Climate Change

[Earl Grey]

Just now, windwalker said:

has this not always been the case.

 

Yes, across civilizations technology has allowed some to dominate others like gunpowder in the New World. But that's the old paradigm, in this paradigm, we're striving to cooperate and collaborate so we can all be winners rather than stay on the wheel of conflict. 

 

1 minute ago, windwalker said:

your solution would be?  

 

To which issue? Climate change? If so, understand that there are multiple issues under the umbrella of climate change and those who work in the field of development have to work with others who focus on economics, others who focus on demographics, others on history, others on ecology, others on politics...it's a holistic issue that requires a lot of people to be on board at once to address the beast that is climate change, not something that just requires a pill to be popped or a gun to be fired. 

 

4 minutes ago, windwalker said:

The areas you spoke of have population problems....help them to understand

how to control it and why,,,would go along way to a better quality of life.

 

So again: are you taking the Malthusian approach of population control via natural disasters, the plague, wars, and the like? If so... Then this goes to the first point I replied to above in this message that that's the old paradigm of one actor (state or cultural group or civilization, whichever you prefer) dominating another. If you believe in domination, then that's just an issue of personal values dissonance with mine being that everyone is in this together to make a united world. 

 

Humanity chooses the wheel of conflict still for millennia and the masters and teachers always remind us that we can step off the wheel and evolve any time, but it has to come from free will and choosing to do so...and so far, most of us choose not to do that...

[Zork]

16 minutes ago, windwalker said:

And you feel that those resources would or could be used with out the technology that allows it to be so.

What i feel is irrelevant. I am talking about facts.

 

16 minutes ago, windwalker said:

What do you think that 40% assuming its the US your talking about is used for?

 

Not for feeding that's for sure. India has almost four times the population and uses less than half the resources to feed it's citizens.

 

18 minutes ago, windwalker said:

"The United States exports more food than any other country in the world. Among the top export destinations of the United States are Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and Germany."

Food isn't a bland unit. It depends on what is the "food" you are talking about. Also if food production is so energy intensive there why does it produce more than it needs?

 

20 minutes ago, windwalker said:

kinda funny how that works out right?  takes tech to grow food for other counties that are over populated...

Of all the countries you mentioned only china is overpopulated. The argument is false.

 

21 minutes ago, windwalker said:

...But continue to grow because they can import what they can not grow allowing them to grow even more...

Again all the countries you mentioned have declining population rates. False facts=false argument.

[windwalker]

13 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Looking at Silicon Valley, the inequality caused by technology baffles me because the techies really believed it would be the great equalizer until the economists and the unprivileged and low-income people came in and said, "Enough about you, let's talk about me." If it's easy for Joe the Schmo in the suburbs to buy a new phone, laptop, and tablet every time Apple dumps something on us, but someone from the inner city is stuck using an old hand-me-down because his income doesn't allow him to replace as frequently, then he gets left out and he gets pushed down further. 

 

 

sounds like someone is whining 

the man is keeping me down....

 

stop buying the apple stuff and soon they will reduce prices 

does everyone need the latest and greatest tech... 

[Earl Grey]

1 minute ago, Zork said:

False facts=false argument.

 

There is a saying apocryphally attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, so does my opinion."

 

In the 21st century, people change facts to suit their opinion...  

[windwalker]

5 minutes ago, Zork said:

Again all the countries you mentioned have declining population rates. False facts=false argument.

 

what countries did I mention....

a common tactic it seems.   

 

I see, you mean the ones quoted

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by windwalker

[Earl Grey]

Just now, windwalker said:

sounds like someone is whining 

the man is keeping me down....

 

stop buying the apple stuff and soon they will reduce prices 

does everyone need the latest and greatest tech... 

 

It was an example, not literally "go buy Apple products". 

 

Do you realize how many people in places like Philadelphia, New York and Los Angeles are unable to buy basic things because of the rise in credit card or mobile app-only merchants? If they have a criminal record, they can't get a credit card as easily, or if they are low income, they don't have a phone that allows them to access what is increasingly overtaking basic services. This is what has happened in Manila and Jakarta to the point that people don't know how to read maps but rely on GPS. Sweden as well is finding people can't participate because of their credit card only approach. 

 

By fully yielding to technological developments, it leaves people out and you're talking about consumer products where theoretically people have a choice, but low income people DO NOT have  that privilege to choose, just like countries WITHOUT the technology needed for sustainability and climate change are left behind. Look at the Belt Road Initiative from China and see the debt trap people are entering now. 

 

If you can't understand that point, then that's fine as it's been clearly communicated to a few other members here who appear to share my values of cooperation rather than domination. 

[windwalker]

2 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

but low income people DO NOT have  that privilege to choose, just like countries WITHOUT the technology needed for sustainability and climate change are left behind. Look at the Belt Road Initiative from China and see the debt trap people are entering now. 

 

If you can't understand that point, then that's fine as it's been clearly communicated to a few other members here who appear to share my values of cooperation rather than domination. 

 

 

Having come from  a poor family, living in places with dirt floors ect as a young child   understand perfectly

also know that its possible to overcome it.....

 

How much of your income have you given to those with out?  why not let them have the pc your using now....

why not follow a spiritual path and live in a cave...with out all this stuff...many do.  

 

I thought it was a conversation sharing different view points.   

My view is that population is a major problem and not sustainable

Climate change  will continue,  its not clear as to what exactly can be done to slow it down  as some have mentioned 

it may not be possible.   

 

Technology will offer ways of adaptation for those who have the tech to to do so....while also reducing the need for the present population numbers due to automation as market forces kick in.....to make it so.

 

This is a big problem

[windwalker]

25 minutes ago, Zork said:

Of all the countries you mentioned only china is overpopulated. The argument is false.

 

 

Interesting,,,

Your saying those countries can grow enough to feed their populations"

They don't need to import food?

[Earl Grey]

6 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Having come from  a poor family, living in places with dirt floors ect as a young child   understand perfectly

also know that its possible to overcome it.....

 

Agreed, it's possible, but the probability of overcoming it is not guaranteed or high for everyone. 

 

7 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

How much of your income have you given to those with out?  why not let them have the pc your using now....

why not follow a spiritual path and live in a cave...with out all this stuff...many do.  

 

I give on a daily, monthly, and annual basis in addition to volunteering plus my own service both in my career in development, my time in the Peace Corps, and my work as an advocate rather than an activist, not unlike your service in the military (thank you for your service by the way). 

 

Not everyone wants to live in a cave (I would love to myself), as the values others have like the sulfur workers in Central Java don't want to be carrying it up and down the hill every day for low income, but someone needs to do it and many of them didn't have the education they were theoretically promised to have under Suharto, as it feeds them and their families, much like many Overseas Filipino Workers don't want to leave their families for Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the like, but the only way to feed their families is by working overseas.

 

11 minutes ago, windwalker said:

I thought it was a conversation sharing different view points.   

My view is that population is a major problem and not sustainable

Climate change  will continue,  its not clear as to what exactly can be done to slow it down  as some have mentioned 

it may not be possible.   

 

 

Many in Manila would agree with you on population control when sitting through traffic. But try telling that to people who are also adamantly Catholic to the point they actually "educate" doctors to not teach birth control, ban condoms in parts of the city, and encourage people to have as many babies as possible!  

 

This is values dissonance too, sadly, and why even working with people who share the values I have is frustrating because some among our constituents and beneficiaries aren't willing to make certain trade-offs too...

 

12 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Technology will offer ways of adaptation for those who have the tech to to do so....while also reducing the need for the present population numbers due to automation as market forces kick in.....to make it so.

 

Yes, it offers ways to adapt for those who have the tech to do so, but the metaphor that was used by some youth delegates in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania used was this:

 

if the world is an ark and the rich live at the top with all the food and security while the poor and underdeveloped live in the part with all the holes and water leaking into the ship, filled with rats, roaches, and disease, why is it that because they are born in the lower deck that they must suffer and die faster when everyone is all going to sink eventually, and why are the life rafts only for the rich when the poor are the ones who also help maintain the ship? 

 

I believe in the technology. I do not believe in hoarding it and dangling it before the eyes of those less fortunate, let alone denying it to them in a power play. 

[windwalker]

1 minute ago, Earl Grey said:

if the world is an ark and the rich live at the top with all the food and security while the poor and underdeveloped live in the part with all the holes and water leaking into the ship, filled with rats, roaches, and disease, why is it that

 

They allow it to be so....is why.

They either elect or allow those to come to power

to rule over them....

 

Give it some time,  when they understand they can change things

they will....

 

Peace corps,,,

 

cool although some might say its a way for 

the US to influence countries indirectly  

 

I know sometimes its hard not to interfere in a culture your not from.

lived most of  my life overseas,,,in the military and after, working for tech companies 

in asia...In the places I've lived,,, if one doesn't  work, they tend not to eat.

 

Not like in the US.......

[Earl Grey]

13 minutes ago, windwalker said:

They allow it to be so....is why.

They either elect or allow those to come to power

to rule over them....

 

Not so much as they allow it so all the time as they are misled. As we see, there are elections where there is interference or cheating (see: Cold War Banana Republics and our fine government with their wonderful gift for propping up weirdoes around the world just like the Soviets did and now the PRC), manipulation through oligarchs and demagogues, and now tyranny (strongmen). Coincidentally (or not), these are the three worst kinds of democracy as described by Plato... 

 

On a cultural level, I've run across rural families who give entire votes to people they don't know about because the head of the family instructs them to do so. They don't even know the policies at times and it's weirdoes like former actors who become popular in India and the Philippines or Indonesia and get into government as the masses think they are the same heroes they played in their favorite movies. 

 

Arroyo didn't actually win her election in 2004 in the Philippines and it was proven she had cheated, but rule of law was thrown out the window and her own funds were used to keep her and her supporters in power. 

 

13 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Give it some time,  when they understand they can change things

they will....

 

Not if the power structures ruling over them systematically keep them dumb and oppressed while content with their creature comforts like phones and telenovelas and drinks. 

 

13 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Peace corps,,,

 

cool although some might say its a way for 

the US to influence countries indirectly  

 

Yes and no. I loved my time there, but I didn't love all my colleagues, and I didn't believe the structure was perfect either, though I did note that they tried to dissuade former intelligence officers from participating as it undermines the purpose of Peace Corps. A lot of countries actually like PC Volunteers--even Russia and China still invite many PCVs because of the cultural exchange. But there are also jerks in the PC like one guy who nobody understood why he was in Africa if he hated black people and why he stayed there until he said he was only there to pay off student loan debt and save money. I guess they lowered their standards for whom they take in these days...

 

13 minutes ago, windwalker said:

I know sometimes its hard not to interfere in a culture your not from.

lived most of  my life overseas,,,in the military and after, working for tech companies 

in asia...In the places I've lived,,, if one doesn't  work, they tend not to eat.

 

Not like in the US.......

 

It is hard to ask when I'm actually interfering or participating! Creates a constant sense of depression at times when helpless in the beginning until I accept I am a denizen even if I am not a citizen. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Earl Grey

[Zork]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

Interesting,,,

Your saying those countries can grow enough to feed their populations"

They don't need to import food?

Stop twisting words!

Why does the US import bananas? Are they a staple in your diet?

Did the first colonists there eat them?

Did you ever consider for example that you export mainly processed food (ice cream, cereal etc.) Which is a major cause of global warming. Is ice cream and cereal needed for third world countries?

If your technogy and methods are so superior in food production why do you have subsidies?

 

You are full of fallacies!

[Taoist Texts]

22 minutes ago, Zork said:

If your technogy and methods are so superior in food production why do you have subsidies?

because everybody who is somebody also has them?

 

China

In 2012, China provided $165 billion in agricultural subsidies.^[28] In 2018, China increased their subsidies for soybean farmers in their northeastern provinces.  

Indonesia

 In 2012, Indonesia provided $28 billion in agricultural subsidies.^[31]

Edited April 2, 2019 by Taoist Texts

[joeblast]

As Freeman Dyson said, the co2 warming catastrophe argument is bad science - his concern from too much co2?  The cooling effects!  Much to the chagrin of the alarmist religion, its not all about infrared, and once the IR absorption band is saturated, then co2's net effect will be that of cooling.

 

https://climatephys.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/a-guide-to-co2-and-stratospheric-cooling/

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

Spoiler

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

If non-radiating O₂ is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO₂, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO₂ is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O₂ it replaced by “fossil fuel” combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is

I = σ e (T/100)⁴

If e increases with CO₂ at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO₂ causes global cooling.

This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.

I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m², of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.

T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = 5.67*0.70827(277.750/100)⁴ = 5.67*0.70827*59.51 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

If doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.

I = 5.67*0.70927(277.652/100)⁴ = 5.67*0.70927*59.43 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

Conservation of Energy of Atmosphere

1^st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.

Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space

79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m²

Since CO₂ absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO₂; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO₂ affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.

 

Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.

These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN’s discredited IPCC.

Radiant Energy Transfer Law

The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is

I₁ – I₀ =σ [e₁ (T₁/100)⁴ – e₀ (T₀/100)⁴]

(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T₀ = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so

I – I_s = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)⁴ – 1.0 (3.7/100)⁴] = 5.67 [0.70827*59.51 – 1.0*0.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.

So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T₀ = 0.

If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I₁ – I₀ is constant (I₁ actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO₂ absorption), and e₁ is constant, then when e₀ increases with CO₂, either T₁ must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e₀ (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T₀ must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.

In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a₀ = e₀, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e₀ with a₀.

Inserting appropriate values (T₁ = 14.85C, T₀ = -18.15C, e₁ = 0.1615 and e₀ = 0.167) gives:

I – I_s = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)⁴ – 0.167 (255/100)⁴] = 5.67 [0.161*68.797 – 0.167*42.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.

Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.

For atmosphere component,

199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)^-4

Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.

40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)⁴

Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface

e = (0.831*199 + 0.1025*40)/239 = 0.708

which confirms the initial assumption precisely.

I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.

At first glance, assuming I₁ – I₀ and T₀ are constant, increasing CO₂ increases heat transfer resistance,e₀, so surface radiating T₁must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO₂decreases atmospheric T₀and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO₂ on emissivity of the atmosphere.

Lapse Rate

This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.

Increasing CO₂ increases atmosphere Cp because CO₂Cp> O₂Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.

Conservation of Energy of Earth

1^st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.

(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I – I_s + P

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m² incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m² of incident sphere

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO₂ affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.

I_s = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible

P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis

IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible

Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:

I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)⁴

Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:

I/σe =(T/100)⁴ = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe

If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO₂ on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO₂ causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.1605 = 2.548⁴ or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.881⁴ or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.

With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80

I = 5.67*1.0(254.803/100)⁴ = 5.67*1*42.152 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.

Photosynthesis

Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO₂ + 0.5yH₂O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O₂, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH₄, methane.

Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a₀ = e₀, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO₂ is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O₂ for us fauna. Fauna make CO₂ for flora.

Reaction rate, consumption of CO₂ and incident solar energy, P is

P = k*p*S_s [CO₂][H₂O]exp(-E/RT₁)

p = pressure at leaf, atm

S_s = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m²<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity

[CO₂] = atmospheric composition, vol % = 0.0390

[H₂O] = atmospheric composition, vol %

T₁ = temperature of surface leaf, K

k = kinetic rate constant

So increasing [CO₂] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T₁ will have the same effect.

So the sensitivity of T to CO₂ depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T₁, T₀. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.

Combined System Effects

With an increase in CO₂, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T₁ drops to 14.85-. With increased e₀ the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T₀ decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO₂ is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.

Therefore increasing CO₂ causes decreases in surface T₁ = 14.85-, atmosphere T₀ = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO₂ global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.

 

But I can see how those details are an impediment to establishing a catastrophe scenario where unprecedented action is required and the government has to establish a new tranche of tax revenues to address this most dire threat.

 

Its amusing that the methane bomb conjecture needs to be added to the co2 conjecture in order to justify quadrupling down on this failed almost-hypothesis "co2 agw."  (Its really really funny that we're already dead and the bomb is going off any minute now...only the most brainwashed zealots of the religion truly believe that one's going to come in and save the runaway tax idea.  News Flash: methane isnt going to save your conjecture from destruction via weak solar cycle.)

 

 

The big issue is that the GCMs do not have the capacity to model outlier events, and this automatically places their long term predictions into the garbage bin.   Instead there's assumptions, modeled.  So when you go to earth.nulschool.net, that's the only reason the GCMs "work" (at very short timescales) - they are constantly updated to reality.  Curve fitting dont mean shit and the entire usefulness of a model lies in its ability to make prediction.  (If I said wake me when one comes true, I'd be rip van winkle with 6 inch eyebrows, like the alternate ending to army of darkness, lol)

 

 

As we've seen with the waxing and waning of the last couple solar cycles, the earth's atmosphere grows and shrinks along with the sunspot cycle.  When it shrinks, the vortex is enhanced (that's not the part we notice though) and as the vortex loses its momentum, it wobbles off its axis and eventually breaks apart.  We notice when its wobbling and beginning decoherence, because of the temperature swings.  (I had a good chuckle when the zealots came out with co2 is what's driving that, right along with the jet stream weirdness, too.  Doesnt quite matter the jet stream only got funny after the vortex events, but like all other inconvenient data, alarmists just ignore this one too.)  The large planets nudge the sun around the gravitational barycenter of the solar system, and they can gang up and advance or retard the solar tides, which modulates a more or less intense solar cycle.  We still dont know when 25 is going to start or why one hemisphere of the sun wrapped up sooner than the other....but I've only seen one savant out there really try to do much in the way of trying to model the planetary dynamic like that.)  Shit like that aint considered in the GCMs - they just use whatever bastardizations they can to minimize the appearance of variation in the sun's absolutely massive input to the equation.  ("But TSI doesnt vary all that much!"  Yes, mangle that and you have plenty of room for chicanery!) 

 

So as the modelers find important phenomena like this and begin to introduce them into the models, there will simply be less and less room for the co2 catastrophe - and should they ever get TSI honestly represented and a good solar model made, that will forever slam the door shut on this silly co2 conjecture.

 

Because face it, a hypothesis, a theory - must be falsifiable.  We're 40 years into climate predictions, and not a single one of the alarmisms have come true.  And since these jokers have shown time and again that their idea absolutely cannot be falsified, then it is merely a conjecture...one that already got laughed out of the markets...and one that will be laughed out of academia the next time there is a significant solar minimum - its only a matter of time before the improved measurements and data catch up and make the fallacy unequivocal for even the most hardcore zealots.

 

I still laugh at James Hansen trying to tell me his equations proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that human effects had overtaken the sun's effects as the primary driver of the climate    What a maroon

[Zork]

5 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

because everybody who is somebody also has them?

 

China

In 2012, China provided $165 billion in agricultural subsidies.^[28] In 2018, China increased their subsidies for soybean farmers in their northeastern provinces.  

Indonesia

 In 2012, Indonesia provided $28 billion in agricultural subsidies.^[31]

That doesn't disprove my point. It is like claiming that it is ok to use performance increasing drugs because everyone uses it.

 

[Taoist Texts]

4 minutes ago, Zork said:

That doesn't disprove my point.

it was not very clear what is it

4 minutes ago, Zork said:

 

 

It is like claiming that it is ok to use performance increasing drugs because everyone uses it.

 

Yes it is one of the reasons why it is quite ok to do so.

[Zork]

Just now, Taoist Texts said:

it was not very clear what is it

Yes it is one of the reasons why it is quite ok to do so.

If it is not clear then why aren't you asking what it is, instead of making assumptions?

Because you don't know either way.:)

 

And perpetuating something that is both illegal and wrong in a purely capitalist point of view like subsidies, is everything i would expect from you, someone who has no orbit at all, no skill, no neidan and swims on delusions....

[ralis]

To further my point from last night regarding the so called technological fix is that any known technology requires fossil fuels which exasperates the problem of atmospheric CO2.

[Taoist Texts]

37 minutes ago, Zork said:

from you, someone who has no orbit at all, no skill, no neidan

 

[Earl Grey]

3 hours ago, joeblast said:

Because face it, a hypothesis, a theory - must be falsifiable.  We're 40 years into climate predictions, and not a single one of the alarmisms have come true. 

 

A lot of it is actually quite true in the Global South based on government policies and non-state actors alone. I'm not sure which predictions you're talking about and if they're focused on Europe and North America exclusively. 

[voidisyinyang]

6 hours ago, joeblast said:

As Freeman Dyson said, the co2 warming catastrophe argument is bad science - his concern from too much co2?  The cooling effects!  Much to the chagrin of the alarmist religion, its not all about infrared, and once the IR absorption band is saturated, then co2's net effect will be that of cooling.

 

https://climatephys.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/a-guide-to-co2-and-stratospheric-cooling/

https://principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate/

  Reveal hidden contents

Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation

If non-radiating O₂ is exchanged for absorbing/emitting CO₂, the emissivity, e, of a planet to space must increase. While emissivity of CO₂ is less that global emissivity, it is greater than the O₂ it replaced by “fossil fuel” combustion. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation is

I = σ e (T/100)⁴

If e increases with CO₂ at constant I, T goes down. Therefore, CO₂ causes global cooling.

This is true for all bodies of matter, no matter the composition, rotation speed or weather.

I = radiating intensity, irradiance, power of any radiating body, w/m², of its spherical surface, measured by Earth satellite spectrophotometers to be about 239. It is only a transfer rate when surroundings do not radiate, at 0K. Outer space at 3.7K radiate with very low intensity.

T = temperature of radiating body, K, estimated for Earth to be 4.60C + 273.15 = 277.75

σ = Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law constant, 5.67

e = emissivity of radiating body, fraction 0 < e < 1. e varies with composition. Perfect radiator black body e = 1, radiates a given intensity at lowest possible temperature. Colorful Earth radiator e = 0.70827 emits given intensity at temperature higher than black body.

I = 5.67*0.70827(277.750/100)⁴ = 5.67*0.70827*59.51 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

If doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppmv increases emissivity 0.001 from 0.70827 to 0.70927, T would drop -0.098C from 4.600C to 4.502C.

I = 5.67*0.70927(277.652/100)⁴ = 5.67*0.70927*59.43 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

Conservation of Energy of Atmosphere

1^st Law Thermodynamics: Input Rate = Output Rate + Accumulation rate. At steady-state, Accumulation Rate = 0 and this ordinary differential equation becomes an algebraic one.

Absorption of solar + absorption of thermals and evaporation from surface + absorption from surface radiation = radiation to space

79 + 97 + 23 = 199 w/m²

Since CO₂ absorption spectrum overlaps solar spectrum tail a small amount at two wavelengths, the 79 value would increase a small amount with CO₂; a cooling effect on surface neglected by greenhouse gas theory. Some climatologists say CO₂ affects the rate of heat transfer from surface by thermals and evaporation, 17 + 80 = 97, but I shall neglect that controversial effect here. However, once quantified, this model structure can assess the effect on global temperatures. An additional 161 is transmitted through atmosphere from sun to surface, 1 is retained by surface. 160 is transferred from surface up: 40 is transmitted through atmosphere as radiation from surface directly to space, 97 is transferred to atmosphere by convection and evaporation and 23 is absorbed from surface radiation.

 

Total incoming is 79 + 161 = outgoing 199 + 40 + 1 = 240. Transfer to space = 239.

These global energy flows come from the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram, as promoted by the UN’s discredited IPCC.

Radiant Energy Transfer Law

The rate of radiant energy transfer between radiating body 1 and radiating surroundings 0 is

I₁ – I₀ =σ [e₁ (T₁/100)⁴ – e₀ (T₀/100)⁴]

(I am neglecting complicated geometry effects here.) For transfer from Earth to space, I shall assume surroundings at T₀ = 3.7K, neglecting starlight, so

I – I_s = 5.67 [0.70827 (277.75/100)⁴ – 1.0 (3.7/100)⁴] = 5.67 [0.70827*59.51 – 1.0*0.00000187] = 5.67[42.152 – 0.000002] = 239.00 – 0.000010626 = 239.00.

So there is no problem equating Earth’s radiation intensity to space with its radiant heat transfer rate to space. Intensity only equals radiant energy transfer rate when T₀ = 0.

If this is applied to transfer from surface 1 to atmosphere 0, rate I₁ – I₀ is constant (I₁ actually drops a little when incoming drops due to increased atmospheric CO₂ absorption), and e₁ is constant, then when e₀ increases with CO₂, either T₁ must increase to overcome increased resistance to heat transfer by increased e₀ (as postulated by GHGT and the only possible warming mechanism I can find), or T₀ must decrease. They both change in such a way as to reduce global T from S-B Law.

In the unusual situation where surroundings do not obey Kirchhoff’s Law, absorptivity = emissivity, a₀ = e₀, because surroundings has energy transfer by means other than radiation, like thermals plus evaporation = 97 from surface to atmosphere, one cannot replace e₀ with a₀.

Inserting appropriate values (T₁ = 14.85C, T₀ = -18.15C, e₁ = 0.1615 and e₀ = 0.167) gives:

I – I_s = 5.67 [0.1615 (288/100)⁴ – 0.167 (255/100)⁴] = 5.67 [0.161*68.797 – 0.167*42.283] = 5.67[11.111 – 7.061] = 62.998 – 40.037 = 22.961 = 23.

Note surface emissivity = 0.1615, radiates I = 63, 40 directly to space and 23 absorbed by atmosphere. While pure water has e = 0.96, ocean phytoplankton absorb solar power, reducing its emissivity. Emissivity of atmosphere seen from surface = 0.167. Emissivity of atmosphere to space is 0.830 because it receives 97 by convection and evaporation and does not obey Kirchhoff’s Law: emissivity = absorptivity.

For atmosphere component,

199 = 5.67*0.830 (255/100)^-4

Note surface radiates directly to space with effective emissivity = 0.1025.

40 = 5.67*0.1025 (288/100)⁴

Now we can find weighted average global emissivity from atmosphere and surface

e = (0.831*199 + 0.1025*40)/239 = 0.708

which confirms the initial assumption precisely.

I realize these average emissivity values may not be acceptable to some, but they do fit the observed data and are hard to determine from first principles.

At first glance, assuming I₁ – I₀ and T₀ are constant, increasing CO₂ increases heat transfer resistance,e₀, so surface radiating T₁must increase to accommodate. This could be the basic claim of GHGT and yetCO₂decreases atmospheric T₀and global radiating T. The amounts depend on the effect of CO₂ on emissivity of the atmosphere.

Lapse Rate

This is consistent with the slope of T vs altitude in troposphere, lapse rate = -g/Cp (universal gravity constant / heat capacity) because kinetic energy of gas decreases as its gravitational potential energy increases with altitude, by energy conservation law.

Increasing CO₂ increases atmosphere Cp because CO₂Cp> O₂Cp, making the slope less negative. It rotates counterclockwise about its radiating centroid T near 5 km and -18C (which decreases a bit by transfer rate to space). This causes lower atmosphere T to increase and upper atmosphere T to decrease.

Conservation of Energy of Earth

1^st Law Thermodynamics: Input rate = output rate.

(1 – alb) S/4 + IO = I – I_s + P

S = solar radiation intensity, 1365 to 1370 w/m² incident disk or 1365/4 to 1370/4 w/m² of incident sphere

Albedo = reflectivity, fraction, mostly by clouds, estimate 0.7. Some say CO₂ affects albedo through cloud formation; this could be a significant cooling effect.

I_s = intensity of surrounding space = 0.000010626 @ 3.7K = negligible

P = energy absorbed by plant photosynthesis

IO = sum inputs (core, volcanoes, fires) minus other outputs, negligible

Rearranging and substituting gives the overall relationship:

I = (1 – alb) S/4 – P = σ e (T/100)⁴

Dividing by σ e gives the overall relationship for T:

I/σe =(T/100)⁴ = (1 – alb) S/4σe – P/σe

If S increases, T increases. If alb, e or P increase, T decreases. All we need to do is find the effect of CO₂ on alb, e and P to quantify its effect on T. Easy to show increasing CO₂ causes increases in e and P, decreasing T.

If Earth were a perfect black body emitter and P = 0,

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*1.000 = 42.1605 = 2.548⁴ or T = 254.8K = -18.33C

Actually Earth’s surface is a colorful 0.612 emitter using surface T = 15C

(1 – 0.3) 1366/4*5.67*0.612 = 68.8897 = 2.881⁴ or T = 288.1K = 14.95C

The difference 14.95 – (-18.33) = +33.3C is the difference between colorful Earth’s radiating surface temperature and its theoretical black body equivalent when radiating at same intensity, 239.

James Hansen, Al Gore and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), among others, mistakenly declared this 33C to be the greenhouse effect.

With a corrected emissivity value for radiating 239 at T = 4.6C, e = 0.708, corresponding black body would radiate at T = 273.15 – 18.35 = 254.80

I = 5.67*1.0(254.803/100)⁴ = 5.67*1*42.152 = 5.67*42.152 = 239.0

This means the so called greenhouse effect is 4.60 – (-18.35) = +22.95C, not +33C.

Photosynthesis

Organic molecules are made by living flora by photosynthesis chemical reaction of xCO₂ + 0.5yH₂O + sunlight = CxHy + (x+0.25y)O₂, catalyzed by chlorophyll, according to biology. CxHy are hydrocarbon molecules: sugars, starches & cellulose, and which decay slowly to oil, gas, peat, tar and coal along with decaying fauna residue. CxHy can be natural gas, CH₄, methane.

Surface does not obey Kirchhoff’s law either,a₀ = e₀, because of this non-radiation chemical energy transfer mechanism.CO₂ is green plant food driving the cycle of flora – fauna life. Flora make O₂ for us fauna. Fauna make CO₂ for flora.

Reaction rate, consumption of CO₂ and incident solar energy, P is

P = k*p*S_s [CO₂][H₂O]exp(-E/RT₁)

p = pressure at leaf, atm

S_s = sunlight impinging on green surfaces, w/m²<160. = a(1 – alb)S/4, a = absorptivity

[CO₂] = atmospheric composition, vol % = 0.0390

[H₂O] = atmospheric composition, vol %

T₁ = temperature of surface leaf, K

k = kinetic rate constant

So increasing [CO₂] will increase P and reduce T, cooling. Increasing S or T₁ will have the same effect.

So the sensitivity of T to CO₂ depends on which temperature you are talking about: T, T₁, T₀. And what the net effect of all relevant mechanisms is. It is easy to see why there is so much confusion and controversy.

Combined System Effects

With an increase in CO₂, solar absorption by atmosphere increases a bit to 79+ and surface absorption decreases a like amount to 161-. Therefore, surface radiation drops a like amount to 63-. And its T₁ drops to 14.85-. With increased e₀ the transfer rate from surface to atmosphere by absorption decreases to 23-. And since the atmosphere T₀ decreases to -18.15-, the net radiation rate from atmosphere to space must drop to 199- = 79+ + 23- + 97, because CO₂ is a better absorber of surface spectrum than solar spectrum. Direct transmittance from surface to space would increase to 40+ such that the total to space remains 199- + 40+ = 239.0, satisfying overall energy balance.

Therefore increasing CO₂ causes decreases in surface T₁ = 14.85-, atmosphere T₀ = -18.15-, and global T = 4.60-. There is no CO₂ global warming mechanism. There are at least four global cooling mechanisms. This refutes UN IPCC claim doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 causes Earth’s T to increase 1.2C to 2.5C.

 

But I can see how those details are an impediment to establishing a catastrophe scenario where unprecedented action is required and the government has to establish a new tranche of tax revenues to address this most dire threat.

 

Its amusing that the methane bomb conjecture needs to be added to the co2 conjecture in order to justify quadrupling down on this failed almost-hypothesis "co2 agw."  (Its really really funny that we're already dead and the bomb is going off any minute now...only the most brainwashed zealots of the religion truly believe that one's going to come in and save the runaway tax idea.  News Flash: methane isnt going to save your conjecture from destruction via weak solar cycle.)

 

 

The big issue is that the GCMs do not have the capacity to model outlier events, and this automatically places their long term predictions into the garbage bin.   Instead there's assumptions, modeled.  So when you go to earth.nulschool.net, that's the only reason the GCMs "work" (at very short timescales) - they are constantly updated to reality.  Curve fitting dont mean shit and the entire usefulness of a model lies in its ability to make prediction.  (If I said wake me when one comes true, I'd be rip van winkle with 6 inch eyebrows, like the alternate ending to army of darkness, lol)

 

 

As we've seen with the waxing and waning of the last couple solar cycles, the earth's atmosphere grows and shrinks along with the sunspot cycle.  When it shrinks, the vortex is enhanced (that's not the part we notice though) and as the vortex loses its momentum, it wobbles off its axis and eventually breaks apart.  We notice when its wobbling and beginning decoherence, because of the temperature swings.  (I had a good chuckle when the zealots came out with co2 is what's driving that, right along with the jet stream weirdness, too.  Doesnt quite matter the jet stream only got funny after the vortex events, but like all other inconvenient data, alarmists just ignore this one too.)  The large planets nudge the sun around the gravitational barycenter of the solar system, and they can gang up and advance or retard the solar tides, which modulates a more or less intense solar cycle.  We still dont know when 25 is going to start or why one hemisphere of the sun wrapped up sooner than the other....but I've only seen one savant out there really try to do much in the way of trying to model the planetary dynamic like that.)  Shit like that aint considered in the GCMs - they just use whatever bastardizations they can to minimize the appearance of variation in the sun's absolutely massive input to the equation.  ("But TSI doesnt vary all that much!"  Yes, mangle that and you have plenty of room for chicanery!) 

 

So as the modelers find important phenomena like this and begin to introduce them into the models, there will simply be less and less room for the co2 catastrophe - and should they ever get TSI honestly represented and a good solar model made, that will forever slam the door shut on this silly co2 conjecture.

 

Because face it, a hypothesis, a theory - must be falsifiable.  We're 40 years into climate predictions, and not a single one of the alarmisms have come true.  And since these jokers have shown time and again that their idea absolutely cannot be falsified, then it is merely a conjecture...one that already got laughed out of the markets...and one that will be laughed out of academia the next time there is a significant solar minimum - its only a matter of time before the improved measurements and data catch up and make the fallacy unequivocal for even the most hardcore zealots.

 

I still laugh at James Hansen trying to tell me his equations proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that human effects had overtaken the sun's effects as the primary driver of the climate    What a maroon

This is not true - if you read the quantum physics article I posted - the "band" of CO2 for quantum photon absorption EXPANDS as CO2 increases the atmosphere. this is due to Earth's particular atmospheric pressure - so the concentration of the CO2 changes the rotational energy of collisions - so there is an "overlap" of the frequency range that causes the energy absorption levels.  This is called elastic bound absorption collisions.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=133&p=6

 

I can post the actual quotes from the pdf link I gave before - if you want. The dude was a physics professor at University of Chicago (a right-wing school - so don't worry about his "politics" ) - and his expertise was global warming and so now he is an Oxford University physics professor on global warming expertise.

Physics is a BIG field - so a cosmologist might not know the nitty gritty on CO2 in Earth's atmosphere - especially someone like Dyson who promotes an Anthropocentric view on cosmic evolution (based on belief in God)....

https://elixirfield.blogspot.com/2018/10/physics-professor-raymond-t.html

scroll way down for images from the pdf - that details how the "band" of CO2 expands during increased CO2 into the atmosphere.

 

so the "absorption coefficient" expands at the "optimally thick" band expands due to increased CO2.

 

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

 

pdf link for the image

 

 

here's another source explaining the same thing - the absorption frequency expands as CO2 increases - so no it does not "saturate."

 

So see the "box" of the pdf link called "Saturation Fallacies" - that debunks the above "general" planet physics - ignoring the specific atmosphere of Earth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

Here he has an article - that is not a pdf.

Quote

Roughly speaking, in the part of the spectrum where the atmosphere is optically thick, the radiation to space occurs at the temperature of the high, cold parts of the atmosphere. That’s practically zero compared to the radiation flux at temperatures comparable to the surface temperature; in the part of the spectrum which is optically thin, the planet radiates at near the surface temperature. Increasing CO₂ then increases the width of the spectral region where the atmosphere is optically thick, which replaces more of the high-intensity surface radiation with low-intensity upper-atmosphere radiation, and thus reduces the rate of radiation loss to space.

and part one:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument

Quote

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO₂, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO₂ because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO₂, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[joeblast]

*chuckles* the ability to move goalposts and set aside portions to be removed from consideration is an uncanny yet often required attribute for conjectures.  I love how the linked article kept mentioning this - "dont look there, that doesnt matter at all, look here!"

 

no wonder Hansen told me Humans now outweighed the sun in the climate calculation - if you just keep removing everything that you dont want to look at, or "its stable enough that I dont care about it," then you're left with....well, something that looks like this mongrel monstrosity of a conjecture.  Penn State & East Anglia did to climate science what the Penn State coach was doing to boys in the locker room & showers, and it shows.

 

the sun's activity is not correlated across the solar system for nothin, but perhaps that doesnt matter too.

[thelerner]

Perhaps thats because they're concerned and looking at the big picture, ie the global scale.  It's easy to say its cold here or there and laugh about climate change but scientists don't have that luxury.  The models are complex and some places will heat up, other cool down, with current models the aggregate is global heating. 

 

The sun is a factor, a powerful one and thanks to science we've gotten a better handle on its cycles.  Its also one we can't do anything about.  There are a multitude of factors that we can, ie our pollution output, which is huge.  It'd be wise to apply science and see what we can do to keep our planet most liveable. 

 

My earlier argument is without such models in the recent past, ie 50's we were smart enough to see smog choking our cities and stopped putting lead in gasoline, put catalytic converters into cars, put teeth into the EPA to stop wholesale, preventable mass pollution.  And it worked.  We listened to the science and the smog went away.   Skies went back to blue, inner city kids saw IQ's go up because breathing in lead was bad. 

 

A whole myriad of benefits that might poo pooed now with the same arguments, because the science has become political. 

 

[voidisyinyang]

On 4/3/2019 at 10:37 AM, thelerner said:

Perhaps thats because they're concerned and looking at the big picture, ie the global scale.  It's easy to say its cold here or there and laugh about climate change but scientists don't have that luxury.  The models are complex and some places will heat up, other cool down, with current models the aggregate is global heating. 

 

The sun is a factor, a powerful one and thanks to science we've gotten a better handle on its cycles.  Its also one we can't do anything about.  There are a multitude of factors that we can, ie our pollution output, which is huge.  It'd be wise to apply science and see what we can do to keep our planet most liveable. 

 

My earlier argument is without such models in the recent past, ie 50's we were smart enough to see smog choking our cities and stopped putting lead in gasoline, put catalytic converters into cars, put teeth into the EPA to stop wholesale, preventable mass pollution.  And it worked.  We listened to the science and the smog went away.   Skies went back to blue, inner city kids saw IQ's go up because breathing in lead was bad. 

 

A whole myriad of benefits that might poo pooed now with the same arguments, because the science has become political. 

 

 

Quote

 

"The Arctic system is trending away from its 20th century state and into an unprecedented state, with implications not only within but beyond the Arctic," according to lead author Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland in Copenhagen.

 

"Because the Arctic atmosphere is warming faster than the rest of the world, weather patterns across Europe, North America and Asia are becoming more persistent, leading to extreme weather conditions. Another example is the disruption of the ocean circulation that can further destabilize climate: for example, cooling across northwestern Europe and strengthening of storms," said Box.

 

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-air-temperatures-arctic.html

 

Kansas is going Bye-Bye.

 

[joeblast]

the only unprecedented state is the political one

 

muh warming....we're going to need every last bit of it, and the co2 conjectures will be laughed out of academia before too long.