Home/Blog
I can understand when pop-scientists like Bill Nye spout scientific silliness.
But complete nonsense coming from Stephen Hawking? Really?
In this video, Stephen Hawking claims that Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Accord could lead to the Earth being pushed past a tipping point, with Venus-like 250 deg. C temperatures and sulfuric acid rain.
The trouble with this statement is that no reputable climate scientist would claim such a thing. The reason is that Venus has about 220,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth.
Meanwhile, human civilization will have trouble simply doubling (2x) our atmospheric CO2 concentration (it’s taken about 100 years to increase it by 50%, which is half way to doubling).
Since we don’t know what our future energy mix will be in 50-100 years, it’s not obvious we will even reach “2XCO2”.
So, how could we possibly get from 2x to 220,000x?
We can’t.
Impossible.
Not even if we wanted to.
Venus is a very different planet. Venus has 93x as much atmosphere as Earth, and it is almost 100% CO2. The CO2 concentration in our comparatively thin atmosphere is only 0.04%.
I have no idea where Hawking ever got such a wild idea. Apparently, he had his audience in tears with his dire predictions.
This is partly why the public makes fun of scientists. Sad.
You are totally right dr spencer! Bill nye is the biggest global warming shill alive! His brain is compromised of a whooping 0.04% human Brain cells. The other 99.96% is composed of co2
CO2 wasn’t my first guess for 99.96% of Bill Nye’s brain.
Bill nye is the biggest global warming shill alive! Bill nye is a FAILED engineer who was laid off by Boeing
Yes. However, he is right about the climate changing in a way that it never did before but he blames it on man made co2 which currently compromises less then 3% of total co2 actually present. If we took drastic actions mainly to limit all of our fossil fuel emissions we would have only illuminated as much as 3% of the total co2 400 ppm present initially. If we waited another say 50 years from now natural co2 will continue to go up in total emissions each year continuing to drown out our tiny man made emissions even more therefore causing even less of an increase then if we were to take drastic actions today. What’s the point?
Like 0.03C warming by our fossil fuel contribution will make a shit ton of a difference! Bill nye is the dumbest most retarted fake scientist I ever met. Even al gore has more common sense then that pea brain!
For those of you who want to know the real science behind our fossil fuel emissions on climate change please view this link:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM
http://www.reactionpics.com/wp-content/uploads/a04Cyrn.jpg
Saw this too. Agreed, utterly ridiculous by the BBC who also in their article described Hawking as possibly the world’s greatest living scientist.
Stephen Hawking’s opinion is an outlier, and is an example of why I value the consensus.
Speaking on behalf of the population of Venus can I assure you (our not so near neighbours) that Stephen was being deliberately absurd as he was fed up with the stupidity of the BBC and its scientifically innumerate obsession with the global warming your cold planet is not going through.
To avoid being pestered on this ridiculous topic by the morons who pass for science correspondents on the BBC he said things that should have warned the corporation to leave him alone but, of course, they didn’t understand that.
He could of course have pointed out that the real reason Venus is so hot is that our atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than yours – keeping us pleasantly warm all year round.
But you are being foolish, apparently believing that atmospheric lapse rate is set by the rate at which surface radiative flux is thermalised. Any competent scientist/engineer knows this cannot be true. However, their papers are never published in the ‘accepted’ journals in case they disturb the grant funding stream from government…………..
Well said, Snape.
snape…”Stephen Hawkings opinion is an outlier, and is an example of why I value the consensus”.
Then you admit you prefer consensus over the scientific method and real data.
The consensus is, of course, based on the data.
If you have a theory, there is only one important thing. Does the data match the theory? For the theory of AGW as modeled by the climatologists, the data (temperature) does not match their models (temperature predictions).
This, in no way, proves what is correct or even how far wrong the theory is. It does, however, prove the theory incorrect.
SocietalNorm says:
“For the theory of AGW as modeled by the climatologists, the data (temperature) does not match their models (temperature predictions).”
How so?
DA…”The consensus is, of course, based on the data”.
Where is the data that supports the theory that CO2 is warming the atmosphere? Where is the data to support the GHE or AGW?
All of the above are strictly opinions with no data to prove them.
Are you seriously trying to say, Gordon, that you’re sure there is no greenhouse effect or CO2-induced warming, but you are utterly unfamiliar with the evidence for them?
Why haven’t you tried to understand what all the fuss is about? Why deny before the knowledge, not after?
That’s what we’re saying Davie. There is NO “CO2-induced warming”!
But, go ahead and show us your DWIR spectrum for the 87th time. It’s not “evidence”, but it’s all you’ve got.
DA…”Are you seriously trying to say, Gordon, that youre sure there is no greenhouse effect or CO2-induced warming, but you are utterly unfamiliar with the evidence for them?”
Read my lips…there is NO evidence for them. The GHE is a hypothetical argument based on CALCULATING the supposed temperature of the Earth without and atmosphere and oceans then comparing that to a CALCULATED average with an atmosphere and oceans. Then it is PRESUMED that GHGs in the atmosphere have caused that difference in warming because certain rocket-scientists cannot find a better reason. Said rocket scientists have not even looked.
There is not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that CO2 is warming the atmosphere. It’s another guess.
Gordon, your lips lie — *here* is the evidence for the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
and even smart contrarians know this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/23/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect/
DA,
There is nothing in that curve in regards to temperature. Nothing regards to heat transfer. You think if you keep REPEATING the same stupid argument, it will become true. You might as well try clicking your heels and proclaim, “there is no place like home”.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Where is the data that supports the theory that CO2 is warming the atmosphere? Where is the data to support the GHE or AGW?”
I’ve given you this many times. Don’t pretend I haven’t.
If only it were the use of the scientific method and its requirement for replicability. Unfortunately, the “madding crowd” who bleat about 97% of scientists supporting these absurd notions are wrong. It is 97% of related papers, not authors, as many authors issued multiple variations of the same theses. Additionally those papers referenced human impact on climate change [which goes without saying – along with ants and tigers] but NONE suggested human impact was determinative.
The use of “modellin” as opposed to “measurement” IS NOT SCIENCE!
modeling is same- it’s walking out on the runway.
“It is 97% of related papers,”
It is not even 97% of papers it is a survey of abstracts. Cook tossed out 66%, so the highest honest precentage would be 34%. But he selected a subset and got 97% of that tiny subset of the survey.
see: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/97percen_%20of_scientists.html
I think Steven is right, there is a tipping point, but it’s at about 50 C seawater surface temperature. At about that point water vapor pressure increases rapidly. That may be the end of the Goldilocks zone for life on earth.
“Stephen Hawkings opinion is an outlier, and is an example of why I value the consensus.”
That makes total sense coming from Snake, since “consensus” is not a tenet of the scientific method. And Snake is not interested in science.
There IS no consensus.
hey snapey boy try this THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE AT ALL, THERE NEVER WAS
Oh there has always been a climate change. Or CLIMATE CHANGE, as you say.
There is also some man made warming, I can guarantee I’m enjoying it. With nuclear.
Why it is better not to put trust in someone’s opinion simply because they are famous, or were once brilliant in one area of human endeavor.
Should apply the same logic to Freeman Dyson, Will Happer, Freeman Dyson.
Whoops, Dyson twice-should have said Frederick Seitz
The difference is that Dyson, Happer and Seitz did their homework and Hawkings is just spouting off hearsay. If my memory is correct all three of them at one time or another were members of the JASON Defense Advisory Panel which among other things addressed the question of anthropogenic global warming.
When were they members and when did they address climate change? Long time ago?
None of these 3 are climate scientists or experts on it(as admitted recently by Dyson). Seitz did prior work in denying science for the tobacco lobby.
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
– http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
Sorry, SkS folks likes to smear people so there is little chance you can say something like that and be believed (by others than SkS folks and like).
Stop pushing smear propaganda and keep to facts, better recipe.
For example, this Venus issue is a nice example of propaganda. Using it means you have no real arguments, so don’t use it!
Why it is better not to put trust in someones opinion simply because they are famous, or were once brilliant in one area of human endeavor.
And of course it’s better to put trust in someone’s opinion when they were never famous or never demonstrated any brilliance in any area of human endeavor except in promoting CAGW theory.
And there is in fact not even consensus about the magnitude of the CO2 induced warming.
Funny.
And Dyson made actually quite sound objections to the models that are and remain basically research tools only that “it’s better not to put too much trust in”
alpha…”And Dyson made actually quite sound objections to the models that are and remain basically research tools…”
Very expensive toys would be a better description and in the field of social science.
Well GR maybe we might agree to cut the funding of climate modeling by a factor 10 ?
No damage to climate science done.
All science is “modeling.” All of it. Some can be done by hand, but some require computers.
‘Sound objections’
Perhaps they sounded sound to you, not because he was an expert on the subject, which he is not, but because he is a famous physicist.
Given the required complexity of climate models I would rely more on actual experts than a dabbler from outside.
Well, Dyson in fact, knew a lot about models and physics in general and climate models in particular long before “actual experts”. In Princeton he knew S. Manabe who developed the GCM’s in the 1960’s.
And “given the required complexity of climate models” I would not rely much on “actual experts” whose jobs now depend on them, either.
It would be nice to find a few genius skeptics, who are not retired curmudgeons, and actively working on this issue. I cant think of any.
My understanding of Dyson and Jason agreed that AGW was in fact real.
–Nate says:
July 4, 2017 at 6:50 PM
It would be nice to find a few genius skeptics, who are not retired curmudgeons, and actively working on this issue. I cant think of any.–
Well, general thing I would like to find any genius related to anything.
And there isn’t any non-skeptics who working on climate issues who are geniuses.
Unless genius means having a well paid job and not needing to do much work related it it. Al Gore fits that meaning- and those are dime a dozen.
The other aspect is that working suggests being paid, whereas a hobby is “for the fun of it”- though one could make money doing hobbies. And hobbies could include being in war zone- people can weird ideas of what is fun.
But I think Richard Lindzen is working as some professor or something related, and he is pretty smart. He seems like a good professor and is interested in the topic of climate.
I don’t know of anything in particular that I disagree with what he says.
And I like to disagree with what people say.
Nate,
Scientists fairly agree on AGW.
The trouble comes with CAGW.
NO agreement at all on the (catastrophic) magnitude of the effect;
— alphagruis says:
July 5, 2017 at 2:24 AM
Nate,
Scientists fairly agree on AGW.–
I don’t even know if scientists agree that rising CO2
level is mostly about CO2 levels.
But let’s imagine they do agree that AGW is mostly
about rising CO2 level.
Let’s assume that over last couple hundred years [or sooner]
Global CO2 has risen from about 270 ppm to present level of +400 ppm.
So 270 times 1.5 is 405, so we had 50% increase in CO2 levels
from the time in which they was 270 and it’s been within the last two hundred years.
Most should agree that a 50% increase CO2 or halfway to doubling CO2 levels from 270 ppm, is at least half of the warming effect of doubling CO2 levels.
So how much warming has this increase in CO2 caused?
Now, I mentioned this before and a answer I was given someone was the warming from the increase in CO2 is still “in the pipeline”. If so long will it take to be finished being in the pipeline and manifest itself?
So don’t think there agreement about how much warming has been caused or how it takes for increase of CO2 to “finish”
it’s warming effect- like within decades or within centuries.
This is not science, this tea reading.
Another aspect is there has been no damage caused by whatever warming CO2 has already done. There bogus news reporting and all kinds of silly claims about it- but no significant increase in sea level. No damage from being to warm. No increase in storms. And there no reason to expect any damage being caused by CO2 within the next 50 years.
What damage as been done is governmental actions related to controlling CO2 emission. Trillions of dollars have been wasted. And no effort has been effective. The only things which would work, are things like using nuclear energy and using more natural gas. And these actions have opposed by people who want to reduce CO2 emission.
So if scientist agreed there was a problem, why do they allow stupid solution which predictable would not work?
The answer is these scientist are not involved in solving the problem, they busy doing things which paid to do ineffective work- amounting to amateur hour PR work.
Gbaikie,
‘This is not science, this tea reading.’
Just take a look at the TOC of some prominent climate science journals. I dont think you would be able to legitimately claim it is ‘tea reading’
There is an awful lot of solid science being done. It cant just be waved away.
And most science, at least in last 100 y or so, was done by people getting paid. So that is not a good reason to brush it aside. After all it has had big impacts on our lives.
gbaikie,
I agree that trying to curb seriously anthropic CO2 emissions is likely doing much more harm than good.
Yet IMO it is highly doubtful that these efforts to globally reduce CO2 emission by a sizable amount might really succeed in foreseeable future.
And a positive aspect of all this fuss might be that it stimulates research on alternative energies.
.
gbaikie says:
“Most should agree that a 50% increase CO2 or halfway to doubling CO2 levels from 270 ppm, is at least half of the warming effect of doubling CO2 levels.”
No, they would not.
dT = (climate sensitivity)*dF
where F is radiative forcing.
F(CO2)=alpha*ln(CO2/CO2_0)
for CO2, where alpha = 5.35 W/m2 and CO2_0 = preindustrial = 280 ppm.
So the forcing at 1.5 * preindustrial CO2 is not half the forcing at 2 * preindustrial CO2.
And none of it is worth much if you don’t taken into account the cooling effect of aerosol air pollution.
alphagruis says:
“I agree that trying to curb seriously anthropic CO2 emissions is likely doing much more harm than good.”
How?
alphagruis says:
“Well, Dyson in fact, knew a lot about models and physics in general and climate models in particular long before actual experts.”
That’s not what Dyson says:
[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but its rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
We can stop here and think a moment.
ln 1 = 0
ln 2 = 0.69
log (3/2) = 0.41 > 0.5 * 0.69. More than half.
At the same time it is true, that 0.41 is not 0.5 * 0.69. It is more.
So what was your point?
I am always irritated to hear Hawking get such praise.
His math in a brief history of time was faulty. Obviously faulty for anyone with a passing familiarity with complex math.
stemming from a single swapped sign, a vast edifice of BS was built, . and it took him 20 years to admit it.
Great scientists often make such errors. (UAH itself made a famous sign error in the 1990s, that took years for them to admit.) It doesn’t detract from Hawking’s career — especially, remember, since he’s done all that math in his head.
DA…”Great scientists often make such errors. (UAH itself made a famous sign error in the 1990s, that took years for them to admit.)”
Wasn’t a sign error it was an orbital error, noted in 2005 and fixed the same year. While UAH and RSS worked on the error they noted an error in RSS data sets. The error was well within the bounds of the error margin and affected mainly the Tropics where there is no warming.
What is an “orbital error?”
It was a sign error, and what I’ve been told from some very prominent scientists is that they had been pointing it out for years until it became so bleeding obvious that UAH has to acquiesce to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Comparison_with_other_data_and_models
DA…”What is an orbital error?”
It’s all explained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
If this prominent scientist you’re talking about is Gavin Schmidt, whose propaganda has a free pass on Wikipedia due to one of his buddies, William Connolley, being an editor there, I hardly regard him as a scientist.
Schmidt has a degree in math and he programs climate models, more a social science like geography or anthropology, than a hard science like physics.
The link you provided to the wiki provides no details of their allegations. One of them, on errors in the stratosphere, has already been addressed by John Christy, who pointed out the obvious error in the claim.
The critiques of satellite accuracy are straw man arguments by nature.
Wrong, Gordon.
Please don’t repeat falsehoods here, David. When that error was pointed out to us, we immediately worked on fixing it. When WE discovered the instrument temperature effect, how long did it take for RSS to implement It? Your fact checking needs some work.
Roy, that’s not what a very prominent scientist told me. (You can probably guess who he is.) He said people had to nearly go stand in your office in front of the blackboard to get you and Christy to admit your error.
But my larger point was that scientists make errors all the time. And the scientific process gets them fixed. It’s too your credit that you saw this and made the necessary change, and to all the changes you’ve made along the way of your product.
But — right — the change turned your model from having a negative trend to a positive one?
David,
Your mischaracterization, spreading of fake news, and character assassination is appalling.
At times you have acute observations and worthy insights. But comments like this one absolutely wrecked your credibility.
Inquirer: Do you have any comments about the science?
DA…”Roy, thats not what a very prominent scientist told me. (You can probably guess who he is.) He said people had to nearly go stand in your office in front of the blackboard to get you and Christy to admit your error”.
It was RSS who brought the orbital error to the attention of UAH therefore your source should be someone from RSS. If it’s anyone else it means RSS is in cahoots with other sources. We already know they are connected to NOAA, maybe even GISS.
You are likely talking about Gavin Schmidt. If you go to the wiki article you provided and look at the top of the page you will see there are two tabs. Press the one marked ‘Talk’.
Part way down the page you will see a link provided by William Connolley that refutes the article. Connolley is a known toady at realclimate and is no doubt an acquaintance of Schmidt. He is a computer programmer but more importantly he is an editor on the wiki.
What is an editor doing inserting a link to information trying to refute the current article? It’s sheer bias and that’s why Connolley was canned at one time from Wikipedia before being re-instated.
Part of the reason Connolley was fired was the use of his privilege as an editor to make disparaging remarks against climate skeptics like Fred Singer. That’s why I take any information from Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
Your link is biased nonsense.
Thanks Roy,
David Appell’s ‘facts’ always need checking. He is never looking for the truth but only some way of demeaning those whom he views as an enemy. This is sad to see for someone who has experience in both science and journalism and should know better.
David has become a 100% political animal.
Fulks has no science to offer, just another personal attack.
I get it all the time from him, and have for years.
All wrong guesses, Gordon.
It’s sad to watch you invent associations and excuses in order to denigrate people whose work you do not understand and could never do.
flow…”His math in a brief history of time was faulty”.
The fact that he tried to do a history of time reveals a lack of awareness.
From a review of his book, “Time takes center stage because it is a concept that has no meaning before our celestial genesis. Both space and time emerged at the instant of creation”.
That statement is loaded with rubbish just as much of the thinking related to Hawking is rubbish. The suggestion that this universe emerged out of nothing is absolute rubbish.
In the statement, time is referred to as a concept then it is given birth by ‘something’ unexplained. The truth is that time as we know it only appeared after humans invented a clock that was capable of measuring the time of one Earth rotation. That interval was divided into hours, minutes, and seconds.
There is no dimension of time nor is there the space created by our coordinate systems. Space-time is just more mathematical rubbish but that does not stop some dimwits from replacing gravitational force with space-time warping.
In the time of the Egyptians, time was measured by a sundial. Measured??? It was the same principle with a less accurate clock. The sundial gives a shadow indicating the relative position of the Earth during it’s rotation. Why is that so incredibly hard for some people to grasp?
Clocks don’t measure time, they generate it. We humans invented time and it seems Hawking et al cannot grasp that concept.
It’s cute, Gordon, that you think you can judge Stephan Hawking with your Victorian understanding of physics.
But you can’t. Know when to stay silent.
DA…”Its cute, Gordon, that you think you can judge Stephan Hawking with your Victorian understanding of physics.
But you cant. Know when to stay silent”.
You are such a butt-kisser to authority figures you could not possibly understand an objective critique. I don’t need to understand math in depth to get it that the Big Bang theory is nonsense or that time does not exist as a separate dimension.
Davie, I seriously doubt you understand “Victorian” physics. You didn’t even know who Archimedes was. That was well known physics in Victorian times. That’s why their boats floated.
Your boat doesn’t float.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I dont need to understand math in depth to get it that the Big Bang theory is nonsense or that time does not exist as a separate dimension.”
Yes, you do.
Remember that big bomb over Hiroshima? It’s proof of spacetime.
Did you notice that the CERN accelerator does not explode every time they turn the beam on? Thank spacetime.
Ever use your phone’s GPS? That technology takes spacetime into account to get you to the right place.
—
You know so little, and are so arrogant about your ignorance, that you have absolutely no idea what it is you don’t know.
Ahh, the ego-centric theory of the universe makes an appearance.
“Space-time is just more mathematical rubbish but that does not stop some dimwits from replacing gravitational force with space-time warping.”
It sure is useful “rubbish”. Doppler radar wouldn’t be comprehensible without the concept of spacetime. GPS wouldn’t be nearly so accurate without the formulas generated by the warping concept.
It works. It may not be the last word. But, it works. To argue against it, you have to present something else that provides the same utility, and only if it provides greater utility can you claim it is anything more than an equivalent viewpoint.
Most famous, yes. But greatest??
Yellowstone will be shaking.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00915/444biqwisevd.gif
In their monthly update released 14:56 UTC on July 1, 2017, the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory reports 1 171 earthquakes were recorded in the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) region during the month of June. The largest event was a light earthquake of magnitude 4.4 at 00:48 UTC on June 16, located about 14.5 km (9 miles) NNW of West Yellowstone, Montana.
https://watchers.news/2017/07/02/yellowstone-volcano-earthquakes-june-2017/
ren,
Since about 2001 there has been a “monthly update” of seismicity in the region. From these data, they conclude:”Behavior is similar to the past several months. Current deformation patterns at Yellowstone remain within historical norms.”
What this has to do with Venus has me baffled!
Uff da!
So….. what is the consensus as you understand it?a
Anyone believing in any consensus should read up on Dr. Semmelweis.
So where is the Sammelweis of climate science?
It’s not enough to just refer to past science — you/someone has to actually DO the hard work of showing a better way.
What has Hawking ever done except think up unprovable theories?
get them wrong! and he run over my foot when queue jumping
I presumed somebody else hacked Hawking’s keyboard and sent that stream of nonsense into his TTS unit
Lesson learned. Stephen hawking is not one of the smartest people who ever lived. At least that’s what they claim but you never know the Left stream media could be turning his claims around like they do with Donald trump
As you can read above, Hawking has been expelled from the “consensus” by one of the resident alarmists.
If Hawking does not tread carefully, the consensus will declare him a denier.
Uh…. Hawking is not a climate scientist.
He doesn’t do climate science. He doesn’t contribute to the IPCC. He’s never published any climate science.
The “consensus” has no need for him at all, and will completely ignore whatever he says, including what he said in the last day or two.
I’m glad you agree with Dr Spencer’s assessment of Hawking’s latest outburst.
The fact that you, I, and Steven Hawking, are not members of the Climaterati is of course inconsequential. What matters is that Hawking is making use of his general fame to spout complete and utter scientific drivel in support of a political cause. It is a bit sad. If he values his scientific legacy at all he needs to be strongly encouraged to shut up, and shut up a lot. Your help would be welcomed by many who formerly respected Hawking.
‘making use of his general fame to spout complete and utter scientific drivel in support of a political cause.’
Possibly so, but the very same could be said about Freeman Dyson, and Frederick Seitz before him.
IPCC, you say…
Yet, what were the qualifications of the sexual predator that headed the IPCC for many years?
No need to answer. My comments are being removed so this is it for me.
Your comments aren’t being removed.
The operating system is buggy. I know the word
absor***bation will eat the post. But there other words
or things which also cause problems.
One usually can use back arrow of browser and get
the text you wrote. But safer to save post- like in
notepad, before posting. But knowing this I still manage
to lose say 10% of posts.
But I self censor, probably 1/2 posts I type, ever get to
the points of pressing the submit button.
For various reason- one being, they simply too long.
Same. It happens to everyone. I believe Dr. Spencer turned the filter up high to prevent posting by some cranks (well, one in particular) who were filling up all the comment boards with inane stuff.
DA wrote: “He doesnt do climate science. He doesnt contribute to the IPCC. Hes never published any climate science.
The consensus has no need for him at all, and will completely ignore whatever he says, including what he said in the last day or two”
Though, I do not subscribe to Mr. Hawking’s reported views on CAGW, I must say …not being associated with the propaganda of the UNIPCC is what gives credibility to his position.
If a scientist wants to be part of the IPCC process, he/she need only apply and participate…. There’s nothing secret about it.
At the least they can do is submit comments, ALL of which are considered by the various author groups.
Watch Murray Salbys vids if you want to know the real increase
William Thompson (aka Lord Kelvin) was a prominent scientist in his day yet he made some absurd statements such as these:
“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
“Radio has no future.” “X-rays are clearly a hoax”. “The aeroplane is scientifically impossible.”
I think this is Hawking’s “Kelvin Moment”.
I think they meant to release it on 1st of April.but they couldn’t even get that right.makes you proud to be English. Happy 4th of July to all across the pond.and be happy to know nobody gets everything right all of the time
I agree that Hawking is off his rocker here. It’s a example of a scientist who excels in one field who, in his/her elder years, thinks their early work gives the right to pronounce on everything and anything. Freeman Dyson is another example, as is Ivar Giaever.
I think 2xCO2 is inevitable at this point, but what I’ve read says that a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth isn’t possible because we’re too far away from the Sun (by about 0.05 AU). This will change as the Sun keeps getting brighter, but not for many hundreds of millions of years.
Now David, that wasn’t so hard after all, admitting that an over the top alarmistic claim is invalid?
Next exercise: admitting that the RCP8.5 is NOT a business as usual scenario, but an unlikely worst case scenario.
Yes, it’s a worst case scenario. That’s exactly what it was designed to be.
Unfortunately, so far we’re close to meeting it.
We are still below SRES A1B and that is the old real business-as-usual scenario.
Hans: As you should know, A1B is in a completely different representation group than is RCP8.5
And they are all just projections anyway, not predictions.
David,
Perhaps you might want to read what RCP8.5 really says and then determine the likelihood of following such a pathway.
Don’t ask me, or others, to do this for you. It is a chore like picking your nose or wiping your butt — best done yourself. [I’m busy — there are a couple of hiking trails in the mountains that need attention.]
Cheers & happy 4th.
I have no idea how “DavidJohn” came to be, nor “the Big Bang” either.
Here is what the RCPs say:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/
You can see that we’re on RCP8.5.
emsemble mean RCP8.5
http://climexp.knmi.nl/CMIP5/Tglobal/global_tas_Amon_modmean_rcp85_000.dat
DA…”…what Ive read says that a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth isnt possible because were too far away from the Sun…”
More importantly, a tipping point is due to positive feedback which requires independent amplification. It comes down to losses as well. You cannot have positive feedback in a lossy system without amplification to make up for the losses.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You cannot have positive feedback in a lossy system without amplification to make up for the losses.”
The climate isn’t an electronic circuit.
We’re already having positive feedbacks. They are limited, but not for a few centuries.
DA…”The climate isnt an electronic circuit.
Were already having positive feedbacks. They are limited, but not for a few centuries”.
Positive feedback doesn’t care whether it’s operating in an electronic circuit or elsewhere. There is an equation describing PF and it has a gain factor in it. The feedback portion is a factor controlling the gain factor but it is not gain itself.
We do have examples of natural PF but they are few and far between. The resonance in some harmonic oscillators can produce a gain like the resonance in the cables that destroyed the Seattle-Tacoma suspension bridge.
You wont find such natural resonance in the atmosphere or an amplifier to supply gain. The concept of a trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere back-feeding energy to super-warm the surface beyond what it is warmed by solar energy is very poorly thought out.
Roy explained a while back that in climate science a PF is a not-so-negative negative feedback. There’s a huge different between that and a real PF with gain.
Positive feedbacks are already occurring in the climate system.
Just because all you know are simple electronic circuits does not mean everything can be reduced to one. You have to also know the physics.
“Freeman Dyson is another example, as is Ivar Giaever.”
Not even remotely in the same class. Dyson and Giaever still are brilliant and capable men. Hawking is an inspiring figure, a once brilliant fellow, but one who has been steadily losing a battle with a heart-rending, debilitating disease that affects both mind and body.
I will not be so churlish as to diminish Dr. Hawking’s accomplishments for partisan gain. But, we must be honest: these accomplishments are sadly pretty much in the past. It is very tragic.
When was the last time Dyson or Giaever made an important scientific contribution?
.
“Hawking’s Latest Black Hole Paper Splits Physicists,” Scientific American Jan 2016.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/
Let’s face it, his name was attached to it because he is associated with the initial concept, and it draws in readers. The real work was by Perry and Strominger.
Dyson published a whole book, latest edition in 2011 when he was 11 years older than Hawking is now:
https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Quantum-Mechanics-Second-Freeman/dp/9814383414/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1499304623&sr=8-6&keywords=freeman+dyson#reader_9814383414
Bart says:
“The real work was by Perry and Strominger.”
You have no idea of that — stop pretending you do.
Doing the calculations is often the easiest part. Deciding what calculations are worth doing is the hard part.
Flail all you like.
You have no idea about what you are talking about. Your vapid responses prove that.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Since he is totally paralized,couldn’t his speaking device been hyjacked. How would he even be able to complain about it?
“When people stop believing in God, they dont believe in nothing, they believe in anything.”
GK Chesterton (erroneously)
Hawking is an avid atheist, you might say almost militant. His first wife has suggested he thinks he is god. This must be at least his 5th iteration of the end of everything. He can be very smart, but also a total nut.
jimc…”He can be very smart, but also a total nut”.
You are saying in essence there is a difference between intellect and intelligence. Intellect is in fact artificial intelligence created by humans and it is subject to the foibles of the human mind.
Intelligence is a form of order that lies beyond the human ego-mind, thank God. If you look for the intelligence in the human mind it lies in a place beyond human consciousness. It’s not something that can be taught or learned, it’s in the package at birth.
Just as we have invented time, humans have defined intelligence, which can be measured by an IQ test. However, intelligence is far deeper than anyone can measure. Intelligence maintains our bodies 24/7 after constructing the bodies from an egg and a sperm cell.
We can tap into that intelligence but it does not belong to the conscious mind. Normally, we employ a process of intellect which involves retrieval of old information from memory. That’s not intelligence, which requires insight. Insight cannot come from old information stored in memory, it comes from somewhere else.
It’s a mistake to presume someone with a university degree ‘HAS’ intelligence. Like the rest of us, they can be in touch with intelligence but quite often they are not.
I’m always reminded of the question:
What is the difference between an “intellectual” and a “phony intellectual”?
Answer: There is no difference.
Well, it’s pretty much confirmed as a fact that almost anyone
has a brilliant mind. I would say also say it’s a fact that people are very stupid- all people.
One could examine the idea of power corrupts people, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this explains the apparent difference between all people have brilliant minds and all people are very stupid.
oh, also:
Science is the obsession of avoiding corruption.
“The reason is that Venus has about 220,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as does Earth”.
Plus the fact the surface temperature of Venus is 460C. There is no way CO2 could cause such a surface temperature. As astronomer Andrew Ingersoll once claimed, even though he seems to be a warmist, a surface temperature that high would contravene the 2nd law if it came from CO2 warming.
I am not about to jump on Hawking, the guy has had far more than his share of grief in his life. I am not inferring his intellect is compromised due to his physical difficulties. There’s no proof of that and other scientists agree with him on certain matters. However, his other theories on the Big Bang, which is supported by others, is about as crazy as his latest comment on a tipping point.
The tipping point theory was pulled out of a hat in the same manner the Big Bang theory was created. Same with the theory of evolution. The underlying theories and evidence are far-fetched and not corroborated by anything we have seen in this universe.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Plus the fact the surface temperature of Venus is 460C. There is no way CO2 could cause such a surface temperature”
Why?
I’ve asked you this before. You’ve never had an answer.
Gordon has no answer.
Gordon Robertson says:
“However, his other theories on the Big Bang, which is supported by others, is about as crazy as his latest comment on a tipping point.”
Which theories are those, exactly?
How do we know he is not given special treatment because of his medical condition ? My guess is that if he didn’t have this medical condition he would not be so revered.
Do you understand what Hawking’s contributions to science have been? Not his speculations, like here, but findings found before anyone else?
When whatever really existed before this reality reached its tipping point the big bang was what happened next. Does this universe now go slipping and sliding down a slippery slope until it reaches a tipping point that results in precipitating a big crunch? Then does everything go loop-ta-loop, turn inside out, reset to go and do a not-so-instant-replay except to do it backassards, in reverse and upside down? I guess we’ll just have to stick around to find out.
“The underlying theories and evidence are far-fetched and not corroborated by anything we have seen in this universe.”
Precession of Mercury perihelion
Hubble expansion
Bending of starlight and gravitational lensing
Gravitational red/blue shifts
Gravitational waves
Behavior of clocks in Earth orbit, including altitude dependent clock rates, as well as readily observable impacts of orbit eccentricity and Earth oblateness
There is zero doubt that it works. If you use GPS, you have taken advantage of it.
I suspect that someone is simply using Hawking as a mouthpiece at this point. Does anyone know if he has produced anything of verifiable scientific value in his field recently?
Oh, yes. He’s a brilliant fellow. Not necessarily more brilliant than others, but a very bright guy.
Or, at least, was. It is very tragic.
Yes, more brilliant than others. That’s the only way such a handicapped man could produce the results no one else could.
Yes,
morebrilliantthan others. Thats theonlyway such a handicapped man could produce the results no one elsecoulddid.FIFY
A fair press would call out Hawking on this nonsense.
The press knows Hawking isn’t doing science here. They know not to take him seriously on such claims.
How can there be a “greenhouse” effect on Venus when almost no sunlight reaches the surface?
Because there’s so much CO2 in its atmosphere — about 96%.
{Smile}
Yes something like 92 times the mass of our atmosphere.
Try that on earth by adding Argon and see if the T stays the same as we have now.
Nikolov and Zeller suggest otherwise and would reflect the same formula used for Venus.
{big smile}
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
PS: Nikolov and Zeller are obviously wrong — their model can’t reproduce or explain this TOA outgoing spectrum:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
David Appell:
You still don’t get it. TOA outgoing spectrum has no relevance over a climate period; the paper studies the surface T only.
Further assuming the same net insolation as now and keeping other variables constant, to the degree possible, then the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) according to you:
Venus: remove 98% of the atmosphere mass ; result the same RATE
Earth: add 91 times the current atm mass in the form of Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of an earth atmosphere mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
Mars: add the equivalent of 92 times earth atm mass as Argon; result no change to RATE
If this is what you believe then I suggest it is time for you to go on that St Augustine ten year retreat. Make it a double retreat at least.
Yes, I certainly get that calculating the GHE is not the same as calculating increases in it. (But climate models can do both; see Lacis et al Science 2010.)
Q: Why is Venus’s atmosphere so massive?
— tonyM says:
July 4, 2017 at 4:23 AM
Yes something like 92 times the mass of our atmosphere.
Try that on earth by adding Argon and see if the T stays the same as we have now. —
Earth would become as dark at it’s surface Venus- well, actually darker as one has 1/2 the sunlight at Earth distance.
So the sunlight would not warm Earth surface- oceans would warm a bit from the diffused sunlight. And tropics would still get the most amount of sunlight. It would higher percentage than we have currently. And Sun is blocked whenever it’s lower than 30 degrees above the horizon.
But would be great for idea of having floating cities.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth/
GBaikie:
Less than 20 W/m2 of sunlight makes it to the surface of Venus.
It gets mighty hot.
The predictions are made based on the defined relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) in the N & Z paper.
“GBaikie:
Less than 20 W/m2 of sunlight makes it to the surface of Venus.
It gets mighty hot.
The predictions are made based on the defined relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (RATE) in the N & Z paper.”
If true, that means the N & Z paper is wrong.
Venus confuses people, into thinking one must add heat in terms of Earth greenhouse effect. The Earth greenhouse effect is mostly about inhibiting heat loss [and also inhibiting heat in comparison to imagined bb which emits the most amount heat that is imaginably/possible. Or lots of things do this.
Venus appears to do the impossible, it doesn’t do the impossible. All you have realize is Venus surface is not the rocky surface, it’s the clouds. And have some understanding of lapse rate.
“Venus appears to do the impossible, it doesnt do the impossible. All you have realize is Venus surface is not the rocky surface, its the clouds. And have some understanding of lapse rate.”
Also I should note people tend to get the wrong surface on Earth- they also tend think it’s rocky.
It’s ocean, mostly- 70%, or about 80% where it’s important- in the tropics.
Ocean warms, land radiates. Remember it.
GBaikie:
If true, that means the N & Z paper is wrong. …
Venus confuses people, into thinking one must add heat in terms of Earth greenhouse effect. …
Well you serve to create more confusion for me than Venus ever will.
Have you actually read the Nikolov & Zeller paper? They focus on dimensional analysis which is quite basic in physics and has little to do with greenhouse effect or whatever you are saying.
So if you think they are wrong state clearly where and why they are wrong.
–So if you think they are wrong state clearly where and why they are wrong.–
Ok, a large atmosphere would reduce cooling, but it’s not source of heat.
Which most people would agree with, which I suppose includes
Nikolov & Zeller.
So large atmosphere is like a huge pile of fiberglass insulation and needs some source of heat to make warm.
And I am not saying they are wrong. Though their idea not new to me, I have found stuff which disagree with concerning this as general topic.
What did say was if what you said is true, the paper is wrong- but you don’t speak for them.
Now Earth might get very hot from “92 times the mass of our atmosphere” but Earth is a quite geological active planet, and though Venus has more volcanic land forms than Earth, my guess is Earth is currently much more active.
But any planet is heated from some kind of warmed surface- which “defined” it as a surface or like surface.
Now one could say the entire atmosphere or some chunk of atmosphere is “your surface”- I could argue argue about that, but this not what you said- so it’s irrelevant.
What you claiming seems to be, that I could measure the sunlight warming a dim and dark surface.
Try it, again “Less than 20 W/m2 of sunlight” and
makes “It gets mighty hot”.
20 watts of sunlight not warm anything at 200 K. It warm a blackbody to 137 K.
But you would not even have 20 watts of direct sunlight, you might have 20 or more watts of indirect sunlight.
And heat flow of 20 watts is different matter.
Because one dealing with a heat gradient. Heat is being generated within the earth, and has mile or so of rock insulating this generated heat.
Is is like a nuclear reaction- and it is exactly like nuclear reaction.
So if add more insulation to the rock’s insulation, the solid mile of rocks become a shorter distance of solid. If atmosphere could insulate better than the rock, then rock becomes hot lava at the surface- which is hot.
gbaikie
I am no clearer to understanding what objection you had to my comments. Everything I had said was basically factual.
I said that less than 20W/m2 of sunlight hits the surface. Do you have a problem with this? If so what do you suggest is the right amount? From the paper’s perspective it does not matter.
I said it gets mighty hot. To me a T of about 735K is a mighty hot surface.
You are right that it is not for me to answer for the authors and I could not do full justice to their thoughts but you do stray off their paper into areas for which they don’t make claims. For example they do not claim an insulation effect or a GHG back-radiation effect. They do not claim that the source of heat is the atmosphere.
I am not suggesting you should not put forward your own thoughts but they should be clearly distinguished from the claims in their paper to avoid confusion.
Their results are empirically derived so it is hard to dispute that. An extract from their abstract may help:
Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure.
NB: GMAT = Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planet
Whether it holds as a valid hypothesis when put to the test in future is a different question. One criticism may be the limited number of bodies used and not leaving an unknown planet/moon on which to test the hypothesis (six is all they had). Curve fitting also is a reasonable criticism given that it has not been possible to test the hypothesis on an unknown body. But, it is an excellent start given the vast range of atmospheres involved.
BTW Ned Nikolov commented below. If you have specific questions I am sure he would be happy to comment.
— tonyM says:
July 5, 2017 at 6:31 AM
gbaikie
I am no clearer to understanding what objection you had to my comments. Everything I had said was basically factual.–
It wasn’t an objection. Instead it was a conclusion.
20 watts of sunlight will not make a planet hot.
The reason Venus is hot is because about 2600 watts per square meter of sunlight is reaching the disk area of the planet.
And that is enormous amount of energy.
Some of this energy is absorbed.
If the amount of energy absorbed by sunlight is less than amount planet is emitting, then it’s unlikely the sun is increasing the temperature of the Planet. If more energy going in than going out, it’s increasing the temperature. Such amounts of difference of net energy can over time, can enormous- so + or – 10 watts per square meter is massive warming or cooling.
So earth absorbs about 240 watts per square meter and emits 240 watts per square meter. And we can assume that sunlight
is causing Earth to be a warm as it is.
And sunlight arrive to earth in the disk area of the planet, and emits spherically. So 240 x 4 is 960 watts per square meters of sunlight is being absorbed.
Which is enormous amount of energy. So earth emits an enormous amount of energy and it absorbs and enormous amount of energy. So earth is warmed by the sunlight.
The 20 watts is also disk like amount coming from the Sun and that disk size is much smaller than the disk size of the planet Venus, or it’s relatively tiny amount of energy as compared to the amount Venus emits.
So it’s not what is causing Venus to be as warm as it is.
gbaikie says:
“The reason Venus is hot is because about 2600 watts per square meter of sunlight is reaching the disk area of the planet.
And that is enormous amount of energy.
Some of this energy is absorbed.”
Only about 10%.
Which in no way accounts for Venus’s high surface temperature.
gbaikie says:
“So earth absorbs about 240 watts per square meter and emits 240 watts per square meter. And we can assume that sunlight
is causing Earth to be a warm as it is.”
Why?
What is the blackbody temperature corresponding to 240 W/m2?
Answer: -18 C.
gbaikie:
We are talking at cross purposes. I stated that less than 20W/m2 reached the surface. You conclude from this that this could not sustain a T of 735K. I suggest you are jumping to conclusions as I did not say that that is all the energy that is absorbed by Venus (includes atmosphere). But even the full insolation without albedo would not sustain the 735K surface T without the atmosphere so I am not sure why you wish to speculate along these lines.
A sufficient requirement for a surface to maintain its T is for TOA outgoing energy to equal incoming energy and a stable lapse rate over a period of time, all other variables basically remaining constant. That says nothing about how much energy must come from the sun or how much of it reaches the surface.
Using Trenberth Global Energy flows with the EARTH surface with receiving 240W/m2 could only sustain an average T of about 255K and that assumes all the energy is absorbed by the surface. Further Trenberth only puts it at about 161 W/m2 actually absorbed by the surface which would sustain a stable T of only 231K in the absence of other factors. Clearly this is not what we find and we are in agreement.
N & Z take it a step further finding a deficit of 90K:
This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earths atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric greenhouse effect currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition.
I note David Appell comes strolling in to tell us that radiation from colder CO2/GHG will do the job and heat the warmer surface. I am looking to buy an Appell oven which cooks my turkey simply by opening a few soda bottles and a few candles in it.
-David Appell says:
July 5, 2017 at 4:38 PM
gbaikie says:
So earth absorbs about 240 watts per square meter and emits 240 watts per square meter. And we can assume that sunlight
is causing Earth to be a warm as it is.
Why?
What is the blackbody temperature corresponding to 240 W/m2?
Answer: -18 C.-
Are you suggesting the sun doesn’t warm Earth?
That is foolish.
The earth absorb a vast amount of energy from the sun.
What other planet in our solar system absorbs more sunlight than Earth?
Whoa…badly and illogically worded above:
That says nothing about how much energy must come from the sun or how much of it reaches the surface.
should be clarified to:
That says nothing about how much of the energy must come from the sun into the atmosphere or how much of it reaches the surface. But clearly the net insolation must remain constant.
–We are talking at cross purposes. I stated that less than 20W/m2 reached the surface. You conclude from this that this could not sustain a T of 735K.–
Well I suppose you agree if Venus had more atmosphere and addition atmosphere made so no sunlight reached the surface- it would hotter than it is now.
And probably disagree:
I think Venus placed at Earth distance, would cool significantly and could have it’s atmosphere collapse due to CO2 not being hot enough to remain a gas. Venus to Earth distance but added/replaced argon or some other gas which doesn’t liquify at cooler temperature, I think average temperature at surface is colder than Earth’s. Though it would be uniform temperature at the surface- like Venus has
–I suggest you are jumping to conclusions as I did not say that that is all the energy that is absorbed by Venus (includes atmosphere).–
I don’t think an atmosphere absorbs energy of sunlight- I think Venus clouds block a lot of sunlight. And clouds can absorb sunlight, and would heat the air. And it’s the heated air at high elevation which causes the air to be hot at lower elevation.
You may or may not agree with that.
The clouds do not absorb a lot of energy- and they reflect a lot of sunlight. Since they don’t absorb much of sunlight- if it were at Earth distance with about 1/2 the sunlight, the cloud droplets don’t warm up very much.
Or say it this way, heat input reduces by more than half and it out going energy doesn’t change as much.
So it cools.
And I suppose if had Venus closer to the Sun it would be much hotter.
gbalkie says:
“And I suppose if had Venus closer to the Sun it would be much hotter.”
Why is the average surface temperature of Venus (737 K) higher than the average surface temperature of the dayside of Mercury (590-725 K)?
Sorry, I wasn’t allowed to quote the scientific sources of these data.
“David Appell says:
July 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM
gbalkie says:
And I suppose if had Venus closer to the Sun it would be much hotter.
Why is the average surface temperature of Venus (737 K) higher than the average surface temperature of the dayside of Mercury (590-725 K)?”
Mercury [like our Moon] is heated to the sun temperature as reduces with distance. Or magnification at Earth distance the Sun temperature is about 120 C. At Mercury closest distance from the Sun, the sunlight has 14,446 watts per square meter,
which would be 710 K [437 C]. When Mercury further away the sun, the sunlight is 6,272 watts [577 K].
With Venus, the cloud droplets at say 50 Km elevation only need to warm the air to 70 C, for the air to be 462 C near it’s rocky surface. So the droplet of acid are not heated anywhere near the sun temperature at Venus distant, which varies 2,647 to 2,647 watts per square meter. Sunlight with 2,647 watts per square meter has temperature of 465 K or 192 C. So the acid droplet could warm about 1/2 as much as the sun’s temperature at Venus distance or droplets could warmed to about 100 C.
–Or magnification at Earth distance the Sun temperature is about 120 C.–
Should be:
Or without magnification at Earth distance the Sun temperature is about 120 C.
gbalkie: Your response was extremely incoherent.
Why is Venus warmer than Mercury?
“David Appell says:
July 7, 2017 at 10:06 PM
gbaikie: Your response was extremely incoherent.
Why is Venus warmer than Mercury?”
The clouds of Venus has a warming mechanism which you appear to not be unaware.
The Greenhouse Effect on Venus has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
What matters is the depth of the atmosphere (roughly 65 km below the cloud tops) and the adiabatic lapse rate (-Cp/g). Carl Sagan got it right in 1968:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968ApJ…152.1119S
Ha ha.
(And your link doesn’t work.)
It does, but it is only one player among many others, and the ultimate result is a balance of all the players.
The lapse rate only gives you a rate. You still have to have boundary conditions to get the absolute number. It’s like saying, you drove at 10 mph for 1 hour. Where are you?
Can’t say, unless you tell me where you started.
You can say, starting at TOA. But, TOA is not a fixed position. It is dependent on the state of the atmosphere, which is what you are trying to determine in the first place.
…and Manabe and Wetherald were the first (1967) to successfully calculate the average surface temperature of the Earth, and where the lapse rate starts at.
Their calculation, of course, fully included radiative physics, and formed the basis for all climate model calculations today.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. It is a question of observability. The solution is not a unique solution.
That’s extraordinarily ridiculous, even for you.
Mmm… no. I don’t think you understand the concept.
Manabe and Wetherald’s model gave the correct average surface temperature of the Earth.
It’s you who doesn’t understand.
x + y = 4. Solve for x and y.
Numerical values only, please.
You still haven’t read Manabe & Wetherald’s 1967 paper, have you?
Why not?
Numerical values only, please.
Do you understand the exercise? Do you understand that when a problem is underdetermined by the observations, there are an infinite number of potential solutions which superficially fit the data, but which do not generally provide predictive power?
“I have no idea where Hawking ever got such a wild idea.”
From James Hansen.
[Though some argue it’s from Carl Sagan.]
But James hates the Paris Accords:
Its a fraud really, a fake, he says, rubbing his head. Its just bullshit for them to say: Well have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years. Its just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud
Now if James had actually done his job, we might already have had an alternative to “fossil fuels”.
The fantasy is that once upon a time, Venus was just like Earth.
You think Hansen’s job was to create alternatives to fossil fuels??
How so?
NASA’s job, and therefore it was Hansen’s job, is to explore Space.
NASA has failed to explore the Moon. It took Clementine to find water on lunar poles in 1998. After discovering water on lunar poles, NASA has done little to explore the lunar poles.
NASA should have discovered water on Lunar poles much earlier than 1998- though I suppose doesn’t matter much because they could simply ignored it earlier, as they doing now.
Water is most valuable resource in space, even if it cheap [or especially if it’s cheap] it the most valuable resource in space.
In addition NASA has failed to develop depots in space. One would need the ability to operate a depot in space to mine water in space.
The US military has done some work related to robotically docking and transferring fuel. I would say the US military has done more to explore Space than compared to NASA, and it’s not the US military’s job to explore space.
So, you agree that it wasn’t Hansen’s job to develop alternative fuels.
But then you repeat that lie anyway.
Nor was it GISS’s job to explore the Moon. Their job to explore Earth’s climate. Of which Hansen did great work.
And, NASA already explored the Moon. Did you want Hansen to build a house there? Would that have made you happy?
That’s three strikes — you’re out.
” David Appell says:
July 6, 2017 at 7:35 PM
So, you agree that it wasnt Hansens job to develop alternative fuels.”
It should not the job of anyone working for the government to develop alternative fuels.
For the US federal government it has been a task assigned to it, to do exploration.
The US laws and international laws are unclear and unhelpful to encourage private exploration of space, and it considered the government and NASA role to explore Space.
Exploration or other types of accurate assessment of governmentally controlled lands, has had long history of good economic results for US nation.
NASA has failed to explore space, and got side tracked by things it should not be doing.
Hansen’s job wasn’t to develop alternative fuels. For crying out loud.
You are space-obsessed and can’t see anything else except through that lens. Which is very unuseful here.
“Hansens job wasnt to develop alternative fuels. For crying out loud.”
I said alternative to fossil fuels, not alternative fuels.
Hansen was protesting for alternative fuels, and demonstrated
he was an idiot.
“You are space-obsessed and cant see anything else except through that lens. Which is very unuseful here.”
Yes. I am space-obsessed. It’s 50 miles up.
Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) published a new version of its lower troposphere product which increased the linear warming trend from 1979 to May 2017 by 36%. The trend increased from 0.136 C/decade in version 3.3 to 0.184 C/decade in version 4.0. A graph comparing the two versions is here;
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/images/RSS_TLT_v3.3_4.0.jpg
For comparison, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) trend is 0.124 C/decade version 6.0 over the same period. A before-peer-review paper describing the new versions says it uses a new method to adjust for the effects of drifting local measurement time using information from the satellite measurements. The trend difference between RSS v4 and UAH v6 is an enormous 48%! We need a detailed review of why there is this difference.
Yes. UAH TLT v6.0 is now clearly the outlier.
“UAH TLT v6.0 is now clearly the outlier.”
Not a scientific reason for dismissal. This isn’t a club, or an election. Sentiment is not a discriminator.
The fact is that, prior to manipulation of the surface records, all major data sets were largely in agreement. Then, dubious reasons for “adjusting” the surface records were found. Now, RSS has been coopted. This is obviously pathological science.
Bart says:
“Not a scientific reason for dismissal”
No, but it’s a hint…. But then, UAH has almost always been the outlier, on the cool side….
“The fact is that, prior to manipulation of the surface records, all major data sets were largely in agreement.”
Were they? Prove it. I doubt you can. (You’ll need to include all of UAH’s many “adjustments.”)
It’s a hint that someone’s cooking the books.
As it happens, after GISS introduced the “pausebuster adjustments”, I took a shot of the major data sets as they then existed. GISS is the outlier here:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/offset%200.2_zps9bmbmsvj.png
The others are in pretty close agreement.
So you think UAH is cooking the books. Interesting.
Adjustments are necessary to correct for biases. This isn’t difficult for anyone to understand; read this:
“Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, Ars Technica 1/21/16.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/
WFT still has the older RSS up. It is virtually identical to UAH v6 modulo the arbitrary baseline:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/offset/plot/uah6/offset:0.1
“Adjustments are necessary
to correctfor biases”FIFY
Can’t even read a single link, huh?
Why do you think UAH does adjustments?
I have shown that my statement was correct: The fact is that, prior to manipulation of the surface records, all major data sets were largely in agreement.
That is what this thread is about.
“Manipulations” are adjustments — there are very sound scientific reasons for them.
The BEST project was started, funded by Koch, precisely to test this.
They found the same results as everyone else.
There are no sound scientific reasons for them. They are just ex post facto rationalizations.
One of my fellow Tesla owning snobs made a comment to me in their Forum, “Try listening to a real scientist.” And then he posted the Prof. Hawking story about his extreme alarmism. I immediately pounced on the 250 degrees and raining sulfuric acid comment as being way out there. Of course the AGW elitists in the Tesla Forum dismissed my criticism of Hawking’s absurd statement. I have no standing to question the comment of such a world renowned scientist. Now, I can tell those Tesla snobs, “Try listening to a real CLIMATE scientist!”
Hawking’s claim has absolutely nothing to do with whether you should buy a Tesla or not.
Let’s not confuse things here, OK?
I’m not confusing a dang thing. I own a Tesla. But I am not on board the global warming bandwagon like many of my fellow Tesla owners are. One of them pointed out to me about what Hawking said to “prove” how wrong I am about “climate change.” I thought it was a funny little coincidence that right after I pointed the silly “raining sulfuric acid” comment to my fellow Tesla owning snobs that Dr. Roy Spencer put the issue up front and center!
You or your friends shouldn’t have trusted Hawking’s claims about climate science — and the sulfuric acid there is just a distraction.
He isn’t a climate scientist. But like many physicists, in his older years he feels qualified to comment on everything and anything.
Rob Mitchell says:
July 4, 2017 at 1:00 AM
Similar sentiments are expressed BTL on the Indy article, inc too many over-generous up-votes. It shows that alarmists are SO wedded to their sacred theory that some are pathologically incapable of hearing anything said against it, no matter how daft or as in this case, patently wrong it may be.
Regardless of where we all stand on AGW prof’ Hawking’s statement is patently UNTRUE. CO2 will NOT drive temps to 250C or trigger sulphuric acid rain. (I’m sure even David Appell would be gracious enough to acknowledge that.) It comes to a pretty pass when such stupidity is allowed in our MSM, even if it is the bat-shit crazy Independent.
See my comment above.
The article was covering Hawking’s talk, not his scientific acumen. Sort of like how the conservative press covers Will Happer.
Venus is not as hot as it is, due to Venus having a lot of CO2.
Having a lot of atmosphere could be requirement to having a high temperature in lower part of the large atmosphere.
Or no kind of mixture of gases if there were just 1 atm of atmosphere, could be heated by the sun and be as hot as Venus.
All known “warming effects” clouds, UHI effect, an actual greenhouse, greenhouse gases, high heat capacity, any kind of insulation. inversion layers, lapse rates. And what else?
My idea of ocean causing “warming”- also doesn’t.
Ozone warming [maybe].
Catabatic wind [maybe]
“Examples of true catabatic winds include the bora (or bura) in the Adriatic, the Bohemian Wind or Bhmwind in the Ore Mountains, the Santa Ana in southern California, and the oroshi in Japan. Another example is “the Barber”, an enhanced catabatic wind that blows over the town of Greymouth in New Zealand when there is a southeast flow over the South Island. It is a wind that is known in the area for its coldness.’
And:
“The temperature of the air depends on the temperature in the source region and the amount of descent. In the case of the Santa Ana, for example, the wind can (but does not always) become hot by the time it reaches sea level. In Antarctica, by contrast, the wind is still intensely cold.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catabatic_wind
Or roughly we can assume that Earth air temperature or surface temperature will never get above 80 C due to sunlight warming it [non magnified sunlight] as long as don’t get more than 1 atm of atmosphere or sun doesn’t increase it’s energy at Earth distance.
So with Venus the sunlight and CO2 isn’t causing it to hot.
It can be another source of heating, or the sunlight heated the air at high elevation.
Or if you create much lower elevation on Earth- a very huge deep pit, the air at bottom of pit can warmer than 80 C.
Or the Mediterranean sea is fairly deep and it was supposed have been at one time lacking any ocean water. And that would have warmer air at it’s depths:
Mediterranean Sea Dried Up Five Million Years Ago
Date:
February 12, 2009
“Approximately five million years ago, the Mediterranean Sea dried up after it was sealed off from the Atlantic Ocean. According to earth scientist Rob Govers of Utrecht University,…”
wiki:
” In the empty Mediterranean Basin the summertime temperatures would probably have been extremely high even during the coldest phase of any glacial era. Using the dry adiabatic lapse rate of around 10 C (18 F) per kilometer, a theoretical temperature of an area 4 km (2.5 mi) below sea level would be about 40 C (72 F) warmer than the temperature at sea level. Under this simplistic assumption, theoretical temperature maxima would have been around 80 C (176 F) at the lowest depths of the dry abyssal plain permitting little life other than extremophiles.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
Yes, the UHI is *huge* on Venus.
{eye roll}
Dr. Spencer,
for several years I try to understand the greenhouse effect of the Venus atmosphere.
Using Stefan-Boltzmann we could expect a temperature of 238 K = -35°C (albedo: 0.750). The measured value at the surface is 737 K = 464°C. So the greenhouse effect should be ~500 K.
But there is a logarithmic relationship between concentration ratio of CO2 (Venus-Earth: ~220,000) and temperature change.
So how can it be possible to get such an extreme temperature difference only due to the greenhouse effect?
Doesn’t the logarithmic relationship apply to Venus?
I would be grateful for an explanation.
The logarithmic relationship only applies over a certain range. of CO2.
Beyond that you need to look more closely at the forcing. You have to look even more closely than this:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/05/uncertainty-in-co2s-raditive-forcing-1.html
Thanks, but I fear this wasn’t very helpful for me.
Isn’t there an overview about the dependency of the temperature-CO2 relationship from pressure and CO2 concentration?
Is the whole difference between measured temperature and temperature calculated acc. Stefan-Boltzmann due to the greenhouse effect?
(Remark: With an albedo of 0.9 as you wrote that difference would be even larger.)
Werner Kohl says:
“Isnt there an overview about the dependency of the temperature-CO2 relationship from pressure and CO2 concentration?”
That paper gives the dependence on CO2 concentration. So do many others.
And the literature has an enormous numbers of CO2 “pressure broadening.”
“Is the whole difference between measured temperature and temperature calculated acc. Stefan-Boltzmann due to the greenhouse effect?”
Depends. But on Earth the greenhouse effect’s magnitude is that temperature increase between the “brightness temperature” (SB Law) and the actual temperature.” = about 33 C.
David Appell says:
“That paper gives the dependence on CO2 concentration.”
Hm, I find five different standard atmospheres – all representing earth conditions. But I find nothing about very high concentration of CO2 and pressure. Are you sure this papers describes those conditions?
A greenhouse effect of ~500 K appears to be very strange for me.
Werner:
Here’s a paper about high CO2 that I discussed:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html
THere’s this: doi:10.1029/2009JD011915
There was another published late last year, but now I can’t find it.
Thanks, David.
I think Venus is hotter than sunlight allows it to be, because the sunlight isn’t warming the gas molecule faster than energy
of the sun is capable.
If had large balloon on earth, made of black rubber. In sunlight the top of balloon could heat to 70 C, and the air above it might be 40 C.
The balloon could parked in parking lot, the paving could also heat up to 70 C and air above it be 40 C.
Now have balloon rise up 1000 meters above the parking lot. The balloon could still be 70 C and air above it be 40 C.
But air above the parking at this elevation is about 6.5 C cooler than air above parking lot.
Air temperature is average velocity of air molecules within volume of air [with density- or the number of molecules within a volume of air- say cubic cm or cubic foot, whatever.
So how much mass of air and the average velocity they travel at.
Say pick a number or two. Say air at parking lot elevation, is 1 kg per cubic meter. And say average molecule speed is 500 m/s.
At 1000 meter higher, it could .9 kg per cubic meter and average molecule speed of 500 m/s. And since it has less mass per cubic meter, the air is lower temperature, say 6.5 C less from lapse rate, or 33.5 C. But with balloon at 1000 meter it’s warming the air, it’s increasing the velocity of the average molecules. Any time you increase the average velocity of the air, it causing less molcules to occupy and given volume of gas- it’s less dense and rises.
So the heated air at parking lot rises and heated air above the balloon rises. But air above balloon has higher average velocity than air above parking lot.
Or both can be same temperature but air above balloon has higher average velocity.
Now cover entire surface of earth with these balloons, and this will result in air molecule at parking lot elevation to have same air density [roughly] but hut higher velocity than parking surface could make them- or it’s warmer.
This is fairly small effect on Earth, but in Venus the parking is 40 to 60 Km higher at the same air density.
Or air temperature at one earth atmosphere pressure Venus is about 70 C. And there twice amount of sunlight at Venus distance- that sunlight if the was black rubber balloon easily heat the air above it to 70 C.
Instead of balloons, Venus huge clouds of droplets of acid which have a boiling point of 337 C. So this acid can heated to higher temperature than water without evaporating, and they never reach the rocky surface because the vaporize from hotter atmosphere near the surface.
And on Venus it’s raining acid and acid never reaches the surface. And one should have similar convectional activity as cloud do on Earth- so get updrafts and downdrafts and one should have variety of droplet size of this acid- as have variety of droplets size of water with earth clouds.
Venus cloud coverage is global, it’s color is yellowish brown and said to reflect 75% of the sunlight reaching Venus. Earth clouds can be about 90% reflective.
I think if add enough water to Venus you get cloud like Earth clouds and Venus would significantly cool.
gbaikie says:
“I think Venus is hotter than sunlight allows it to be, because the sunlight isnt warming the gas molecule faster than energy
of the sun is capable.”
Unscientific and meaningless gobblygook.
— David Appell says:
July 4, 2017 at 4:23 AM
gbaikie says:
I think Venus is hotter than sunlight allows it to be, because the sunlight isnt warming the gas molecule faster than energy
of the sun is capable.
Unscientific and meaningless gobblygook.–
Well you believe it’s scientific fact that the Sun could warm Earth to 800,000 K.
And I think it could only warm to 80 C.
And the average velocity of gas depend the temperature of the heated surface which heats the gas.
Or Venus has about 2600 watts per square meter of sunlight, which means the highest non-magnified sunlight can heat a surface is about 463 K [ 190 C]. If the sunlight is evaporating something into gas, the highest temperature of the gas can be is 190 C – at 1 atm of pressure.
And a gas at 1 atm of pressure will have an average velocity- varies on density of type of molecule, but in term kinetic energy all types of gases have same kinetic energy [or same air temperature].
gbaikie says:
“Well you believe its scientific fact that the Sun could warm Earth to 800,000 K.”
Under what conditions?
Your belief, you can talk about.
So you have zero idea about your claim’s context, and just made it mindlessly.
That’s what I suspected.
gbaikie says:
“I think if add enough water to Venus you get cloud like Earth clouds and Venus would significantly cool.”
Venus’s surface temperature is 860 F.
So, if you add water to Venus, it will immediately boil and evaporate and disappear as water vapor into the atmosphere.
The end result is yet more of a powerful GHG in the Venusian atmosphere.
That logarithmic relationship was postulated by Arrhenius in 1896. It is simply false. It does not correspond to reality on Earth, Venus or anywhere else. Anyone who says otherwise is a snake oil salesman or worse.
What science shows it is wrong?
Also, the albedo of Venus is 0.9
Just like your IQ.
Are you sure?
Wikipedia says something different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
Werner, my earlier here wasn’t posted.
No, I’m not sure, and you are convincing me that I was wrong. I’m not sure how where I came up with the 0.9 number for albedo….
It would be nice to have some people challenging me here…….
David Appell:
You haven’t fooled many people. Here is a neat vignette written about you by a very capable blogger on another site, clearly you are legendary:
Hes a journalist for Scientific American (SciAm).
Thats the US equivalent of New Scientist. And like NS it has sunk into paranoid fantasies.
Which saddens those of us who remember when popular science magazines promoted a thirst for knowledge.
And its Appells fault, in part.
So what is he doing trolling here?
You promote pseudoscience experiments as previously stated (by me):
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
As previously put to you to show us your prowess. How is your effort to get that $10K prize going? viz:
Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.
Tony, I don’t work for Scientific American. So you’re wrong right from the start.
The rest is just whining over results you don’t like. Tough.
David Appell:
As usual you try to weasel out of facing truth. Who said you were working for SA as in employee. The term used was “journalist” which can mean many things including freelance.
Your own internet profile shows that you are a “freelance writer” and “My work has appeared in Scientific American,.. “
But lo and behold you are truly legendary as my brief search found you have a complete article devoted to you on WUWT. Then they banned you! Not many people can achieve that!
Your weasel efforts then follow in trying to brush off your support for a junk science CO2 experiment. Do you wish me to dig it out where I concluded:
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
More weasel words when you counter with whining. Just wake up to yourself. You stated above you wanted to be challenged.
There has been a long standing challenge to you to claim the $10K prize:
Accordingly, Peter Ward has issued a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can demonstrate by experiment that greenhouse gases are more effective at warming Earth than ozone depletion.
All you can say, tail between the legs, is say that I am whining. Have you succeeded in claiming that prize yet??
Tony, I’m flattered by your interest in me.
But disappointed you believe everything you read, especially at a place like WUWT.
It exists only to confirm the biases of people like you and many others here.
Who was it that said, “We need better skeptics?”
Same here.
Were the audience in tears of shock or tears of hilarity? This CO2 hysteria is all getting a bit out of hand, isn’t it.
The Russians
Re the mention of a doubling of CO2 (and 2200 times it).
A QUESTION – How much known fossil fuel do we have and, on the basis of carbon so stored, what impact would that have on atmospheric CO2 given that the annual increase is only about 50% of the estimated emissions?
The amount of fossil fuel carbon on the planet is estimated to be about 125e17 grams of carbon — almost all (80%) of it coal. (Swart and Weaver, Nature Climate Change, 2012)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n3/full/nclimate1421.html
They estimate it would cause 9-33 C of warming if it was all burned.
Stephen Hawking has made no contributions to science. He is a carnival act. His great epiphany concerns virtual particles evaporating from the surface of mythical black holes. Pure gibberish.
He was made a superstar through the combined efforts of the Mohn family and the Vatican. His function is to champion the Big Bang theory (i.e. young universe creationism) which is every bit as much of a hoax as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
For more real data check out http://www.ecofascism.com
Clearly you don’t understand the physics that Hawking has done. It’s first rate and his reputation is well earned.
Honestly, I’m surprised he hasn’t lost his mind earlier, stuck in paralysis for all those years. I could never have lasted as long as he has. But it had to happen sooner or later.
Indeed, this is a sad story of a clearly manifested silliness by a prominent scientist. But at the same time, it provides a valuable lesson for all of us that no one is immune to making stupid statements once in while no matter what his/her prior reputation has been. This is why claims need to be evaluated based on their true scientific merit, not on who made them…
Speaking about the climate of Venus, this recently published paper provides a new answer as to why Venus is so hot, and how the Venusian climate actually relates to the climate of Earth (Yes, there is a physical continuum that explains the observed variation of planetary surface temperatures across the Solar System):
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1:112.s. DOI: 10.4172/2573-458X.1000112
PDF URL: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
You are very correct. Reputation counts for little, when someone starts making ridiculous statements. It is enormously sad to see someone fall so far.
Yet among famous astrophysicists, we have seen it before. Carl Sagan went off the deep end with ‘Nuclear Winter,’ knowing full well that he could only get that theoretical effect under very unlikely scenarios. Similarly, James Hansen went crazy about carbon dioxide and has not corrected his ideas to reflect measured reality. Instead, he led NASA/GISS toward cooking the surface station reality.
What all of these astrophysicists have in common are glib personalities that allowed them to lead with ever more fantastic stories. And, of course, they all have strong ties to the political Left. Most scientists realize that they cannot allow their political beliefs to contaminate their science. These astrophysicists forgot that lesson.
Gordon,
I agree! Many modern astrophysics live in a world of “mathematical mysticism”, where theoretical models supersede physical reality as revealed by actual observations. Examples from this world are absurd concepts such as “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy”, which represent nothing more than huge fudge factors invented to save a doomed cosmological theory founded on gravity as the dominant force in the Universe…
The entire main-stream climate science is based on a mathematical exercise, without taking into consideration the limitation of the physical world. No one has ever measured the greenhouse gas effect, which is the heart of the climate science. Yet, a massive body of science has been built on it. Now it is time to scrap it, after wasting over 70 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. I hope that the Red Team pays attention to the fact that the science that they will be probing is not based on facts or measurements.
Nabil, here is the data for a measurement of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Just calculate the area between the red and black curves….
Alternatively, you can note that the Earth’s surface radiates at an average of 15 C (390 W/m2) but only an average of 240 W/m2 escapes out of the top of the atmosphere.
Nabil…”Now it is time to scrap it [GHE]…”
While we’re at it, let’s scrap quantum theory and find ways to measure atomic forces directly. Quantum theory as practiced by Bohr and most scientists today has set physics back nearly 100 years and is leading us nowhere.
It has it’s uses for basic atomic theory but not nearly as many uses as can be found for Newtonian mechanics.
Gordon gives his opinion on quantum theory, while understanding absolutely none of it. How can the universe not laugh our loud?
Gordon, why do you think you have a right to say such things with so little knowledge? I thought only Americans did that.
PS: Bohr made a good first model, but he had very little to do with the development of quantum theory as it’s known today.
Ned Nikolov says:
“I agree! Many modern astrophysics live in a world of mathematical mysticism, where theoretical models supersede physical reality as revealed by actual observations.”
How ironic, considering you just published a paper that is nothing but brute curve fitting, with no physical justification at all.
“Examples from this world are absurd concepts such as black holes, dark matter and dark energy, which represent nothing more than huge fudge factors invented to save a doomed cosmological theory founded on gravity as the dominant force in the Universe”
You should learn the observational evidence for these ideas instead of just throwing them all out like a crank.
Yeah, our “curve fitting” is based on REAL DATA that every solid theory in physics must use. There cannot be a sound theory without observations that fall tightly on a curve… Where is the direct evidence (observation) of “dark matter” and “dark energy” or “black holes” for that matter? There is NONE!
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
– John von Neumann
There is no physical basis for your model. And it fails to explain this fact:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Ned Nikolov says:
“Where is the direct evidence (observation) of dark matter and dark energy or black holes for that matter? There is NONE!”
So what? People are looking for them. There are very sound theoretical reasons for these, which you clearly do not and cannot understand. That’s how it goes on the frontier of physics.
” David Appell says:
July 4, 2017 at 4:27 AM
gbaikie says:
I think if add enough water to Venus you get cloud like Earth clouds and Venus would significantly cool.
Venuss surface temperature is 860 F. ”
And at such temperature H20 would be a gas.
What average velocity would the H2O gas be traveling at?
What velocity does the CO2 molecules travel?
Some people think CO2 at Venus surface would have average velocity of about 346 m/s
But anyhow, you would drop the water from orbit. Delivering to surface would be very difficult and expensive
“So, if you add water to Venus, it will immediately boil and evaporate and disappear as water vapor into the atmosphere.”
Space rocks have what you could call two types of water- water which frozen and hydrated water. One is easy to mine and the other requires heating to something like 1000 degrees. Space rock with mostly or only hydrated water could have little value in terms mining them for water.
And one can impact these low value water space rock on Venus or probably better, Mars.
In simple terms, if Venus needed to have a lot water [more than billions of tonnes] one need the cost to transport the water to Venus to be cheap. In the beginning realm of this kind of cheap it would is somewhere around $10 per ton.
So 1 billion tonnes moved, cost 10 billion dollars.
If add a few swimming pools of water to Venus, of course it will “disappear”, as apparently the air is extremely dry.
So at minimum, I mean billions of tons.
“The scientists decided to take a closer look at asteroids and found that they consist of initially non-differentiated construction materials of the solar system and contain a rather considerable proportion of water. In particular, chondrite carbonaceous, the most common type of asteroids and meteorites, can contain up to 10 percent water.
However, water in chondrites is effectively protected: it is in a chemically bounded condition, and it is “blocked” in a crystal lattice of minerals. Water starts to seep out only when it is heated to 300-1200 degrees centigrade depending on the type of hydrous mineral. This means that it has the potential of remaining in the crater together with the asteroid.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150930110427.htm
So asteroids with 10% water in hydrate form requires considerable heat of material to extract the water- it’s like mining water from concrete. Toss at venus, and the atmospheric impact explosion will “mine” the water.
So say 100 meter diameter sphere has 5.2410^5 cubic meter
and 10% of volume is .52410^5 is 52400 tonnes of water.
There tens of thousands of these size rocks which NEOs [near earth objects]. Cause 10,000 of them to hit venus, hmm that’s only about 1/2 billion tons of water. 1000 meter: 5.2410^8. There more than 1000 of them, use 100: 5 billion tonnes.
Btw, there is no shortage of space rocks:
“Estimates of the total number of Jupiter trojans are based on deep surveys of limited areas of the sky. The L4 swarm is believed to hold between 160240,000 asteroids with diameters larger than 2 km and about 600,000 with diameters larger than 1 km.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan#Numbers_and_mass
These rocks at Jupiter’s L-points, right in middle of what is called, the Interplanetary Transport Network:
“The Interplanetary Transport Network (ITN) is a collection of gravitationally determined pathways through the Solar System that require very little energy for an object to follow. The ITN makes particular use of Lagrange points as locations where trajectories through space are redirected using little or no energy. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network
I wouldn’t exactly use this slow way- time is money- one add more delta-v to rocks and get to Venus fairly quickly- and they don’t need to cross earth orbit [or get anywhere near it], to hit Venus.
gbaikie…”Some people think CO2 at Venus surface would have average velocity of about 346 m/s…”
Are you talking about the average velocity of the molecules due to the heat or bulk movement of air? Apparently the convection near the surface is small to non-existent but as you reach the top of the atmosphere there are hurricane-like winds.
Air?
“Air” on Venus is almost ALL CO2.
“Are you talking about the average velocity of the molecules due to the heat or bulk movement of air?”
Average molecule velocity of CO2
“Apparently the convection near the surface is small to non-existent but as you reach the top of the atmosphere there are hurricane-like winds”
Venus winds travel globally, and will circle the planet every few days. So even though planet has very slow rotation [which is backwards [retrograde]] if in upper atmosphere [say around 1 atm] the days are long, but not “forever”.
The old Venus effect! Haven’t heard that one in a while. That was like lie #2. Honestly not convinced CO2 doesn’t block radiation as much as absorb and retain it. But perhaps he was making a joke.
Darwin…”Honestly not convinced CO2 doesnt block radiation as much as absorb and retain it”.
I was reading something interesting the other day, something that had not occurred to me. Apparently the CO2 near the surface of Venus is affected by the 460C surface temperature and the immense surface pressure to the point where it is no longer a gas, but a form of plasma, like a liquid. The article suggested oceans of liquefied CO2.
That puts a different slant on things, that is no longer a greenhouse effect, not that there is one anyway.
Source?
It’s the same with people who are afraid we’re going to end up like Mars. Can’t happen.
Who worries that we might end up like Mars?
Via what scenario?
DA…”Who worries that we might end up like Mars?
Via what scenario?”
According to Hawking, a black hole could meander by and suck off our atmosphere.
Why would a black hole absorb the atmosphere but not the planet as a whole?
I know he is a idiot, false prophet ,full of hate ,unhappy miserable man.
He knows how to manipulate the ignorant including here the press .
Talk about full of hate….
This man who has no real contribution to science is advising us to move on a other planet for about 20 years . A average mind of a teenager comes to the conclusion humans will never be able to colonize another place in the universe. I wonder why is the press in bed with this scammer who 25 years ago was barely making a leaving .
“No real contributions to science?”
Rather, you just don’t know them.
Hawking is 75 with extraordinary health challenges. As best as I can tell (difficult to research this, I spent ten minutes searching) he hasn’t made a public appearance involving actual interaction in years. The odds are pretty good he is experiencing dementia. Seems to me his primary drive in life now is to make sensational claims to garner press to feed his ego.
Roy wrote:
“So, how could we possibly get from 2x to 220,000x?”
Come on, Roy, you should be knowledgeable about how atmo CO2 on Venus got that high, by natural processes…..
I hardly think that’s going to happen on Earth anytime soon, and again I think Hawking is way off base here, but it will eventually in ~ 1 Byrs as the Sun gets warmer and warmer….
Comle on, David,
The natural long term trend of CO2 on earth is rather to decrease gradually and eventually drop to levels so low that they no longer allow photosynthesis to take place and David Appel’s to post on blogs.
Why would CO2 drop to such low levels?
Why are you not even capable to click on the link, I kindly provided, and learn something about this subject instead of posting endless ridiculous pontifications here and probably elsewhere ?
You didn’t answer my question.
I don’t have to answer your “questions”, I’m not your pupil. I just put (occasionally) the nose of idiots in their shit.
Thursday July 6 2017, 07:27:29 UTC 2 hours ago 11km SSE of Lincoln, Montana 4.4 9.2 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 07:11:58 UTC 2 hours ago 12km SE of Lincoln, Montana 3.5 10.0 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 07:08:59 UTC 2 hours ago 12km ESE of Lincoln, Montana 3.9 9.2 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 07:02:27 UTC 2 hours ago 13km SE of Lincoln, Montana 4.5 10.9 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 07:02:27 UTC 2 hours ago 13km SE of Lincoln, Montana 4.0 7.6 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:59:10 UTC 2 hours ago 13km SE of Lincoln, Montana 3.8 11.0 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:57:30 UTC 2 hours ago 52km ESE of Beatty, Nevada 0.1 1.7 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:54:57 UTC 2 hours ago 12km ESE of Lincoln, Montana 3.5 6.6 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:48:44 UTC 2 hours ago 15km SE of Lincoln, Montana 3.1 10.9 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:42:26 UTC 2 hours ago 166km SE of Kamaishi, Japan 5.1 10.0 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:35:35 UTC 2 hours ago 11km S of Lincoln, Montana 4.9 14.6 USGS Feed
Thursday July 6 2017, 06:30:17 UTC 3 hours ago 11km SSE of Lincoln, Montana 5.8 13.6 USGS Feed
https://earthquake-report.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Schermafbeelding-2017-07-06-om-08.42.27.jpg
Probably not the end.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_elec_3d.gif?
Completely, Utterly irrelevant to climate.
But it is very important for the countries of North America.
No it isn’t. Stop posting completely irrelevant crap. Go beg for attention somewhere else.
Do you think Oregon is not prone to earthquakes? Especially during periods of low solar activity?
Roy,
Make no mistake. I have great respect for you so please consider my criticism of the following: “Since we dont know what our future energy mix will be in 50-100 years, its not obvious we will even reach 2XCO2 ”
Some, such as myself consider increase in atmospheric co2 more a result of warming than a cause, considering the anthropogenic contribution is only about 4% of co2 emissions and the oceans can, if warmed slightly, emit more co2 than we humans burning fuel. My point is that the energy mix should be driven by economics of important considerations, rather than co2 emissions. Don’t validate false premised arguments that co2 increase is bad and mostly human caused.
Brent Crowder says:
“Some, such as myself consider increase in atmospheric co2 more a result of warming than a cause”
Based on what evidence?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#more-5392
Elitists like Stephen Hawking are still trying to kick not-so-worthy people off the “boat”.
What boat?
How exactly is he doing that?
Appel is a toad, a troll and a shit disturber.
Nothing he ever posts has any validity.
Can CO2 raise the temperature on Earth? By what percentage has increased the mass of the Earth’s troposphere?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
It’s atmospheric density, not CO2 that makes Venus hot. Mars is 96% CO2 but has a thin atmosphere.
Venus has large atmosphere and absorbs a small amount of energy from the Sun.
It’s rocky surface air temperature is hot and it’s rocky surface is dimly lit.
And so, it’s rocky surface would be an even worst place than Germany to harvest solar energy.
Or if anyone talking about harvesting solar energy on Venus [rather than in orbit of Venus] they must be talking about
on Venus 50 km or so above the rocky surface- where there is plenty of solar energy.
Mars has a lot of sunlight reaching it’s rocky surface [unlike Venus or Earth]. It’s cold mainly because it’s fairly far from the Sun and receives 715 to 492 watts per square meter of sunlight as compare to 1,413 to 1,321 watts per square meter
which reaches above Earth’s thick atmosphere, though Earth’s atmosphere is quite thin in comparison to Venus.
Earth is about in the middle of the extremes of Venus and Mars atmospheres. Very roughly, Earth has almost 100 times more atmosphere than Mars and almost 100 times less than Venus.
In terms of pressure Earth is near 100 times more pressure, but in term of density it’s only about 60 times the air density of Mars. And Venus is near 100 times more pressure than Earth and Venus has about 60 times more density. [At each of their rocky surfaces.]
Every day on Earth, one gets a demonstration of what sunlight going thru a larger atmosphere is like. At Noon and with the sun being higher than 45 degrees above the atmosphere, the sun going thru about 1 earth atmosphere.
When it’s winter or couple before and after noon, when sun is about 30 degree above the horizon, the sunlight is going thru twice the amount of atmosphere. When sun is 15 degrees above horizon [an hour or so after dawn or before sunset] the sunlight going thru about 4 atm of atmosphere. And just before sun goes below the horizon, it could going thru 10 or more earth atmospheres. And to demonstrate Venus, one needs very cloudy weather and being in winter. So cloudy in winter in say, Germany.
It’s not about the weather, or the climate or the planet Venus …. it’s about using the scam to increase control of the population of the western world, shake them down until they are broke and confused, then form a world government so that the elites can reduce population to make the world pristine again.
The elites of the world are the ones pushing this climate crap. They sick of not having full control of populations as they once did back in simpler times …
That was before the Armed population of the USA became the 300 at Thermopylae … holding back the hordes of the useful idiot left to preserve some individual rights and freedoms in the world.
The 300 have a new leader in Mr. Trump and he is leading us to a better place …. even if only temporary. The left, like the deceased poor, will always be with us and will never stop the whining and violence they use try to get other people’s money.
We can only hope for more Trumps in the future.
We must be ever vigilant or we will all be enslaved beyond tax-slave to real horse-whipped slaves.
Never underestimate the evil of the left and their elite leadership.
and ….
“Never, give up your guns – Aristotle
Didn’t this idea of a tipping point leading to an uncontrollable feedback loop of ever-increasing temperatures until the seas all boil away and the Earth becomes like Venus, originate with James Hansen?
Stephen Hawking, and his ilk, do us all a favor with this kind of BS. It just makes the alarmists look all the more like silly Chicken Littles.
I well recall the “Global Cooling” craze of the ’70s, where the 30 year cooling trend from 1940 was PROOF that we would all die a terrible death from the kilometer-thick sheet of ice that would envelop New York…
If we had been smart enough in the 1930s, when there was a warming trend similar to today’s, there would have been Warming Alarmists then, but everybody was too busy just living through the Great Depression.
Such is life… I think the public is awakening from this nonsense…
I don’t see any “alarmists” taking Hawking seriously. E.g.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2017/07/04/hawking-radiation/
Plus critical tweets from Michael Mann.
Be interested in comments on your colleague John Christy’s recent “White Paper” claim that global warming is a lie.
No doubt the Earth is warming. It has warmed and cooled since it’s inception.
Please provide a link to John’s white paper and I’ll take a look at it. He has a bunch, not sure which one to which you are referring.
“Lie” is a pretty strong term… is that your interpretation of his paper or a direct quote?
I don’t understand the 220,000 number. 2200?
You are so wrong!
The climate models used to show CO2 driven climate change predict the temperatures the earth will have in 100 years perfectly!
The only problem is that if those models are run in reverse to calculate past temperatures then they deviate seriously deviate from the recorded past temperatures.
🙂
How often do you hear “95% of scientists agree on the CO2 driven climate change”?
How many of that 95% called bill nye on his bullshit “Greenhouse in a jar” demonstration?
They can model the incomprehensibly complex mechanisms of the earth’s climate, but highschool physics eludes them.