Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
It is actually far simpler than that.
15 micron radiation emitted by the planet's surface is fully absorbed within approx 1 meter of the atmosphere.
Every attempt to ascribe anthropogenic influence as a detrimental effect to the planet's thermal well being through increasing CO2 levels have failed.
What is left, is political manipulation by whoever for whatsoever their aims are.
15 micron radiation emitted by the planet's surface is fully absorbed within approx 1 meter of the atmosphere.
Every attempt to ascribe anthropogenic influence as a detrimental effect to the planet's thermal well being through increasing CO2 levels have failed.
What is left, is political manipulation by whoever for whatsoever their aims are.
Assembled fellow skeptics, I am being wound up by a 'believer' mate over general manmade up global warming. What do we think of the following (and no, I am not knowledgeable to come up with a suitable response myself, hence the ask):
“… Yet you often see people claiming that carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming is already maxed out—people that include a well credentialed physicist.
The simplest thing to do, then, would just be to measure it. If rising levels of carbon dioxide were absorbing more infrared radiation, it should be possible to detect it. And that's now been done, using a decade's worth of data taken at two different sites. The results show, to very few people's surprise, that carbon dioxide's greenhouse impact is alive and well.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-t...
“… Yet you often see people claiming that carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming is already maxed out—people that include a well credentialed physicist.
The simplest thing to do, then, would just be to measure it. If rising levels of carbon dioxide were absorbing more infrared radiation, it should be possible to detect it. And that's now been done, using a decade's worth of data taken at two different sites. The results show, to very few people's surprise, that carbon dioxide's greenhouse impact is alive and well.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-t...
tomw2000 said:
Assembled fellow skeptics, I am being wound up by a 'believer' mate over general manmade up global warming. What do we think of the following (and no, I am not knowledgeable to come up with a suitable response myself, hence the ask):
“… Yet you often see people claiming that carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming is already maxed out—people that include a well credentialed physicist.
The simplest thing to do, then, would just be to measure it. If rising levels of carbon dioxide were absorbing more infrared radiation, it should be possible to detect it. And that's now been done, using a decade's worth of data taken at two different sites. The results show, to very few people's surprise, that carbon dioxide's greenhouse impact is alive and well.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-t...
It's a report on science rather than the 'pure' science if you get my drift, so what follows is based on a first read of the report. The link does appear to have a nice political slant though so perfect for this thread...“… Yet you often see people claiming that carbon dioxide's role in greenhouse warming is already maxed out—people that include a well credentialed physicist.
The simplest thing to do, then, would just be to measure it. If rising levels of carbon dioxide were absorbing more infrared radiation, it should be possible to detect it. And that's now been done, using a decade's worth of data taken at two different sites. The results show, to very few people's surprise, that carbon dioxide's greenhouse impact is alive and well.”
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-t...
It says "the instruments look straight up into the sky and measures the spectrum of infrared light it receives, revealing the presence of various molecules in the atmosphere, such as water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide, and methane" on which basis the experiment is measuring the fate of small amounts of IR coming down, rather than what happens to surface emissions of IR going up.
Also on first sight there doesn't seem to be any distinction between troposphere and stratosphere. Non-existent MMGW is meant to cook us here in the troposphere.
Penultimate comment at this point - the report says "By the end of that period, the gas was retaining an extra 0.2 Watts for every square meter of the Earth's surface" but then as above this says nothing about how quickly that claimed additional heat retention is lost, there doesn't appear to be enough information, given the two-way nature of reality.
Finally there's this masterpiece of understatement: "Still, it seems worth noting that the continued increase in greenhouse energy retention measured during this time coincides with a period where the Earth's surface temperatures did not change dramatically. All that energy must have been going somewhere." Yes it is worth noting, and as with other data e.g. Spencer-Braswell and Lindzen-Choi, the answer is that it left the scene of the junkscience and went off into space.
This is why there is no temperature change causally related to carbon dioxide levels - ever. The temperature changes first then carbon dioxide levels shift. Even Hansen reluctantly acknowledged this point, then conveniently ignored it for decades.
tomw2000 said:
Response appreciated. Thanks
Glad to help, if it helped!The experiment appears to show that carbon dioxide somewhere in the atmosphere can absorb some IR, but that has never been disputed. The entire junkscience scam is predicated on this leading to a dangerous permanent bulk temperature change of the troposphere. But, where is it?! Sound science doesn't involve this, merely a transient and insignificant delay in cooling. However, it has to be doubtful that arguing faith with facts is ever going to get anywhere
ArseTechnica is where one of PH's most faithful but now dissipated believers once hung out and maybe still does (fwiw).
If i read correctly as well they used computer models to keep track of CO2 sources? Very wary of using models as a basis for anything.
Also, singling things like gases out in spectroscopy can be difficult. I tried to find a way of measuring methane content in natural gas by using IR absorption. Turns out you can't very easily because ethane, butane, propane all overlap. You can use a tunable laser diode to hit a different wavelength where methane responds and isn't co-existing with its hydrocarbon mates, but the signal is very small which makes detection difficult. Might be easier with CO2 mind.
Though at least this time their error values aren't greater than the signal. They quote 0.2 W/m2 +/- 0.06 and 0.07 for the two locations. They also mention a 22 ppm increase in CO2. I think some people are just not aware of what a vanishingly small number 22 ppm is. In fact all the numbers are small...begs the question, do changes in them really illicit anything worth writing about?
Also, singling things like gases out in spectroscopy can be difficult. I tried to find a way of measuring methane content in natural gas by using IR absorption. Turns out you can't very easily because ethane, butane, propane all overlap. You can use a tunable laser diode to hit a different wavelength where methane responds and isn't co-existing with its hydrocarbon mates, but the signal is very small which makes detection difficult. Might be easier with CO2 mind.
Though at least this time their error values aren't greater than the signal. They quote 0.2 W/m2 +/- 0.06 and 0.07 for the two locations. They also mention a 22 ppm increase in CO2. I think some people are just not aware of what a vanishingly small number 22 ppm is. In fact all the numbers are small...begs the question, do changes in them really illicit anything worth writing about?
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 27th February 16:56
Any continued focus on carbon dioxide levels is a diversion. It's based on the notion that propagandised readers and listeners will automatically associate increased carbon dioxide with increased warming - but there's no causal link between carbon dioxide and temperature and linked to that there's been no warming (i.e. impact) from rising carbon dioxide levels for 19 years. Attention must be diverted away from these facts to help unthinking followers of the faith to continue not thinking.
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
ArseTechnica is where one of PH's most faithful but now dissipated believers once hung out and maybe still does (fwiw).
Very talented in the sweary stuff department. He's still here...
East Midlands Airport was out of action for a while today due to a "power cut" in the main terminal. (I think the airport was functional for other air traffic just not the terminal).
Apparently the outage was blamed on a generator failure. Presumably some sort of powered backup in case of mains supply failure.
I note they have 2 disturbines on site which, so it was claimed, would supply most of their site base load. It's a windy day today ...
At one time they were talking about having 4 disturbines on site but that was a few years back and I have yet to see the others appear.
Makes one wonder what is wrong with the idea given the potential for subsidies and, supposedly, cost savings together with security of supply.
Apparently the outage was blamed on a generator failure. Presumably some sort of powered backup in case of mains supply failure.
I note they have 2 disturbines on site which, so it was claimed, would supply most of their site base load. It's a windy day today ...
At one time they were talking about having 4 disturbines on site but that was a few years back and I have yet to see the others appear.
Makes one wonder what is wrong with the idea given the potential for subsidies and, supposedly, cost savings together with security of supply.
LongQ said:
East Midlands Airport was out of action for a while today due to a "power cut" in the main terminal. (I think the airport was functional for other air traffic just not the terminal).
Apparently the outage was blamed on a generator failure. Presumably some sort of powered backup in case of mains supply failure.
I note they have 2 disturbines on site which, so it was claimed, would supply most of their site base load. It's a windy day today ...
At one time they were talking about having 4 disturbines on site but that was a few years back and I have yet to see the others appear.
Makes one wonder what is wrong with the idea given the potential for subsidies and, supposedly, cost savings together with security of supply.
They're probably still trying to work out why two new windmills near Derby were messing up air traffic control until they were shut down. Apparently the outage was blamed on a generator failure. Presumably some sort of powered backup in case of mains supply failure.
I note they have 2 disturbines on site which, so it was claimed, would supply most of their site base load. It's a windy day today ...
At one time they were talking about having 4 disturbines on site but that was a few years back and I have yet to see the others appear.
Makes one wonder what is wrong with the idea given the potential for subsidies and, supposedly, cost savings together with security of supply.
steveT350C said:
motco said:
steveT350C said:
Reminds me of the 'fact' that the world's population can fit on the Isle of White, hence insignificant.
Using very basic maths, and assuming one human standing up occupies 1 square foot, I calculated 1.5 Isle of Whites.
If the tide is out they'll probably fit. Using very basic maths, and assuming one human standing up occupies 1 square foot, I calculated 1.5 Isle of Whites.
Sorted!
So, the UK had the sunniest Winter ever ('since records began' by less than 5 minutes a day on average!).
What will 'they' make of that? If there isn't a furore and claims of proof of the hand of climate change, then how can last winter's wet (by a few mm) be cited thus?
(Of course any rational human being knows that records are meaningless, our period of recorded history is so short, and there are so many weather metrics and so many selectable periods, that it would be a miracle if one or more records wasn't broken every single day. Our weather is just random, but still entirely within normal bounds.)
What will 'they' make of that? If there isn't a furore and claims of proof of the hand of climate change, then how can last winter's wet (by a few mm) be cited thus?
(Of course any rational human being knows that records are meaningless, our period of recorded history is so short, and there are so many weather metrics and so many selectable periods, that it would be a miracle if one or more records wasn't broken every single day. Our weather is just random, but still entirely within normal bounds.)
Mr GrimNasty said:
It wouldn't be wired up to work directly would it, unmanageable surely? They'll just feed into the grid like all the others, they just mean that they can under some circumstances generate the equivalent amount they use - I expect?
Not sure if they feed the grid. They are big but not huge and the initial "aren't we wonderfully green and caring" publicity did strongly suggest a local deployment rather than on grid - which surprised me at the time.More often than not only one is moving at a time. Often neither. I very much doubt that they could be employed successfully stand alone as a sole source to supply the terminal even if they are off-grid SO they would need grid power or the backup generator anyway.
I wonder if we will ever hear why they lost power in the first place ...
The wonders of human attempts to engineer and manage nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3166...
Beefalo and the effects on the Grand Canyon.
Probably a little overblown as a current story but give it a few more years ....
Now, what else are we thinking of "engineering"?
Did someone suggest "climate control"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3166...
Beefalo and the effects on the Grand Canyon.
Probably a little overblown as a current story but give it a few more years ....
Now, what else are we thinking of "engineering"?
Did someone suggest "climate control"?
Booker on "Patchy" and Elite snouts at Westminster in Renewables Subsidy troughs.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...
(Are these people more blatant than the Bankers and more dangerous than Glitter?)
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=8...
(Are these people more blatant than the Bankers and more dangerous than Glitter?)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff