attributed to the wrath of the Climate Boiler. It's as if Mother Nature herself decided to throw a BBQ party, and we're all on the guest list whether we like it or not.
In this sizzling new reality, logic and reason take a backseat while alarmist headlines take center stage. Have a cold day in winter? Clearly the Climate Boiler is taking a quick coffee break. A hot summer day? The Climate Boiler must be pulling an all-nighter to keep us warm, because why not? The beauty of Climate Boiling is that it conveniently explains away any weather pattern or anomaly, no matter how contradictory.
But wait, there's more! With Climate Boiling, you can guiltlessly blame everything on the poor old Climate Boiler. Overcooked your dinner? Climate Boiler's at it again! Traffic jam? Clearly, the Climate Boiler is causing all the cars to overheat. And don't even get me started on bad hair days ? it's all part of the Climate Boiler's cunning plan to give us that "windswept" look.
Now, you might ask, where's the evidence for this red-hot phenomenon? Fear not, my friends, for evidence is as abundant as sand in a desert. Just look around, and you'll see politicians pointing fingers at the Climate Boiler, activists passionately waving their "Climate Boiling Now!" banners, and social media influencers posting selfies with the latest Climate Boiler-themed merchandise.
But don't be fooled by those pesky skeptics who dare question the unquestionable. They're just a bunch of party poopers who insist on bringing actual data, scientific methods, and common sense to the conversation. How dare they? It's not like we need objective analysis when we have hashtags like #ClimateBoilingTruth trending on Twitter, right?
So there you have it, folks ? Climate Boiling, the blazing sensation that's turning science into a sideshow and reason into a roasted marshmallow. So go ahead, embrace the heat, join the march of the Climate Boilers, and let's all collectively fan the flames of this spicy trend. After all, in a world where the weather's hotter than a jalape?o pepper, why not add a dash of sarcasm and wit to keep things interesting?
Let us know if that actually happens.
-
It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry
For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.
-
It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry
For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.
in that case cut of gas and electricity to your house and confiscate your car.
-
It's an inevitable consequence of physics and chemistry
For example, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, we can expect the temperature to rise.
If we are not happy about teh consequence of that rise (regardless of any other rise that may occur due to other factors) then we would be well advised not to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
It's not rocket science.
Even if we are not the big cause, we should stop making it worse.
And, in doing so, we can avoid the problems of
running out of fuel
having to buy energy from governments/ regimes we don't like
not having enough resources for those whose economies are (currently) less extravagant.
what nonsense. they said that 70 years ago. nothing happened. msm propaganda
-
what nonsense. they said that 70 years ago. nothing happened.
Is there a grow-up there who usually helps you with this sort of thing?
Do you understand that there's only so much oil,and when we have used it, there's none left?
It's not "propaganda". It's a statement pf the bloody obvious.
-
confiscate your car.
Are you really dim enough to think that I can confiscate my own car?
-
The answer is simple. According to the advertisement in the LNER first-class waiting room in Newcastle,
"Travelling by train produces up to 513% less carbon emissions than flying".
So if we all whizz about on trains, we will suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and kill the rainforest without using diesel.
I had plenty of time to study the advert because as soon as the wind was strong enough to produce electricity, it blew down the wires, so we had to wait for a diesel locomotive. Sorry I can't attach the photograph - I'll have to compress the file a bit first.
-
I think I have a clear understanding of the points made by Alancalverd and BC. Alan says the absorption band is already saturated. BC agrees with this analysis but points out that the absorption will occur at lower atmospheric levels as the co2 concentration rises and this makes perfect sense if we had a static atmosphere but we know the atmosphere is highly turbulent. It would be a hell of a problem to analyse rigorously. Me, I am still sitting on the fence( hoping to not get splinters in my butt ) in a state of confusion.
-
I think I have a clear understanding of the points made by Alancalverd and BC. Alan says the absorption band is already saturated. BC agrees with this analysis but points out that the absorption will occur at lower atmospheric levels as the co2 concentration rises and this makes perfect sense if we had a static atmosphere but we know the atmosphere is highly turbulent. It would be a hell of a problem to analyse rigorously. Me, I am still sitting on the fence( hoping to not get splinters in my butt ) in a state of confusion.
It's not a trivial problem, but here's a useful simplification.
Compared to radiative heat transfer (at the speed of light) the atmospheric mixing which is over a millionfold slower, is too slow to make a difference (on average).
So we can treat the air as a set of layers- each of them is "one average photon path length" thick.
To get out the heat has to make it through each layer in turn (and at each layer there's a near 50: 50 chance that it heads down rather than up).
Adding more CO2 decreases the path length and thus makes each "layer" thinner.
But the depth of the atmosphere is substantially constant.
So we get more layers.
So it's harder for the heat to escape.
Incidentally, no transition is ever strictly saturated, the layers could be arbitrarily defined as say a 99% absorption of the IR in a particular wavelength band.
"Travelling by train produces up to 513% less carbon emissions than flying".
So, your argument is something like "Because someone wrote bad advertising copy, physics is wrong".
-
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/In-situ-CO2-concentrations-versus-altitude-measured-by-the-DOE-Cessna-aircraft-with-an_fig12_227619523
shows that CO2 concentration only varies by about 10 ppm with altitude, and the ground-level diurnal variance exceeds the altitude variation.
So the question is at what height the 14 micron absorption band is effectively saturated.
-
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 10:24:42
Quote from LNER
"Travelling by train produces up to 513% less carbon emissions than flying".
So, your argument is something like "Because someone wrote bad advertising copy, physics is wrong".
If I doubt anything written by a Believer, I'm castigated as a Denier, so I have to accept whatever garbage appears in print.
-
So the question is at what height the 14 micron absorption band is effectively saturated.
The figure you gave for this was 1 metre...
Sadly, they imply that 99.5% of the 15μm radiation is absorbed in the first meter of the atmosphere
is that close enough?
Do you realise that photons don't really know if they are going up, along, or down?
-
So if we accept the physics, increasing the concentration of CO2 in an entirely static atmosphere is only going to affect the temperature of the lowest few centimeters. That's pretty trivial compared with the geostrophic and convectional mixing of the remaining 12,000 meters of the real troposphere, and all the interesting effects of water.
Photons may not know which way they are travelling, but the greenhouse effect depends on the outgoing photons being strongly absorbed because they are predominantly IR, and the incoming photons being less strongly absorbed because they are mostly visible.
-
So if we accept the physics
What physics are you saying you accept?
but the greenhouse effect depends on the outgoing photons being strongly absorbed because they are predominantly IR
Yes.
Do you realise that the CO2 in the atmosphere also emits IR?
Do you realise how that makes a difference?
-
Do you realise that the CO2 in the atmosphere also emits IR?
Do you realise how that makes a difference?
Presumably, increasing [CO2] either increases (due to absorption) or decreases (due to emission) mean temperature, or has no effect (due to saturation).
What is absolutely clear is that the atmosphere has been > 99% opaque in the CO2 infrared spectrum for as long as it has been measured.
-
What is absolutely clear is that the atmosphere has been > 99% opaque in the CO2 infrared spectrum for as long as it has been measured.
Yes... So what?
-
What physics are you saying you accept?
-
I think it is a good idea to accept all the known laws of physics until they have been disproved.
So we have this blackish spherical body of 60% liquid water, 10% ice, and 30% rock covered with water in various forms, being heated on one side by visible radiation and simultaneously reflecting some of the visible, and radiating in the infrared. The body is covered with a blanket of gas, one of whose constituents is opaque at 15 microns and has negligible absorbance at other IR wavelengths. What happens to the radiation balance if we increase the concentration of that constituent?
I think of CO2 as a notch filter with a very sharp spectral characteristic. If one stage of the filter rejects > 99% of that frequency but has no effect on the rest of the spectrum, how is the total energy of the received (or transmitted) spectrum affected by adding a second stage?
-
I think it is a good idea to accept all the known laws of physics until they have been disproved.
Yes.
But which ones did you think you were referring to here?
So if we accept the physics, increasing the concentration of CO2 in an entirely static atmosphere is only going to affect the temperature of the lowest few centimeters.
-
What happens to the radiation balance if we increase the concentration of that constituent?
There are 3 possibilities:
The surface gets warmer.
The surface stays at the same temperature
The surface gets cooler.
Is there a mechanism by which the additional CO2 can directly cause cooling?
-
If one stage of the filter rejects > 99% of that frequency
What does it do with the energy it rejects?
-
So if we accept the physics, increasing the concentration of CO2 in an entirely static atmosphere is only going to affect the temperature of the lowest few centimeters. That's pretty trivial compared with the geostrophic and convectional mixing of the remaining 12,000 meters of the real troposphere, and all the interesting effects of water.
OK, the lowest few centimeters heat up a bit quicker, so the next meter doesn't get as hot as it used to, then convection and wind mix it all up and the mean atmospheric temperature doesn't change. Something to do with conservation of energy.
-
here's a useful simplification.
Compared to radiative heat transfer (at the speed of light) the atmospheric mixing which is over a millionfold slower, is too slow to make a difference (on average).
-
Precisely my point. The lower few centimeters heat up quickly but the total energy emitted from the surface in the 15 micron region remains the same, so atmospheric mixing ensures that the mean temperature of the atmosphere doesn't change - at least not because of increasing CO2 level above saturation.
You can heat water from the bottom in a kettle, or from the sides in a microwave, but a kilowatt is a kilowatt and a bit of stirring will give you the same average temperature after the same length of time.
-
Alan; you fly.
You know that it's cold "up there"
And since you claim to know how science works you should know that the earth can only lose heat to space from the cold stuff up there. The IR radiated into space is not the IR radiated from the ground.
The better the "lagging" between the surface of the earth and the outer reaches of the atmosphere, the warmer the bit of the earth where we live gets.
Adding more CO2 is, as I have pointed out at length, adding more lagging.
In the meantime, you missed this
What happens to the radiation balance if we increase the concentration of that constituent?
There are 3 possibilities:
The surface gets warmer.
The surface stays at the same temperature
The surface gets cooler.
Is there a mechanism by which the additional CO2 can directly cause cooling?
-
Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.
-
reduces your heat loss linearly
Show me where anyone said it was linear.
Or stop straw-manning.
-
Perhaps you can lead me to a better or more widely accepted prediction (not retrospective model) of the effect of adding CO2 to an atmosphere containing 300 ppm. The Mauna Loa graph is, if anything, slightly supralinear.
-
Perhaps you can
Perhaps I could, but lets see you demonstrate your claim first.
reduces your heat loss linearly
Show me where anyone said it was linear.
Or stop straw-manning.
-
The claim is that adding more CO2 from the present level will increase global temperature.
The observation is that the correlation is supralinear.
The fact that the principal CO2 absorption band is saturated within a few feet of the surface, suggests that if CO2 is the culprit, the curve should be no more than linear at low concentrations, and tend to an asymptote at high concentrations. Exactly the opposite of what we observe.
Science says that if the hypothesis doesn't match the facts, the fault is in the hypothesis.
-
This is what you actually said.
Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.
And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?
-
Have you met anyone who proposed a supralinear process?
-
Have you met anyone who proposed a supralinear process?
Yes, thank you for asking.
Now please answer the question.
This is what you actually said.
Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.
And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?
And, don't forget , we are talking "generalities" here.
When you say "Believers, who think that.." it implies that the majority of "believers" thing that.
Finding one who does isn't going to cut it.
-
Perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten me on the hypothetical supralinear process.
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?
Here's a fairly typical educational website
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/introduction/the-greenhouse-effect
It would be difficult to see anything other than a linear correlation, from the graph given. If you have time to read the text, you may spot an absurdity or two, but I think it reflects what we are told to believe.
-
There's two sets of data given there, one's verbal, the other graphical.
First there's the graph.
It shows that CO2 and temperature sort of both go up with time.
That's not really evidence of linearity, is it?
At best you could say that it looks like it's linear over that rather small range. But, of course, most things do.
Let's look at the text.
"If we had no atmosphere, as on the moon, the average temperature on the Earth's surface would be about -18?C. However, a natural background level of 270 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere absorbs outgoing radiation, thereby keeping this energy in the atmosphere and warming the Earth. The atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to be about 15?C"
...
"effective" CO2 levels will double by 2030, causing global warming of 1~4?C."
OK, so they say the first 270ppm raised the temperature from -15 to +18C
A change of 33 degrees.
And adding another 270 ppm (i.e doubling it) raises it by just 1 to 4 degrees.
In what reality is that linear?
-
Perhaps you would be so good as to enlighten me on the hypothetical supralinear process.
What would be the point?
You didn't pay attention when someone did it before.
What about large areas of frozen land in arctic areas (eg Greenland & Canada). As the permafrost melts to a greater depth, microbes will become more active in the soil, producing CO2 and methane from stored carbon...
- That will further increase CO2, producing more melting.... (positive feedback)
That was in response to you saying "I haven't seen (a hypothesis) that seriously suggests a positive feedback mechanism driven by CO2."
Obviously a positive feedback link would give "faster than linear" heating.
-
Now please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:09:40
This is what you actually said.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 14:25:46
Not according to Believers, who think that adding more blankets reduces your heat loss linearly with thickness or density of the blanket.
And it's a straw man, isn't it?
Because nobody said it was linear, did they?
And, don't forget , we are talking "generalities" here.
When you say "Believers, who think that.." it implies that the majority of "believers" thing that.
Finding one who does isn't going to cut it.
-
a natural background level of 270 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere absorbs outgoing radiation, thereby keeping this energy in the atmosphere and warming the Earth. The atmosphere causes the Earth's temperature to be about 15?C"
...
"effective" CO2 levels will double by 2030, causing global warming of 1~4?C."
"natural background" has no meaning. The CO2 level has varied cyclically from 170 to 290 ppm in the last 500,000 years, and was a lot higher at various times previously.
Here's a conundrum I've mentioned previously. The atmosphere of Mars contains 100 times the density of CO2 of Earth's, and Mars receives about 25% of Earth's solar input, so if CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas and its effect is linear with concentration, what is the expected surface temperature of Mars?
-
"natural background" has no meaning.
Then you cited the wrong paper.
-
its effect is linear with concentration
You need to stop pretending that global warming assumes the effect is linear.
It's a straw man and it's dishonest.