Science denial

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I could give a flying f what you respect.

    Did you even bother to open the IPCC AR5 link?

    Verify that its own report claimed low confidence on its modeling of solar radiant forcing?

    Debate just this item you will not....
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heat is the kenetic energy of the particles of matter.

    Heat has common measures such as Celsius.

    If some allocation of matter has low amounts of kenetic energy, we perceive it as cold and measurements return lower numbers than if there is a lot of kenetic energy of the particles of the mass.

    I have NO idea how you came up with that sentence.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Solar radiant forcing would have to be WAY larger than it is in order to be a factor of significance.

    So it wouldn't be surprising to see error bars that are larger than those for some other factor.

    The affect of the sun is swamped by factors related to human activity.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  4. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,756
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just think about the time of the dinosaurs. They lived on a much warmer planet. CO2 levels were in the 4000 ppm. There were no polar ice caps, no glacial and interglacial periods because there were no ice caps. There were no ice caps because there was no land masses at the poles. Life thrives in hotter conditions with much more naturally occurring CO2 gas for millions of years. Dumb stupid pea brain sized giant animals lived and grew to enormous sizes.

    AGW is the Revelations Chapter of the apocalypse for the liberal's science religion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020
    Dayton3 likes this.
  5. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, 320 to 420 ppm of CO2 completely overrides how much of the 1370W/M^2 are absorbed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020
  6. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    4,025
    Likes Received:
    3,858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Oh Boy !! A new issue for "progressives" to catastrophize about. We will all become giants and run out of room !

    downloadfile.jpg
    `` They have to vote for us or their kids will be giants ! ´´
    06a7cb5c24f0c7a7dbfe65cbe94eddc0.jpg

    " They warned us about Co2. All the scientists agreed ..."
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2020
    PatriotNews likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a huge difference in that we are growing toward 8 billion humans who live disproportionately on coastlines and depend on existing agriculture.

    When there is change, there will be huge numbers of people who will have to move in order to find food, heat and water conditions that support them, etc.

    The world has wars over people moving like that. We build WALLS. We choose NOT to distribute food (like we've cut off Sudan today, leaving them in worse trouble than they were).

    In the US, CA is a major producer of vegetables and other food for the USA - more than any other state. Climate change has been seriously reducing its agricultural water.

    The same will happen in other states.

    We're a rich country, so we'll probably be OK with just having our standard of living slide. But, the billions who live elswhere will not be OK and they aren't going to just sit there and die. The are going to go to places where they think they will find food, water, liveable temperatures, etc.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, this is a common misunderstanding.

    The thing about natural systems is that they find a balance. We have a balance between solar heat arriving and heat escaping to the brutal cold of outer space, for example.

    Upsetting that balance does NOT require any kind of force that is similar to the cold of outer space or the arriving heat from the sun.

    It's like a kid's see saw. Two giants can be in balance and a child can come along and cause serious change by exerting tiny amouts of force.

    What we're doing is making it slightly more difficult for heat to radiate to outer space, while not blocking the wavelengths arriving from the sun. Since those are different wavelengths, it turns out this can be accomplished by chemistry - our CO2, methane, etc.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  9. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Gray Matter posted:

    8.4.1 Solar Irradiance In earlier IPCC reports the forcing was estimated as the instantaneous RF at TOA. However, due to wavelength-albedo dependence, solar radiation-wavelength dependence and absorption within the stratosphere and the resulting stratospheric adjustment, the RF is reduced to about 78% of the TOA instantaneous RF (Gray et al., 2009). There is low confidence in the exact value of this number, which can be model and time scale dependent (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 2005).


    My Response:

    If you read section 8.4.1.2 - Total Solar Radiance Variations Since Preindustrial Times - you would understand that instantaneous RF at TOA (top of the atmosphere) was not used in the most
    recent AR5 report. The low confidence level was from earlier reports and the newer method of obtaining the total solar radiance change since preindustrial times is more accurate and the
    confidence level is medium. The amount of radiative forcing since preindustrial times is 0.05 watts per square meter plus/minus 0.05 watts per square meter. That is insignificant compared
    to the total changes in greenhouse gas forcings.

    SC = solar cycle

    8.4.1.2 Total Solar Irradiance Variations Since Preindustrial Time The year 1750, which is used as the preindustrial reference for estimating RF, corresponds to a maximum of the 11-year SC. Trend analysis are usually performed over the minima of the solar cycles that are more stable. For such trend estimates, it is then better to use the closest SC minimum, which is in 1745. To avoid trends caused by comparing different portions of the solar cycle, we analyze TSI changes using multi-year running means. For the best estimate we use a recent TSI reconstruction by Krivova et al. (2010) between 1745 and 1973 and from 1974 to 2012 by Ball et al. (2012). The reconstruction is based on physical modeling of the evolution of solar surface magnetic flux, and its relationship with sunspot group number (before 1974) and sunspot umbra and penumbra and faculae afterwards. This provides a more detailed reconstruction than other models (see the time series in Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.3). The best estimate from our assessment of the most reliable TSI reconstruction gives a 7-year running mean RF between the minima of 1745 and 2008 of 0.05 W m–2. Our assessment of the range of RF from TSI changes is 0.0 to 0.10 W m–2 which covers several updated reconstructions using the same 7-year running mean past-to-present minima years (Wang et al., 2005; Steinhilber et al., 2009; Delaygue and Bard, 2011), see Supplementary Material Table 8.SM.4. All reconstructions rely on indirect proxies that inherently do not give consistent results. There are relatively large discrepancies among the models (see Figure 8.11).With these considerations, we adopt this value and range for AR5. This RF is almost half of that in AR4, in part because the AR4 estimate was based on the previous solar cycle minimum while the AR5 estimate includes the drop of TSI in 2008 compared to the previous two SC minima (see 8.4.1).
     
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  10. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,756
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then what you are saying is that the Earth has a way of self regulating the 8 billion human population by killing us off in storms, droughts, pestilence and war.

    Cool!
     
    James California likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You`re ignoring the impact on America.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Reptiles may thrive in hotter weather.

    This article explains what the earth could be like if the global mean temperature rises to 4 degrees C in the year 2100 above preindustrial levels. It mentions 2 meters of sea level rise in
    the year 2100 and an additional 8 meters or more of sea level rise in the coming centuries. Several billions of humans would likely be alive but many would have to move to higher ground
    and to places in temperate climates.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live

    "Things look considerably bleaker for our 2100 world. Over the past decade, scientists have been able to produce a far more nuanced picture of how temperature rise affects the complexities of cloud cover and atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns and ecology. We’re looking at vast dead zones in the oceans as nutrients from fertiliser runoff combine with warmer waters to produce an explosion in algae that starve marine life of oxygen. This will be exacerbated by the acidity from dissolved CO2, which will cause a mass die-off, particularly of shellfish, plankton and coral. “We will have lost all the reefs decades before 2100 – at somewhere between 2C and 4C,” says Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany."

    "Sea levels will be perhaps two metres higher and, more worryingly, we will be well on our way to an ice-free world, having passed the tipping points for the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, committing us to at least 10 metres of sea-level rise in coming centuries. That’s because as ice sheets melt, their surface drops to a lower altitude where it is warmer, speeding up melting in a runaway feedback loop. Eventually, dark, heat-absorbing land is exposed, speeding the melting process even more. By 2100, we will also have lost most low-latitude glaciers, including two-thirds of the so called third pole of the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalayan mountains and Tibetan plateau that feeds many of Asia’s important rivers."
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  13. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    15,453
    Likes Received:
    14,727
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Does anyone crying "science denier" believe gender is a "spectrum"?

    How about you @Bowerbird ?
     
  14. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Grey Matter posted:

    Its critique of MC's argument regarding global average temperature decreasing from 1940 to 1970 I do not accept.

    If the climate models can't account for the 1940-1970 cooling then how can it say with certainty that future cooling trends won't again override warming trends?


    My Response: See Skeptical science https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-basic.htm

    This is complicated because there are many factors at work including the accuracy of ocean surface temperatures.

    The lack of warming during that time was the result of increasing aerosols from factories and the burning of fossil fuels. Aerosols reflect sunlight away from the earth and increase cloudiness.

    Anti-pollution efforts in the 1970's reduced the aerosol pollution which led to warming.

    The blue curve depicts reflective tropospheric aerosols which increase in magnitude, causing increased negative forcing. The light gray curve represents volcanic aerosols

    causing negative forcing around 1960 and much cooling from 1960 to 1975.


    [​IMG]

    Figure 2: Separate global climate forcings relative to their 1880 values (image courtesy NASA GISS).
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020 at 1:26 AM
    Cosmo likes this.
  15. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,756
    Likes Received:
    3,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And by 2100 we will all be dead anyway so , meh, who cares?
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL. But, no.

    We're the size we are, because it fits in with our overall competitive advantage. I don't see anything to suggest that being bigger will help. Do you?

    However, there may well be pressure for humans to become more intelligent. Technological development and the necessity for cooperation across the globe both require brain power and both are of increasing signifiance.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I clearly need to learn to better communicate.

    I notice that by being lazy and citing the phase "low confidence", as well as highlighting the above portion of the report, which is also superficially uninspiring of the fidelity to which these IPCC coordinated researchers are addressing variations in solar RF in their models so as to eliminate any possibility that variations due to changes in solar RF are also contributing to a current trend in warming and some pretty amazing losses of polar ice sheets: I have possibly not quite communicated my complaint about inadequate modelling of solar and water.

    I am not proposing that TSI at TOA has any significant variation from around 1360 W/m^2.

    I personally find the language about low or medium confidence misleading when the variations in question vary from 1360 to 1362 based on an 11 y cycle.

    There are no possible proxies by which historical variations in the TOA solar flux can be measured.

    We are limited at best to estimates that may have some value going as far back as the scientific revolution.

    So it is a bit disingenuous of the report to claim that there is low or medium confidence when the order of magnitude in question is a tenth of a Watt.

    Guess these climate scientists somewhere along the way forgot about sigfigs.

    The model excludes surface insolation modelling.

    I often, like a lot of folks I guess, seem to think that if I know something then surely everyone else does too.

    Back in post 35 I shared an image that ought to be well known in a discussion like the one we are having in this thread.

    The actual solar flux that makes it to the surface to get trapped by the heavier CO2 molecules that stay closer to the surface is a wildly dynamic pattern.

    The timescale of the supposed tipping point in CO2 concentrations is exceedingly less than impressive in the context of dynamic patterns on geologic time scales.

    The earth could easily be in a mode where solar surface insolation has just enough of a sustained increase that it well more than CO2 is effecting the warming trend.

    But there is no account of it at all in this document, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

    IPCC AR5 Table 8.6.jpg

    2.3 W/m^2 total man-made forcing according to IPCC AR5.

    Yet they've not modeled with any level of confidence solar surface insolation.

    However, they conclude that

    2.3 W/MM is substantial compared to potential variations unaccounted for in the ~1000W/MM solar surface insolation?
     
  18. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Solar Insolation

    NOT MODELED


    Nasa Solar Insolation.png

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1355/measuring-solar-insolation

    NASA doesn't update this page anymore. Wonder why?

    And another NASA page no longer updated, here

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance

    This is an excellent page. Why is it not included in the model?

    As it turns out, only about 340 W/m^2 globally averaged for latitude constitute the nominal total solar insolation.

    A 1% variation in this exceeds the AR5 estimate of man-made 2.3W/m^2.

    Hence, it has to be included in the model.
     
  19. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    @ Grey Matter

    As you said, the total insolation is 340 watts per square meter. Close to 30% of that is reflected back to space, with clouds and the atmosphere reflecting 23% and the earth's surface
    reflecting 7%. Only 240 watts per square meter gets absorbed by the earth and atmosphere. What matters is whether or not there is a trend for that 240 watts per square meter to change
    over time. If it does change are humans responsible? The IPCC AR5 report does address this in a way that isn't straightforward. Malinkovitch effects are mentioned and ignored because they
    are very small over short time periods and relevant to time periods greater than 1000 years. The current Malinkovitch effect is around -0.1 degrees C. of RF per 1000 years
    Land use changes affecting surface albedo are discussed; it is assumed in the report that all land use changes are anthropogenic. Aerosols and aerosol-cloud interactions are discussed
    and this obviously affects the 23% of sunlight that is reflected back to space - this includes all climate affects of clouds and aerosols, not just the reflection of sunlight back to space. So,
    it is impossible to know from this report how much of that 23% of reflected sunlight is changing over time.

    The earth's albedo doesn't change very much. A big part of the long-term change is from melting Arctic ice. Black carbon is another factor. The IPCC AR5 report incorporates the changing
    albedo effect in its aerosol-radiation and aerosol-cloud interaction numbers but it is impossible to know what portion of that is albedo related. The bottom line is that the albedo doesn't change
    very much over periods of time like 10 - 20 years but it can change significantly over 1 year or a few years.


    The graph below is from Skeptical Science, "The albedo effect and global warming"...

    Over a five-year period, scientists found that albedo did increase slightly. Since 2003 the CERES satellite records shows a very slight reduction.

    [​IMG]
    Figure 2: CERES Terra SW TOA flux and MODIS cloud fraction for 30S–30N between March 2000 and February 2010 (Loeb et.al. 2012 - PDF)
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020 at 5:24 AM
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What is a natural system?

    Are you instead perhaps thinking of a dynamic system?

    I guess it depends on one's understanding of what it means to have a balance.

    Dynamic systems have an interesting tendency to fall into modes, and sometimes they just go off the rails, so to speak.

    Here is a sweet video that provides a fresh perspective on Chaos Theory.

    Very cool graphic juxtaposition of the Feigenbaum diagram with the Mandlebrot set.




    Since the IPCC moderated reports are predicting devastating consequences from the cement and oil and gas and cattle industries, isn't it fair to challenge the competency of the scientific assertion?

    For example, all of these teams of "independent" "climatologists" have no other questions to solve than the great CO2 challenge of the day?

    What was balanced about the Ice Ages?

    What do these IPCC models explain about how they began and how they ended?

    Nothing - they explain nothing about the extreme conditions that caused the Northern Hemisphere to be covered in thousand feet deep ice for thousands of years.

    Nor do they explain how the last ended approximately 12,800 years ago.

    If I were a "climatologist" then I'd be damn interested in using some supercomputer time to test some actual independent models based on some theoretical construct of how the climate shifted into and out of the Ice Age mode.

    As I mentioned, I do like this page quite well, even though it oversimplifies how the average surface insolation shakes out to be about 240 W/sq.m.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance

    CO2_H2O_absorption.png

    These IR adsorptions are molecular in nature and independent of mass.

    This means that the adsorption effect is by volume because that's how gases work under ideal conditions.

    The comparison of massive balances being tipped by doubling or even tripling the ppm level of CO2 is absurd.

    The Earth average temperature is around 60°F which means that it's peak radiant wavelength according to Wien's Law is 10µm.

    https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law

    CO2 does not adsorb 10µm IR.

    State of Fear....

    And why is it that all we hear about is the evil oil and gas industry.

    The cement industry is estimated to account for between 10 and 30 % of man made CO2 emissions.

    But of course you are already aware of this....
     
  21. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Remote Sensing of Earth's Energy Budget - information from an article published in the International Journal of Digital Earth, Dec 2018
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2019.1597189

    "Availability of satellite products of TOA albedo enables better understanding of its spatial and temporal variations. According to these CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) product Ed4.0 (Loeb, Doelling, et al. 2018), annual mean all-sky reflected flux is 99.1 Wm−2 (equivalent to a global albedo of 0.291). The clear-sky reflected flux is 53.3 Wm−2 (an albedo of 0.154). The difference between these fluxes (45.8 Wm−2) is taken to be a measure of the cloud influence on the reflected radiative flux. There was a general decreasing trend (−0.57 ± 0.19 Wm−2) from March 2000 – September 2016. The large positive anomalies in shortwave TOA flux coincide with positive anomalies in the Arctic sea ice coverage during the early 2000s (Hartmann and Ceppi 2014). In another study, Loeb, Thorsen, et al. (2018) assessed the impacts of the climate warming hiatus and found a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global reflected shortwave TOA flux during 2000–2017 compared to the hiatus reference years from 2000 to 2014 due to changes in low cloud cover."


    TOA (top of the atmosphere)




    This graph is from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) TOA Edition 4.0 Data Product from the American Meteorological Society, Jan 2018
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/a...s-and-the-Earth-s-Radiant-Energy-System-CERES

    "The large positive anomalies in SW TOA flux during the early 2000s (Fig. 9a) coincide with positive anomalies in the Arctic (Fig. 10a) as a result of greater sea ice coverage compared to the rest of the record (Hartmann and Ceppi 2014; Pistone et al. 2014), positive anomalies in the southern midlatitudes in 2002 (Fig. 10e), and positive anomalies over Antarctica in 2000 (Fig. 10f)"

    A positive anomaly corresponds to greater solar radiation being reflected back to space. This is apparent in the top graph showing the Arctic with greater sea ice coverage in 2000-2005 versus 2016.
    The bottom graph representing Antarctica shows a much smaller positive anomaly during 2000-2002 versus 2016. The dark line showing the 12-month running average of monthly anomalies shows
    little change from 2000 to 2018 4th and 5th graphs of the Southern Hemisphere. There is a slight long-term negative trending anomaly in graphs 2 and 3 representing the Northern Hemisphere.
    The net result has been a negative trending anomaly in TOA radiation flux from 2000 to 2018 corresponding to less reflected sunlight and more sunlight warming the earth. This study compares a newer
    version for processing data, Ed.4.0, versus an older version, Ed 2.0. This study has no way to distinguish anthropogenic effects from natural effects, but the reduction of Arctic sea ice is largely anthropogenic.
    Except for the top graph representing the Arctic, there is little long term change in the amount of sunlight reflected back to space over the 2000 to 2018 time span relative to the nominal 240 watts/meter
    of solar energy absorbed by the earth.

    Figure 10 short-wave (solar) flux TOA anomaly in watts/meter vs time

    [​IMG]


    EBAF Ed4.0 and Ed2.8 all-sky SW TOA flux anomalies for (a) 60°–90°N, (b) 30°–60°N, (c) 0°–30°N, (d) 30°S–0°, (e) 60°–30°S, and (f) 90°–60°S. Thin lines are monthly anomalies. The thick line is a 12-month running average of monthly anomalies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020 at 6:09 PM
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    35,107
    Likes Received:
    7,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You answered your own question. There are lots of questions where scientists state that more research is important. Scientists noticed a bunch of "missing" heat a while back and that spurred a far more aggressive approach to understanding our oceans as heat sinks, for example.
    Ancient climate is being studied seriously and does provide a context for all climatological sciences.

    IPCC reporting doesn't target ancient climates in the same way. It's more focused on more recent issues. But, that doesn't mean that the sciene contributing to that report is ignoring the context you describe or that ancient climate isn't a highly active field.
    What the heck makes you think that isn't a continuing activity?
    This looks like a fundamental mistake to me. I have seen nothing to suggest that climate change has to do with how much heat CO2 might absorb.

    The issues with CO2 and other atmospheric chemistry have to do with heat flow - what is allowed to pass and what is reflected. The problem is that solar rays are allowed to pass to Earth, but more of the heat from Earth is blocked from passing to the incredible cold of space.

    The result is that Earth warms.
    It's because these industries mine ancient carbon and that carbon ends up in our atmosphere. It's the primary way carbon is added to our environment.
    There are two main sources of CO2 in cement production.

    About 40% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel used in heating raw material.

    The rest is the CO2 that comes from the chemical reaction called calcination that is how cement is made.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  23. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you not like to use the reply link?

    Not a problem for me, just seems a bit odd not to receive an alert that you respond to my post.

    Also, the @ thing only works if you click on the app's member suggestion, so I didn't receive an alert of this mention either.

    Anyway, thanks for the clarification on the 340 W/sqm and thanks for clarifying that insolation dynamics are dancing with albedo dynamics.

    This link from your post that references the graph is dead, http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

    I was trying to follow it to better understand what exactly the graph is.

    SW TOA Flux Anomaly is what? Solar Wattage TOA Flux? Southwest TOA flux? Sunshine in Austin is it?

    Cloud Fraction Anomaly - wtf is the baseline for cloud fraction first of all?

    And also, are these curves based on only daylight data?

    I'm still super curious about the condensed matter physics of water vapor in the atmosphere as the Earth transitions from day to night.

    I am all but certain that there are more clouds and fog formed during the cooling phase of the diurnal heat transfer cycle.

    Even without visible condensation, water vapor holds daytime heat at night very well.

    Vega vs Houston for example.

    Water vapor is a positive feedback to warming, not a consequence of it.

    I disagree with your assertion that the bottom line is that the albedo doesn't change very much over 10-20 years.

    The antarctic summertime insolation shown in the image on post 218 will surely increase as more ice cover is lost to underlying earth.

    It is certainly seasonally dynamic, but most of that is because of angles, not really an albedo effect, is it?

    I've not seen you address the political part of my assertion.

    If you prefer not to then that's cool by me.

    These threads can go quite a bit sideways and I'm not as bad as some and worse than others around here for having the discipline to post like I'm writing a business email.

    You don't find anything suspect that a public policy organization is determining the state of knowledge on climate change?

    Is the UN a scientific community now?

    Lot's of scientists running the show there, are there?
     
  24. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Right then, you meant to say dynamic system.

    How about a link to your missing heat reference?

    What else might be missing before we tax personal boating on Lake Travis so that the mega-millionaires-and-up have it more to themselves?

    Ah, conspiracy theorist I am, it's all in order to save the planet, guided by the IPCC and the Swiss.


    Backup your assertion that climatologists are devoting anything close to their research on what caused the start and end of the ice ages as they are on proxy research and analysis of CO2.

    The entire basis of categorizing CO2 as a GHC is because of it's IR adsorption characteristic.

    You're kidding me with this one, yes?

    There is no doubt that burning everything from methane to coal adds to a net increase of atmospheric CO2.

    Carbon, can't live with it, can't live without it.

    I've often thought that all of our refineries should just shutdown for a few months.

    Let's save the planet NOW!

    Hope you have a decent garden and a nice forest full of deer handy.

    Oh no, wait, that would be the R folks that mostly have that going on.

    Google is your friend, Look you learned something new, I suspect. If so, you are welcome.
     
  25. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Carbon dioxide absorbs at 15 micrometers with a 2 micrometer band centered at 15. That is sufficient to absorb a significant amount of energy radiated by the Earth's surface.
    Normalized blackbody curves are often used in order to make the area under the curves proportional to irradiance when using a semi-logarithmic plot. The ordinate is multiplied by the wavelength.
    Carbon dioxide absorbs strongly just to the right of the peak

    From Research Gate
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure...te-emission-temperature-of-the_fig1_298919105


    [​IMG]


    (a) Normalized black body curves for 5800 K (the approximate emission temperature of the Sun) and 288 K (the approximate surface temperature of the Earth). (b) Representative absorption spectrum of the Earth's atmosphere for a vertical column from the surface to space, assuming the atmosphere to be a homogeneous slab. (c) The same but for a vertical column from the tropopause (∼ 11 km) to space. Spectra based on HITRAN on the Web; see Appendix D for details. Figure after Goody and Yung (1989, Fig. 1.1 on p. 4).


    Another graph that is not normalized showing CO2's absorption band https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/1006
    CO2's absorption band is close to the peak.

    [​IMG]

    The expected spectrum of energy emitted from the Earth is the smooth curve encompassing the yellow region. The observed spectrum, in red, indicates that a significant portion of the emitted energy is absorbed by various gases in the atmosphere. The wavelength ranges of absorption of various molecules are indicated by the black bars. This observation that the energy escaping the atmosphere is far less than should be emitted from a planet the temperature of Earth tells us that the greenhouse effect is real — it is not a theory.
    Credit: D. Bice


     
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.

Share This Page