Home/Blog
Joe Biden’s administration has made climate change one of its top priorities. Photographer: Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg
In what appears to be a never-ending string of ineffective efforts to force the public to use expensive, unreliable, intermittent, and not-widely-deployable renewable energy, the Biden Administration is issuing an executive order that (among other things) directs federal agencies to end fossil fuel subsidies.
Personally, I would not mind if all federal subsidies were ended, since all that subsidies do is put the government, rather than the consumer, in charge of what you spend your money on.
But federal subsidies on fossil fuels represent less that 3% of the revenues of the fossil fuel industry. This action will have essentially no impact on an economy that still runs on fossil fuels. That 3% will be voluntarily paid by the consumer, just directly rather than through subsidies.
In contrast, renewables currently enjoy 25 times the level of subsides per unit of energy produced as do fossil fuels, and the market penetration of EVs is still only 1.2%. One can see that massive government meddling in the energy market is the only way that people will — at least for the foreseeable future — “choose” renewables over fossil fuels.
So, while environmentalists might applaud Biden’s decision, the effect on the energy markets will be barely measurable, if at all.
You see, when it comes to global warming, modern environmentalism depends upon feelings over facts. Even if all CO2 emissions in the U.S. were to end, the impact on global temperatures by 2100 would be small. This is because the U.S. now produces less than 15% of the global total greenhouse gas emissions. The same is true if all countries abide by their commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement, which makes Biden’s rejoining that Agreement rather pointless. The effect of Paris is calculated to be a 0.2 deg. C reduction in warming by 2100, which is too small to measure over the next 80 years with temperature monitoring technologies currently in place.
Even the godfather of modern global warming alarmism, NASA’s James Hansen says the Paris Agreement is ineffective and a “fraud”, and that only massive taxation of (i.e. punishment for) using fossil fuels will make much difference.
To show just how much CO2 emissions will have to decrease to affect the atmospheric CO2 concentration, just look at what happened (or didn’t happen) last year. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that the economic downturn in 2020 produced only an 11% reduction in fossil fuel use. The resulting change in atmospheric CO2 concentration was unmeasurable:
The 11% reduction in global CO2 emissions in 2020 had no measurable impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Furthermore, while we nibble around the edges of the “carbon pollution” problem, China’s CO2 emissions continue to grow.
The U.S. has led the way in reducing CO2 emissions, mainly through a market-driven switch from coal to natural gas in recent years, China’s emissions continue to grow.
And while the “social cost of carbon” continues to be advanced as the justification for reducing CO2 emissions, no one wants to talk about the social benefits. For example, Nature loves the stuff. It is estimated that global agricultural productivity has increased by $3.5 Trillion from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that excessive cold kills far more people than excessive heat. There is no evidence that recent, modest global warming has caused a global-average increase in severe weather.
The claims by China that they will become “carbon neutral” by 2060 is just political posturing. One thing I have learned about China in recent decades is that their political culture is to say anything necessary to nominally appease other countries, and then do just the opposite if it suits their national interests. With over four times the population of the U.S., one can see why they would not want the U.S. (or any other county) dictating their behavior, especially as they continue to lift millions out of poverty.
Not unless the Biden Administration pushes for a massive increase in the taxation of fossil fuels, and then embraces either nuclear plant construction or widespread wind and solar projects to service a huge fleet of electric vehicles (currently at 1.2% of U.S. market penetration) will there be any substantial move away from fossil fuels.
Anything less will only falsely assuage fears rather than address facts.
“Even if all CO2 emissions in the U.S. were to end, the impact on global temperatures by 2100 would be small. This is because the U.S. now produces less than 15% of the global total greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is a specious argument, that could apply to any pollution regulation, or even voting.
If one car cuts its NOx emissions, it will make no difference to our air quality.
So why bother?
If almost all cars cut their NOx emissions, it DOES make a difference to our air quality.
If almost all countries cut their CO2 emissions, it WILL make a difference.
And “Anonymous Nate” is quickly out of the gate with his illogical leftist rant. It isn’t specious if it is correct. It would be best if you did an adjective review.
Why are Rightists so rude? Have you nothing constructive to say?
How do you politely say that Nate, the King of Obfuscation, is at it again?
Stephen Paul Anderson
Why must you interject your opinionated political views. There was no Left VS Right point in Nate’s post. He made a rational point that any reduction is still a reduction. Why do you call this an “illogical leftist rant”?
Norman,
So, two posts ago, Nate accuses Dr. Spencer of “cherry-picking” data. Then this post, he takes a factual statement by Dr. Spencer and calls it specious. Leftists are easy to recognize. They browbeat others in the name of science while being unscientific. They don’t want science. They want conformity. Should Dr. Spencer search the planet to find many places that conform to the climate models, or should he search the planet to “cherry-pick” and find the one place that doesn’t conform to the climate models? Tell me, what should a scientist do? Which is more “scientific?”
“Should Dr. Spencer search the planet to find many places that conform to the climate models or should he search the planet to ‘cherry-pick’ and find the one place that doesn’t conform to the climate models? Tell me, what should a scientist do?
If your point is ‘the models arent working’, which seems to have been the point of that post, then show us the data that tests the model. All the data, not just the subset of data that confirms your hypothesis.
Don’t JUST show us the ONE region where the model is NOT WORKING (with btw BIG ERROR BAR), and declare victory, when the reality is that on average over all regions (with SMALLER ERROR BAR), it is WORKING.
Why you don’t get this?
You had a poor science education, if you had one at all.
The old: I have no argument, so I’ll just attack the messenger.
Nate, it’s easy to wear a mask to reduce aerosol pollution. It’s not so easy to stop breathing to prevent CO2 “pollution”.
The US is not expected to carry the entire load for the world, as you imply.
In any case, 1970s auto makers were adamant that the costs of the ‘mask’, which turned out to be catalytic converters, would be prohibitive, and definitely put them out of business.
It is never enough with you leftists. There is always a new and better plan. Planners plan.
QED. All seventeen US Intelligence agencies are combating climate change….John Kerry. LOL!
“If almost all countries cut their CO2 emissions, it WILL make a difference.”
This may well be true, but very few countries will cut their emissions under the Paris thing. The largest countries, China and India, do not have to and will continue building coal-fired power plants as the best way to take care of the people’s needs. The countries in Africa desperately need a large number of coal-fired plants to get rid of terrible air pollution that pervades most of the countries.
Indeed GDP is tied to energy, and the third world will still need to grow its energy consumption, and will have high energy intensity.
The first world must take the lead in reducing emissions, while helping the third world grow with lower carbon intensity.
But the point is the whole world has cut its CO2 emissions and it has not made a blind bit of difference to CO2 growth in the atmosphere.
And that should come as no surprise when you look at the numbers.
The year to year variation in co2 growth rate is very large ~ 50%.
The US cut 11%, the world even less. That is swamped by the 50% year to year noise.
Only an emissions cut that lasts several years would be expected to produce a noticeable signal in the CO2 growth rate.
And Roy noted this in previous articles on the subject.
Was it an 11% global reduction as Dr. Spencer reported or an obfuscatory claim by you of an 11% cut only for the US?
11% United States
7% Worldwide
Human pandemic related emission reductions resulted in 0.3 ppm less being put into the atmosphere in 2020.
b,
You and Nate are right about the 11%, but wrong to obfuscate by invoking a swamp factor. While FF emissions dropped exceptionally last year by a substantial amount instead of the normal increase from previous years, the growth in atmospheric CO2 was a business-as-usual 2.5 ppm.
Business as usual is 1.0-3.8 ppm/yr.
When was the last time CO2 growth was less than 2 ppm/year? Almost without exception FF emissions increase each year. The past year was the exceptional 7% drop while CO2 remained well within its normal fluctuation.
Clearly CO2 growth is INSENSITIVE to FF emissions, because natural emissions swamp FF emissions.
You are arguing like a lawyer. Try it like a scientist.
The increase in 2018 was 1.97 ppm. The increase in 2011 was 1.75.
CO2 concentration is very sensitive to human inflow on long time scales.
CO2 concentration is very sensitive to natural inflows and outflows on short time scales.
“CO2 concentration is very sensitive to human inflow on long time scales.”
No it isn’t. Quit arguing with your gut. Use scientific data and proper logic. Causation by correlation doesn’t count.
“CO2 concentration is very sensitive to natural inflows and outflows on short time scales.”
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is overwhelmingly determined by natural inflows and outflows on ALL time scales.
Chic,
This is a straightforward signal to noise issue. And Roy previously acknowledged it.
Here is the annual growth rate curve in ppm/y.
tinyurl.com/3r3odvqz
I added a signal with a mean of 2 and jumps up and down of 0.14, which is 7%, to show you how a 7% reduction compares to the natural variation.
It is swamped, yes/no?
Dear Nate, according to the measurements in Germany, the pollution from cars even in the large cities with stron car traffic is not more than 5-7% of the total pollution. Interestingly in some cases is the NOx pollution sometimes higher WITHOUT any cars, as with cars. An outstanding example is for example the interieur of the famous Church (Kölner Dom) in Cologne. The measured NOx level within the main building is about 5 times larger than the allowed level on the streets of Cologne, although no any cars drive within the Church. The candles placed by the visitors cause this relatively high level of NOx within the Dom. However, it is not known, that any visitors or clericals of the Dom would have received respiratory diseases due to NOx during the last some hundred years. Humans can tolerate relativ high level of NOx without any special health danger. And anyway, absolutely clean air doens´t exist.
Hari,
NOx from cars.
Just a pollutant picked at random to illustrate the point. Not important that it be NOx from cars. Since the Clean Air Act in 1970 and similar ones in Europe, pollution has noticeably dropped because of these laws.
Another better example is CFCs that cause Stratospheric Ozone destruction.
US reduction of CFCs is insufficient. Many countries have done their part to reduce CFC emissions. Such collective action works.
As someone mentioned, the logic used here is called Tragedy of the Commons. The idea is if one user of the common space abuses it in some way, throws trash in it, the effect is not noticeable. If everybody throws trash in it, the effect will be quite bad.
The commons is the atmosphere, in this case.
Dear Nate,
Maybe you have heard that Switzerland is a very well known health resort (sanatorium). Now the NOx limit for cars in Switzerland is MORE TIMES higher than in Germany. Would this mean that Germany would be a highly better health resort than Switzerland? As it is known the NOx level of the atmosphere is not at a critical level. Anyway, to be able to reach a complete de-carbonizing all living species (including all humans) should be eliminated…
Has the runaway greenhouse effect been abandoned? You know, more CO2 causes more heat that causes more CO2 and so on. Does that effect still exist without it being “runaway”?
A runaway effect is probably not possible on Earth due to some very complex thermodynamic and carbon cycle processes. But a feedback with clamping or braking effects is possible. In fact, scientists believe that as the ocean’s warm their ability to take up carbon gets reduced. So even if human emission growth stalls at 0% the concentration growth rate will continue to increase. Just ballparking…right now humans put about 5 ppm/yr into the atmosphere, the biosphere and hydrosphere take up 2.5 ppm/yr of excess, and thus the atmosphere accumulation rate is about 2.5 ppm/yr. Temperatures would have to get pretty high for the hydrosphere to actually flip to a net outgasser and for the CO2 feedback to become naturally positive. But even in that unlikely situation a true “runaway” is still unlikely because of the clamping and braking processes I mentioned above.
Thanks. I’ve heard that before that as the ocean’s warm they absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere. Seems to me that adding heat to the oceans and lakes and rivers from nuclear energy would immediately cause those waters to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere than they would have had that heat not been artificially added, resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nate,
“If almost all countries cut their CO2 emissions, it WILL make a difference.”
Make a difference how? Dr. Spencer’s argument involves impact on global temperatures, not NOx emissions. Your argument is the specious one, a bright red herring.
1) FF emissions don’t make a difference because natural emissions are 20 times greater and
2) There is no firm evidence that more CO2 will warm the planet any further.
Humans add about 10 GtC to the carbon cycle each year. 50% accumulates in the atmosphere and 50% accumulates in the hydrosphere and biosphere. The increase in mass of carbon reservoirs is nearly 100% because of these human emissions of carbon. And there is a mountain of evidence that unequivocally that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue to prop the Earth Energy Imbalance up just like it has in the preceding decades. I know we’ve gone over this before with you.
Cumulative additions to the carbon cycle are about ~550 GtC with about 225 GtC of that staying in the atmosphere.
Yes, we have been over this before. When will you learn? 5% remains in the atmosphere while the other 95% sinks elsewhere.
How do the 200 GtC of natural emissions get preferentially sucked up by the elsewhere?
50% of the mass remains.
5% of the original molecules remains.
Neither natural nor human created CO2 molecules are treated preferentially (insignificant caveats noted).
And remember that atmospheric CO2 effects are dominated by the mass and not the specific isotopic composition. That’s why the focus is on the ppm and not the isotope deltas at least in the context of radiative force and carbon cycle processes.
Here are some important things to remember as well.
– D14C values can decrease even when 14C mass increases.
– D14C values can increase even when 14C mass decrease.
– 14C mass can decrease even when the total CO2 mass increases.
– 14C mass can increase even when the total CO2 mass decreases.
– Isotopic composition is heavily dependent on the magnitude of the inflow and outflow.
– Total mass is only dependent upon the imbalance between the inflow and outflow.
That is nonsense. Isotopic issues do not turn 5% into 50%. You are purposefully obfuscating, because you cannot let go of the false meme that human FF emissions are the predominant cause of a warming planet.
That is nonsense. Isotopic issues do not turn 5% into 50%.
I don’t know what you mean here. 5% is not being turned into 50%. They are in reference to two different metrics. They have little if anything to do with each other.
5% is the fraction of original human emitted molecules that remain in the atmosphere. This value is low because the molecular exchange rate is high.
50% is the fraction of human emitted mass that remains in the atmosphere. This value is high because the mass removal rate is low.
Stop beating a dead horse. You continue to assume that natural emissions cannot be ACCOUNTING for growth in natural emissions. I have shown how natural emission growth commensurate with population growth easily accounts for the atm CO2 growth. No need to use the smoke-and-mirror 50% nonsense that assumes natural emissions haven’t changed since the dark ages.
Changes in natural inflows and outflows cannot account for the 275 GtC increase in the atmosphere. This is not an assumption. After decades of trying no one has been able to identify a reservoir other than the FF reservoir in which this mass could have originated. In fact it has been shown that the biosphere and hydrosphere have taken mass from the atmosphere so it definitely isn’t either of those. And remember if you are a net taker of mass you cannot possibly be a net giver of mass. Mass did NOT transfer from the biosphere or hydrosphere to the atmosphere. Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that there was no exchange of mass; there certainty was. That’s why D14C values decline even though the total mass of carbon increases in the atmosphere.
Ya know…you sound very confident in your hypothesis. You should be able to answer the following questions.
Which set of reservoirs through wholly naturally modulated processes transferred a net of 275 GtC into the atmosphere? Since 275 GtC went into the atmosphere you need to show that the mass of these reservoirs declined by 275 GtC so that your mass budget balances. Remember…conservation of mass…you can’t violate it.
What changed with these reservoirs such that they went from a near net zero transfer rate to a significantly positive net transfer rate? Who/what caused that change to happen?
And if the 550 GtC net transfer of from the fossil fuel reservoir did not cause the 275 GtC increase in the atmospheric reservoir then what happened to it? Where did it go?
“Changes in natural inflows and outflows cannot account for the 275 GtC increase in the atmosphere. This is not an assumption.”
Yes it is. I demonstrated how increases in natural emissions of the same magnitude as FF emissions will correlate with Mauna Loa data. This doesn’t prove my case, but it provides sufficient evidence to invalidate your argument.
“After decades of trying no one has been able to identify a reservoir other than the FF reservoir in which this mass could have originated.”
Stop making stuff up. Land and and ocean sinks are also sources. Good grief.
The exchange of mass results in nature contributing more as the population grows. It’s easy to explain. More people cutting down trees to build and heat homes. More people mowing lawns and composting. All you see is FF use. Open your eyes and mind.
A hypothesis is what it is and is valid until disproved.
There is no way to do a mass balance on CO2 for the planet as a whole. The masses of the land and ocean reservoirs are too massive. My hypothesis is that the natural sources and sinks do not cancel out. Natural sources are increasing and contributing to the glut of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is the only scientific explanation that accounts for both the data and the physical chemical phenomena where nature treats all CO2 the same regardless of source.
I explained on numerous occasions how natural emissions could be increasing. Please acknowledge that you are paying attention by repeating what I wrote.
“And if the 550 GtC net transfer of from the fossil fuel reservoir did not cause the 275 GtC increase in the atmospheric reservoir then what happened to it? Where did it go?”
Day by day, month by month, year by year it goes into the land and reservoir sinks leaving the 5% fraction in the atmosphere. Where else would it go?
There is no way to do a mass balance on CO2 for the planet as a whole.
Carbon cycle scientists figure it out how to do it. 38,000 GtC in the deep ocean, 1000 GtC in the surface ocean, 4000 GtC in biomass, and 800 GtC in the atmosphere, and 4000 GtC in the fossil reservoir.
Natural sources are increasing and contributing to the glut of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Right. And that hypothesis can be tested by measuring the carbon mass in the natural reservoirs over time. If is unchanged or increasing then that falsifies the hypothesis.
This is the only scientific explanation that accounts for both the data and the physical chemical phenomena where nature treats all CO2 the same regardless of source.
Not even close. The biosphere and hydrosphere have both taken up more carbon mass. They have become net sinks. They are gaining mass.
On the other hand, the fossil reservoir is a net source. It is losing mass.
This is what the data says.
Here is a really good video showing the carbon cycle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwVsD9CiokY
This model explains the mass increase in the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. It is consistent with the greening of the planet, acidification of the oceans, atmospheric O2 ratios, 12C/13C ratios in the biosphere and atmosphere, D14C values in the biosphere and atmosphere, the timing of the mass increases in all reservoirs, etc.
Notice that the fossil reservoir is the source of mass for all other reservoirs. If that reservoir had not been tapped then the mass would not have gotten dispersed and added to the others.
“Yes it is. I demonstrated how increases in natural emissions of the same magnitude as FF emissions will correlate with Mauna Loa data”
1. If same magnitude, then still only 5% of it should remain according to your hypothesis. Aint gonna work. Has to be 10 x as much, 5500 GTons.
2. Where is evidence for this very large extra Natural source with the right magnitude and history? Pure speculation doesnt work..
3. We have direct evidence for the anthro source with time history that matches the growth rate curve. No speculation required.
4. Occam sez dont be ridiculous.
There is so much nonsense to refute here. Thinking you can get an accurate mass balance for the planet that disproves my claim that natural CO2 emissions are increasing is foolishness. Of course natural reservoirs are increasing. FF emissions have to go somewhere.
bdgwx, you continue to ignore the simple mathematical explanation of how natural reservoirs are both sources and net sinks.
Your video is simply someone’s demonstration of their opinion. I provided a spreadsheet showing an opposing view.
Nate,
Matching the growth rate curve is simply asserting causation by correlation, a logical fallacy. Why do you keep obfuscating by dredging up old failing arguments?
“If same magnitude, then still only 5% of it should remain according to your hypothesis. Aint gonna work. Has to be 10 x as much, 5500 GTons.”
My mistake. The natural emissions now need to be 24 times FF emissions for the numbers to work.
“If same magnitude, then still only 5% of it should remain according to your hypothesis. Aint gonna work. Has to be 10 x as much, 5500 GTons.”
My mistake. The natural emissions now need to be 24 times FF emissions for the numbers to work.
Chic said: Of course natural reservoirs are increasing.
And the question is what is causing the mass to increase in all natural reservoirs?
Chic said: bdgwx, you continue to ignore the simple mathematical explanation of how natural reservoirs are both sources and net sinks.
No. I’m not ignoring that at all. In fact, I’ve been trying to communicate that a reservoir can have a non-zero emission and still be a net sink. In fact, I’ve been trying to communicate that a reservoir could even be observed to have an increase in its emissions while at the same time flipping from a net source to a net sink. Watch the video…all reservoirs are modeled with non-zero emissions.
Chic said: Your video is simply someone’s demonstration of their opinion.
That’s not just someone’s opinion. That is the consensus model of the carbon cycle. It is backed by a mountain of evidence and is consistent with all observation ranging from O2 decline, 14C decline until the bomb spike, the 14C bomb spike itself, the 14C bomb spike decay curve, C12/C13 ratios, mass changes in all reservoirs, the timing of human emissions and those mass changes, the greening of the planet, the acidification of the ocean, and many more.
I’m now completely unsure what our disagreement is regarding sources and sinks. Obviously FF reserves are a source and not a sink. Do we agree that land and ocean reservoirs have non-zero emissions and at least one is a net sink? Which reservoir(s) do you propose is/are switching from a net source to a net sink?
My contention is that land and ocean sources have been increasing while collectively remaining a net sink along with the atmosphere sink. If you disagree, please explain how and what your video shows that contradicts my view that natural sources have increased concurrently with FF emissions.
Chic said: Obviously FF reserves are a source and not a sink.
Agreed. It’s one of the few reservoirs that doesn’t actually sink anything.
Chic said: Do we agree that land and ocean reservoirs have non-zero emissions and at least one is a net sink?
Agreed. Biosphere and hydrosphere ALWAYS have non-zero emissions. The question has always been are they net emitters/sources or absorbers/sinks. That is the net that matters the most.
Chic said: Which reservoir(s) do you propose is/are switching from a net source to a net sink?
I’m not proposing that any of them actually did switch. I’m just saying it is possible for a reservoir (in theory) to switch from a net source to a net sink even if its emission rate increased. In reality though the evidence seems to suggest this may have actually happened with the biosphere. Prior to about 1970 it was a net source and after 1970 it switch to a net sink. You can see this switch occur in the video.
Chic said: My contention is that land and ocean sources have been increasing while collectively remaining a net sink along with the atmosphere sink.
I don’t disagree with that.
Chic said: If you disagree
I think the disagreement here is the attribution of cause for the observation that the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere went from being net neutral (or very close to it) to being significantly net sink and the eventual increase in mass of each.
Carbon cycle experts attribute the tapping of the FF reservoir as providing the mass that made that happen.
Berry, Salby, and Harde say that the tapping of the FF reservoir made no difference and that the biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere’s change to being net sinks would have happened regardless. There is no explanation given for how the FF mass could be injected into the carbon cycle without it having a proportional impact though.
“Matching the growth rate curve is simply asserting causation by correlation, a logical fallacy.”
Not at all. The causation is well known and the simplest possible: conservation of mass. The ‘correlation’ is confirming evidence. Plus isotopes etc.
“Why do you keep obfuscating by dredging up old failing arguments?”
They dont fail with sensible/unbiased people.
Meanwhile your Body Snatchers replacement theory is not a winner with neutral observers.
Still dont understand your model. Anthro nets 5%. But the same amount of natural nets 50%??
Makes no sense.
“Still dont understand your model. Anthro nets 5%. But the same amount of natural nets 50%??”
Nevermind, now I see your 24 x.
Regardless, do you not see that having no evidence for such a massive, extra natural source, is a serious flaw in your theory?
And having no quantitative physical mechanism for it is a real problem?
bdgwx,
“Prior to about 1970 it was a net source and after 1970 it switch to a net sink.”
Where is the data that shows that? The video is not data. I’m not contesting it, just interested in the facts.
“Carbon cycle experts attribute the tapping of the FF reservoir as providing the mass that made [ALLof the CO2 mass increase] happen.”
That’s the problem. Some of the mass increase is due to natural causes, like what one would expect from population growth. None of Berry, me, and others are saying FF emissions aren’t contributing some. It’s a question of how much. I’m beginning to think you and I will end up in close to total agreement if we jettison our pre-conceived baggage and just look at data and correct physical interpretations of it.
Nate,
“Regardless, do you not see that having no evidence for such a massive, extra natural source, is a serious flaw in your theory?
And having no quantitative physical mechanism for it is a real problem?”
The qualitative physical mechanism is that land sources are increasing due to population growth and ocean sources are increasing due to increases in global temperature. The sinks are slow to keep up especially on top of FF emission competition. How quantitatively accurate are the measurements of these sources and sinks? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, my hypothesis stands.
Chic said: Where is the data that shows that?
Dr. Rhode uses data from the Global Carbon Budget. Here is the latest report.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1783/2019/
Chic said: That’s the problem. Some of the mass increase is due to natural causes, like what one would expect from population growth.
If the mass was released because of population growth it is not natural. It is anthroprogenic.
Chic said: None of Berry, me, and others are saying FF emissions aren’t contributing some.
Right. I get that. In fact as of his preprint #3 he claims that human emissions are responsible for 25% of the atmospheric mass increase.
Chic said: I’m beginning to think you and I will end up in close to total agreement if we jettison our pre-conceived baggage and just look at data and correct physical interpretations of it.
I don’t know. The data says the biosphere/land, hydrosphere/ocean, and atmosphere all combined have received the same amount of carbon mass as was extracted out of the FF reservoir. No other reservoir has been identified that has injected a significant amount of mass into the carbon cycle. Therefore nearly 100% of the mass increase in ALL carbon cycle reservoirs is attributable to the FF extraction.
Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that 100% of the FF molecules still reside in the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere are all exchanging mass with each other that means that the FF mass was distributed through the whole system. We all get that. And Dr. Rhodes video is a testament to just how quickly the distribution happens (just track the red pixels).
But it’s not the distribution that for which we are trying to determine a cause. It is the mass increase for which we are trying to determine the cause. The causes of the distribution are different than the causes of the mass increase.
bdgwx,
“If the mass was released because of population growth it is not natural. It is anthropogenic.”
One could define it that way and I would not contest it. I went to great lengths in previous Dr S posts to differentiate FF emissions from historically natural ones and those due to humans exercising their God-given inalienable right to flourish and pursue happiness. What would you want to do if it turns out CO2 growth from population growth is greater that from FF emissions?
“The data says….”
What data? The reservoirs I and others have identified are injecting a significant amount back into the these reservoirs by carbon recycling. Yes, 100% of those reservoir’s increase comes from FF, but not all 50% of the atmospheric increase is due to FF. That’s what I heard you saying in the past.
I’m not going to reverse engineer Dr. Rhode’s video. Just tell me where he got his data.
You’ll have to elaborate on the distinction between causes of distribution and mass increase. Seems to me to be the same problem.
“How quantitatively accurate are the measurements of these sources and sinks? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, my hypothesis stands.”
IOW, you have a belief, and don’t require evidence to continue to have faith in it?
It is impossible to prove such religious beliefs wrong.
Show us some supportive evidence. Without that, is pure speculation not science.
Chic said: What data?
Global Carbon Project
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/11/1783/2019/ for the latest 2020 update.
Chic said: I’m not going to reverse engineer Dr. Rhode’s video. Just tell me where he got his data.
Again…the Global Carbon Project (https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/10/2141/2018/ for 2018 data).
“The qualitative physical mechanism is that land sources are increasing due to population growth and ocean sources are increasing due to increases in global temperature.”
Extremely vague. Neither of these are remotely large enough to give the required, extremely large, extra natural source that you want.
If you think otherwise, Pls show a back-of-the-envelope calculation, or a paper that does it.
And besides if those increases are tied to humans either directly via population growth or indirectly via temperature rises then those increases are not “natural” anymore. They are anthroprogenic. Nevermind that both the biosphere and hydrosphere are actually net sinks right now and so do more to take mass from the atmosphere than to give it.
“argument involves impact on global temperatures, not NOx emissions.”
NOx was used to illustrate a point about pollution in general, that was intended for an educated audience.
“If almost all countries cut their CO2 emissions, it WILL make a difference.”
Your religious faith is childish. It has not made a difference in terms of global CO2 emissions.
But there complete certainty that nuclear energy has reduced CO2 emissions. And it will continue to do so, in the future.
Yes, tackling the problem of CO2 emissions is and will continue to be difficult. The U.S. has benefited from a glut in Natural gas from fracking, which has led to some electric utilities to switch from coal to gas. But, natural gas is just another fossil fuel and the glut will eventually disappear, the same is true for shale oil produced by fracking.
And China has become a large consumer of coal for electric production and cement manufacturer as they modernize their country’s infrastructure. they have also become the largest maker of solar PV panels, last I heard. Will they continue to move toward energy production from renewables? Will they scrap those coal plants as more solar and wind plants are built? Only time will tell, but they won’t do it without the lead shown by other nations, of which the U.S., their major competitor in world trade.
The U.S. must assume that leadership roll, else, business as usual will be the result.
CO2 emissions with modern pollution controls are beneficial for our planet and the prosperity of it’s people.
More CO2 in the atmosphere ‘greens’ the planet and if CO2 is the main cause of the mild warming since the 1970s. that’s even better news. Unless you think warmer winter nights in Siberia and Alaska are bad news.
CO2 emissions WITHOUT modern pollution controls are not beneficial for our planet.
Climate alarmists do not have the science knowledge to differentiate between real pollution, that can affect our health, and CO2, which is the staff of life on our planet.
The worst air pollution is over Asian cities — the so called environmentalists seem to ignore that REAL pollution.
They don’t want to offend China, I suppose. Because they are so thrilled that China talks in general terms about controlling CO2 emissions at some unspecified date way in the future. That gets environmentalists excited, so they ignore air pollution in Asia.
“The worst air pollution is over Asian cities” actually sub-Saharan Africa needs to be included in this group.
And you are right that more CO2 in the air improves plant growth. A reasonable estimate is that the benefit of the current level of CO2 compared to ~1820 is worth ~$750 billion a year in commercial agriculture productivity. That is based on just a 10% increase in agricultural quantity and quality by going from 280ppm to 410pmm. See this database of scientific research papers for details on most agricultural crops: http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
“The worst air pollution is over Asian cities — the so called environmentalists seem to ignore that REAL pollution.”
Who’s ignoring it?
When it comes to coal pollution in US, Trump enabled it as much as possible.
China will have to deal with its air pollution problems, as we did in the 1970s.
Trump “enabled” air pollution in China ???
That’s a puzzling claim, nasty Nate.
I would ask you to explain that, but I don’t want you to strain your mind.
Trump’s tariffs were aimed at reducing incoming Chinese goods, which should have reduced air pollution over Chinese cities.
I don’t see any other connection.
You cant/dont read.
“When it comes to coal pollution in US”
My eyes were dilated this morning, and my vision was blurry for many hours. Perfect for your comments. That’s my excuse. But your comment makes even less sense when read correctly!
Trump enabled more gas and oil production in the US, continuing a trend that started before he became president.
That helped drive natural gas prices down.
As a result of the lower natural gas prices, US utilities have been using less coal, and more natural gas.
Trump did not rescue the coal industry, as he promised in 2016.
Your comment makes little sense whether one reads every word, or every other word.
Have a nice day.
Richard Greene,
from Michigan
where we LOVE global warming.
and want a lot more!
As I said “Trump enabled it as much as possible”.
You seem to want to deny Trump era policies
He cancelled the EPA ‘Clean Power Plan” that would have made new coal power plants difficult and thus would reduce air pollution from them, as well as co2.
He relaxed regs. Oil and gas leaks and spills, no problem!
He promised to clean up superfund toxic waste sites, but did nothing.
ES,
You are naive to think China will follow a US lead or any nation’s. Unlike you, China understands the benefit of a country putting itself first.
Also, what evidence do you have that a glut in natural gas will go away? What happened to peak oil?
It is a fraud to say that fossil fuels can be replaced by other types of energy during winter in mid-latitudes. Every snowstorm in the Great Plains proves this.
Even if all CO2 emissions in the U.S. were to end, the impact on global temperatures by 2100 would be small. This is because the U.S. now produces less than 15% of the global total greenhouse gas emissions.
Tragedy of the Commons
Capitalism is the answer to the tragedy. No one has all the resources. War is the ultimate tragedy, not FF emissions.
If there must be a carbon regulation, why carbon dividends are not discussed? To me the idea seems the most rational of all:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_where_all_sides_can_win
There’s a strong economic case for renewables. They now have lower lifetime costs than fossil fuels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Entropic man
It is not the lifetime cost of renewables that makes them detrimental power source to run an advanced civilization (which requires low cost, abundant reliable energy sources to run the system), it is their reliability as Dr. Spencer pointed out in his article.
https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time–market-data/real-time-displays/
Maybe check up on this display on a regular basis and you will see how unreliable wind energy really is. In the display you will see that the entire wind generation in the MISO area will be 2000 megawatts at some point. Then rapidly it will rise to 10,000 megawatts. You swing 8000 megawatts in one day, that is like turning on and off 10 large coal fired plants. The highest in the MISO area is around 20,000 megawatts when there is strong winds in the area. There is no means to store massive amounts of energy at this time and nothing exciting is looming (maybe hydrogen gas at some point, I guess electrolysis is getting less expensive). We will not be able to operate a civilization using wind and solar and wind will always be unreliable.
Fossil fuels may run out at some time so the human race should be looking for alternatives to power civilization, I am not sure wind or solar are the correct paths to follow.
Ultimately the best option is to use less energy.
–Fossil fuels may run out at some time so the human race should be looking for alternatives to power civilization, I am not sure wind or solar are the correct paths to follow.–
I am certain, solar, wind, or burning wood are not the correct path to follow.
In terms of US, it will not run out of any of it’s fossil fuels within a couple centuries.
Not sure about Europe.
China will run out of Coal in 30 years, then China will be like Europe which likewise ran out of coal, decades ago. But China seems to following French model, and focusing on Nuclear Energy.
Russia and Canada are similar to US.
Ocean methane Hydrates, could be global answer, but “progress” in that direction is starting to remind me of governmental fusion energy research.
If become a spacefaring civilization within 100 years, we will not have problem with getting cheap energy. Or solar energy and nuclear energy in space {in addition other energy sources} work really well if not on the Earth surface.
And so, just move industry to where the cheap power is, and Earth surface becomes “residential”, mostly.
“This is because the U.S. now produces less than 15% of the global total greenhouse gas emissions. ”
The US has 5% of the global population and produces 15% of global emissions. Surely that is three times your fair share.
The Bible tells you what to do.
Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Ent, are you now a Bible believer? Have you been recently converted from your cult?
I don’t recall you supporting the Bible in the past. In fact, it seems you may have ridiculed Creationists. Maybe you can correct me if I have it wrong.
But, what would you call someone that didn’t believe in the Bible, yet used it to support their agenda?
A good debater.
I gave up Christianity for Lent many decades ago. However I know that climate change deniers like yourself tend to be Christians.
As a Christion, what is your excuse when you, or Dr Spencer behave in a way that your own Bible describes as hypocritical?
Calling someone a hypocrite means you are a hypocrite, since you cannot know what is in the person’s mind. The person may be absolutely sincere.
Someone with your background here certainly has no ability to use such attacks.
Hypocrisy is attacking China for not cutting emissions while saying the US should not.
You and Dr Spencer are definitely hypocrites, not by my standards, but by yours.
Ent, your cult excels in false accusations and slurs.
Kudos to Dr. Spencer for allowing your type to perform here. People need to see what is out there.
E,
There’s nothing hypocritical, unbiblical, or un-Christian about burning as much FF as possible for everyone to flourish. IMO, the creator God doesn’t care about how much we use the world’s resources. He cares about us and values most (only?) our worship of Him and not a heathenistic worship of the planet.
How will it help for rich countries to cease flourishing while waiting for less developed countries to catch up?
God gave us a big brain, presumably to put it to good use averting disasters.
Many wonders about the Earth that seem well suited to human flourishing. The Ozone layer filters out the UV that damages our DNA and causes skin cancer and hurts ecosystems.
If that is part of creation, would God want us to destroy it, or instead use our big brain and collective effort to find alternative HVAC chemicals, to save it?
Typical obfuscation, Nate. Go away son, you bother me.
Where were you when when those big brains were being passed out?
The 11% CO2 emissions drop is for the US. The worldwide figure from the Global Carbon Project is a 7% drop. This is equivalent to a reduction of the rate by 0.3 ppm. The standard deviation on detrended monthly means is about 1.5 ppm. There is a lot of noise and not a lot of signal. This explains why we likely won’t be able to detect the pandemic anomaly in the CO2 concentration data with simple analysis. It will probably take some more advanced signal processing techniques. I’m sure we’ll papers in the coming years.
Why are you using the variability of monthly means to evaluate a yearly rate? A 0.3 ppm reduction (in the rate of FF use, I assume) is what it is, a relatively huge reduction. Previously, yearly global FF emissions failed to increase only once since 2000 and that was less than 1%.
You fail to see the forest for the trees. While FF emissions lagged, atmospheric CO2 steadily increased at 2.5 ppm/year without missing a beat. The reason is that natural emissions are 20 times FF emissions and Nature isn’t sensitive to Covid-19 lockdowns.
Annual means have a standard deviation from the trend of 1.5 ppm as well.
Annual means have a standard deviation of year-overy-year changes of 0.7 ppm.
The 1981-2020 mean growth rate is 1.8 ppm/yr.
The 2011-2020 mean growth rate is 2.4 ppm/yr.
So the 95% CI envelop would be expected to be 0.4-3.2 ppm/yr and 1.0-3.8 ppm/yr for the 1981-2020 and 2011-2020 mean periods respectively.
The 0.3 ppm emission reduction pulled the annual growth down from 2.8 ppm to 2.5 ppm. The 2.8 ppm that would have occurred sans pandemic is well inside the 2-sigma and even 1-sigma windows.
“Annual means have a standard deviation from the trend of 1.5 ppm as well. Annual means have a standard deviation of year-overy-year changes of 0.7 ppm.”
That’s statistical gibberish. At best you are referring to atmospheric CO2, not FF emissions. You haven’t been clear from the get-go what trends and deviations you refer to.
Where did 2.8 going to 2.5 come from? You can’t just make this stuff up.
Can’t we agree that a 7% reduction in the FF emission trend which has had only two other reduction oF 1-2% since 2000 had no effect on the growth in atmospheric CO2 ADJUSTED FOR ANNUAL CYCLE AND ENSO?
Human emissions were reduced by 2.3 GtCO2 in 2020. That is equivalent to 0.3 ppm.
CO2 concentration increased by about 2.5 ppm in 2020 vs 2019.
Had the pandemic not occurred 0.3 ppm more would have gone into the atmosphere. That’s the 2.8 ppm.
The trend I’m referring to is the linear regression trend of CO2 concentration. Monthly and annual means oscillate above and below this trend. The deviation I’m referring to is the difference from a specific monthly or annual mean and the trend line. 68% and 95% of the time those values will stay within 1.5 ppm and 3.0 ppm of this trendline.
The year-over-year change is the difference between year Y and year Y-1. 68% and 95% of the time the YoY change will deviate by 0.7 ppm and 1.4 ppm respectively from the mean YoY change.
What this means is that natural cyclic variation yields a high degree of noise relative to the trend and YoY changes. The noise level is so high that a 0.3 ppm signal is indistinguishable.
In other words…a statement claiming that an increase of 2.5 ppm from 2019 to 2020 is inconsistent with the hypothesis that CO2 growth is dominated by human emissions is false. The reason it is false is because 2.5 ppm is well inside the uncertainty envelope of the hypothesis.
You put a lot of effort into making a statistical claim. Maybe you’re right about it requiring some more advanced signal processing.
Anyway, I can’t decipher the hypothesis you’ve been laboring to disprove. It’s completely botched. Try to reword it.
My hypothesis is simply as previously stated: Clearly CO2 growth is INSENSITIVE to FF emissions, because natural emissions swamp FF emissions. You don’t need any complicated statistics to see that, but you and Nate have done a good job proving that my null hypothesis stands.
The null hypothesis: “Human emissions contributed to the 2.5 ppm rise in CO2 from 2019 to 2020”
Because a 7% drop is equivalent to 0.3 ppm and because the 1991-2020 variability in annual CO2 rise has an SD of 0.6 ppm the z-score on this test is +1.3 which yields a two tailed p-value of 0.19.
p < 0.05 is considered the absolute minimum you have to obtain to reject the null hypothesis.
p < 0.01 is usually a more appropriate threshold.
To obtain p < 0.05 human emissions would have needed to drop 0.7 ppm or 15%.
To obtain p < 0.01 human emissions would have needed to drop 1.1 ppm or 24%.
And that's using the 1991-2020 baseline which skews the p-values down because annual changes are increasing. If we used the last 10 years the reductions for p<0.05 and p<0.01 are 20% and 26% respectively. Furthermore that is still probably conservative because we expect a slightly higher change due to the ENSO cycle.
7% drop on 2.5 ppm is 0.175 ppm
“Clearly CO2 growth is INSENSITIVE to FF emissions, because natural emissions swamp FF emissions”
The annual noise on the curve is plus and minus, and swamps a small change in emissions such as one-time 7% drop.
To see if the growth is INSENSITIVE we would need a bigger and/or more sustained change in emissions.
But historically cumulative emissions match the Mauna Loa CO2 curve. When plotted against each other a very straight line is obtained.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icum_global_co2_fossil_1958:2021corr19519.png
bdgwx,
First of all, if your hypothesis is that something makes a difference, then the null hypothesis is that it doesn’t. Sorry that I’m slow to answer. It was a busy weekend for me.
Second, has anyone said that human emissions haven’t contributed to the 2.5 ppm rise in CO2? What I’m claiming is that the contribution is too small to be anything more than a coincidence. IOW, usually FF emissions go up and atm CO2 goes up by half. The past year, FF emissions go down and atm CO2 rise doesn’t change.
Third, going back a few comments, you can’t say the 7% FF drop translates to a 0.3 CO2 in air drop. That is claiming your hypothesis right before you’ve proven it. Also, if true it would only be a 0.15 drop (Nate says 0.175?) since the long term data indicates only a 50% rise in atm CO2 relative to the rise in FF emissions. Note that I’m not agreeing FFs cause all the rise in CO2 or that a drop in FF emissions would cause any drop in atm CO2.
Lastly, I don’t think your statistics are being applied appropriately. P-values are accompanied by statements of the form, “Because the p-value is less than x, the null hypothesis can be rejected at the y% confidence level.” I’m not seeing how your statistics works, even if you reworded your null hypothesis as, “FF emissions have not contributed to the 2.5 ppm rise in CO2.”
Chic,
If the expected signal in an experiment is much smaller than background noise, as it is in this case, then not detecting the signal is NOT A NULL RESULT, it is inconclusive.
But we ALREADY have previous experimental results. The expected anthro signal in atm Co2, over the last 60 y, has been observed in the experiment.
Chic,
In 2019 humans emitted 9.9 GtC. The carbon atoms bond with O2 in the atmosphere. The atomic weight of carbon and oxygen are 12 and 16 respectively so the molecular weight of CO2 is 44. So the GtC/GtCO2 ratio is 12/44 = 3.67 Therefore humans emitted 36.3 GtCO2 in 2019. And using the standard 1 ppm = 7.8 GtCO2 that is 4.65 ppm. And 7% of this about 0.3 ppm.
I’m not saying that a 7% drop in emission is equivalent to a 0.3 ppm drop in atmospheric CO2. I’m saying that a 7% drop in emissions is equivalent to a 0.3 ppm drop in emissions. Nothing more. In other words, the 0.3 ppm does NOT make any assumptions about carbon cycle. It is only but a straight up trivial atomic and molecular weight calculation.
Nate,
Stop putting lipstick on a pig. The purpose of statistics is to determine whether or not a signal is significantly different than baseline. Inconclusivity means accepting the null hypothesis.
Your 60-year experiment is conflated by natural contributions to atm CO2, which may be as much as 24 times the FF emissions. And CO2 rise may subside given enough time and global temperatures cool.
bdgwx,
Carbon doesn’t bond with O2 in air. Good grief. CO2 is a byproduct of burning FF. Dr. Spencer’s data from Boden et alia’s 2018 figure gives FF emissions as 4.74 ppm. I’m not disagreeing with you on that, but you can’t assume that a drop in FF emissions translates into ANY drop in CO2, let alone making up a value of 2.8 ppm and estimating it will go down to 2.5 ppm. You may not be saying it now, but that’s what you wrote previously.
I’m glad you and Nate now agree with me.
Chic said: Carbon doesn’t bond with O2 in air. Good grief. CO2 is a byproduct of burning FF
And where does the oxygen come from to facilitate combustion?
BTW…we also need to keep in mind that FF combustion isn’t the only type of human emission pathway.
Chic said: you can’t assume that a drop in FF emissions translates into ANY drop in CO2
That’s the hypothesis we’re testing. Using the test above we cannot reject it.
BTW…not that this matters, but its the obvious hypothesis. If you reduce your contribution rate into any reservoir you expect that the rate of increase of that reservoir to be reduced as well. For example, regardless of the whatever other activity may be going on in my investment account if my contributions to that account get reduced then I would expect the rate at which my portfolio balance increases to get reduced as well. It’s kinda of a “duh” thing.
Chic said: let alone making up a value of 2.8 ppm and estimating it will go down to 2.5 ppm.
I’m not using the 2.8 ppm value in the test.
The 1991-2020 YoY changes are normally distributed with a mean of 2.0 and an SD of 0.6. This is 2.0 ppm +/- 1.2 at 95% CI.
To reject the hypothesis we have to show that the observed 2.5 ppm increase in 2020 is inconsistent with the expected value from the hypothesis of 1.7 ppm. We get 1.7 ppm by taking the mean and subtracting the 0.3 ppm reduction. Again…1.7 ppm is our hypothesis expected value and 2.5 is the actual observed value. If the actual observed value deviates too far away from the expected value to the high side then we can reject the hypothesis. The problem here is that our threshold for rejection is at 95% CI is 1.7 + 1.2 = 2.9 ppm. Therefore 2.5 ppm is not sufficient to reject the hypothesis. If, on the other hand, the observation had come in at 2.9 ppm or 3.3 ppm we say that our hypothesis is rejected at 95% and 99% CI respectively.
I will say that an observation of 2.5 ppm vs the expectation of 1.7 ppm is in the right direction to reject the hypothesis. It just wasn’t far enough in that direction to reject it with confidence. And, as I said above, I have knowingly lowered the bar for rejection by taking an excessively long basis period (1991-2020) as my standard. This skews the test since YoY changes are increasing and makes the test easier to reject than it actually should be.
I should point out that the basis for the test has no dependence on the hypothesis being true or not. The reason is because the set of YoY changes used for the test are direct measurements that are not influenced by human emissions either way or by the carbon cycle at all.
Fossil fuels are going to be with us for a very long time.
Yes, and we should save most of them for pharmaceutical raw materials.
But as a pharma worker obviously I am biased.
Yes. I recall suggestions that the 20th Century will be remembered not for their Co2 emissions, but because they burned a valuable chemical feedstock for fuel!
Yes, I recall suggestions that we would run out of oil by 2000.
Good one.
Greta seems to actually believe that the carbon dioxide is s global poison, ignoring that the world has become a better place with it rising. I doubt that the Administration shares that extreme view. The unstated purpose of this exercise is to extract money from our pockets at a gasoline pump and in our utility bills.
It is done much more elegantly than in the old good times, when a band of desperados was camping at Robber’s Roost waiting for a stagecoach.
Right now the number one priority for Biden is the virus . This is where his energy needs and will be directed.
Al the other stuff including climate will/are going to take a back seat to the virus.
Executive orders are also easily over turned they are not legislation and any meaningful radical legislation in the energy area beyond what was said today(which was not that radical) is very unlikely.
I’m hearing he’s going to mandate anal swabs like his Marxist brethren.
Carbon fuel runs out eventually anyway, so why not get started? The answer is a standard design for the breeder reactor. In the meantime, all of the rest of this nonsense about renewables will only make fossil fuels cheaper for China. Russia and the Arab States are more than happy to keep selling crude and natural gas. These people claiming a climate crisis are not stupid or misinformed. The know exactly what they are doing. They have already made it clear that they do not want us to be great country. That is the real problem they had with Trump. They literally want to tear down our economy and make us more global.
“this nonsense about renewables ”
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
As you can see the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for new power plants Table 1a and 1b,
Onshore Wind and Solar are competitive with fossil fuels NOW, while Nuclear and ‘Clean’ Coal are much more expensive.
Nate, I am with you. The time came to stop subsidies for renewables.
Nate,
That report uses numbers that include a carbon tax of $30 per tonne before it concludes that unreliables are becoming cost competitive with fossil fuel. Take away that tax factor and recalculate, using the do-it-yourself help n the report.
It is near-impossible to find an economic analysis of unreliables versus fossil fuelled electricity that does not contain a social factor like a carbon tax that distorts comparisons. Commonly, renewables are costed without accounting for the backup in low wind/sunlight times. Or fossil fuels are handicapped by not accounting for running them sub-optimal to fill the gaps in renewables output, rather than being allowed to run flat out, efficiently.
Every quote I have examined about cost of renewables being competitive has one of these distortions embedded in it. Trouble is, most policy makers either ignore this or do not know about it, otherwise they would not quote with unqualified approval.
Where have honest engineers gone? They used to lead the charge for accurate and reliable reports and electricity supplies. Geoff S
Not seeing $30/ton. Where do they say that? The table lists with and without tax credit. Still competitive without.
“Carbon fuel runs out eventually anyway, so why not get started?”
Yes, but get started by pushing out non-fossil alternatives to have the power generation capacity in place *before* you start knocking the fossil-fueled capacity offline. Doing it the other way means that you’ll be faced with a shortfall in energy supply and get to look stupid while you restart the fossil-fueled production.
Dear Sean, only the known coal reserves worldwide are enough for more than 600 years. So human mankind is not in a critical situation concerning the coal (and other fossile fuel) reserves. In a real market economy the socalled “renewables” would not have any chance. The renewable “business” is not more than a state subsidy business from our tax money.
Using NOX as a strawman for CO2 is quite amusing.
The assertion that there will be little effect from the Biden agreeing to, or adopting, or whatever it may properly be labeled as, the Paris climate nonsense, is incorrect because the assertion is based on the idea that the point is reducing world average temperature (or reducing atmospheric CO2 content). In actual fact is that the Biden acceptance will be used as a club to inflict all sorts of national and personal damage upon US citizens, and to funnel trillions of US $ to the UN. All this will bypass the responsibility of elected legislators, thus insulating them from voter backlash while allowing the majority of them to pursue their true agendas.
Water Vapor Feedback?
This one puzzles me. I accept increasing Water Vapor will increase the DWIR and will act to add energy to the surface.
What puzzles me is how the NET is a positive Feedback loop.
I am reading material on this issue but I fail to find any information on the loss of surface energy via evaporation to get the added Water Vapor into the atmosphere.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441
Did not see anything answering my question in this one.
Nor in this one.
http://www.seascapemodeling.org/seascape_projects/2011/04/water-vapor-feedback-and-global-wetting.html
Using a Radiative Model provided by Tim Folkerts on the previous thread.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Using a Tropical Atmosphere you get a DWIR value of 369.26 W/m^2 with Water Vapor at 1. If I double it to 2 it increases the DWIR to 423.9 W/m^2. The effect of doubling WV is to increase DWIR by 54.64 W/m^2.
The puzzler is that the Global Budget diagrams give evaporation at current levels as a surface heat loss of 86.4 W/m^2. If you doubled the amount of WV you would have to double the surface energy loss. So the surface would gain 54.64 W/m^2 from Doubled WV but it would require the surface to lose 86.4 additional W/m^2 to evaporate this water.
I am not sure why water vapor becomes this positive feedback. It is as if they ignore the surface loss to maintain the increased WV in the air.
On average about 1.6e15 kg of water evaporate each day. That jibes pretty well the 86.4 W/m^2 latent flux. Lets assume there is 3000 ppm of WV in the air on average. That is about 15e15 kg of water. An increase of 100% would be 30e15 kg added to the atmosphere. If that increase occurred over a 10 year period it would on average pull off only 0.40 W/m^2 more from the surface. So doubling WV would increase the latent flux from 86.4 to 86.8 W/m^2 if drawn out over a 10 year period. In reality getting that much water vapor into the atmosphere would take longer than 10 years so the increase in the latent would almost certainly be lower still. Please check my math.
BTW…Schmidt et al 2010 is consistent with the 54.6 W/m^2 you cite differing by only about 1 W/m^2. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
bdg…you’re getting desperate citing Gavin Schmidt. It’s little wonder Norman is confused about feedback, Schmidt, a mathematician, could not explain positive feedback.
None of these processes represent a true positive feedback in the way Schmidt likes to explain it. Schmidt thinks feedback alone causes amplification, which is nonsense. Positive feedback requires an independent amplifier and there is no such mechanism in the atmosphere.
Ergo, there is nothing about WV that can cause a warming of the surface beyond which it is heated by solar energy. Norman still believes that any old energy striking the surface has to warm it. He does not understand the 2nd law, that’s his real confusion.
That’s why Biden et al are idiots. They buy into this pseudo-science.
If you have a substantially different estimate of the DWIR components and their magnitude in W/m^2 you are certainly welcome to share it now.
There is no need to get a different estimate until climate alarmists explain how increasing CO2 or H20 will increase the net surface temperature. This is Norman’s question.
Gordon Robertson
You do not at all understand my thinking. YOU: “Norman still believes that any old energy striking the surface has to warm it. He does not understand the 2nd law, thats his real confusion.”
No I absolutely do not believe that and I do understand the 2nd Law very well. The DWIR does not warm the planet and never would. It does allow the incoming solar energy to maintain a higher steady state temperature. That is all I say.
With GHG in atmosphere the average DWIR is around 340 W/m^2. The UPIR is 390 W/m^2. The NET loss is around 50 W/m^2 so NO the atmosphere DWIR does NOT warm the surface. It lowers the amount of HEAT the surface loses so that the amount of incoming solar input will be able to warm that surface to a higher temperature than similar conditions without DWIR present.
b,
Gibberish.
Carry on.
bdgwx
The thing with Water Vapor is that it never stays long in the atmosphere without continuous evaporation. You would not go 10 years to get a certain content in the air, it is evaporated and removed (rain, snow) globally on a continuous basis like solar input. To maintain a higher water vapor content on a continuous basis you have to evaporate that much more water.
You can easily test this walking barefoot in grass on a hot sunny summer day or making a puddle of water on a sand beach. The ground that is wet stays cool because the energy it receives from the Sun (same as the dry sand receives) is used up in evaporating the water so it does not increase in temperature once the evaporation rate loss equals the heat input from the Solar flux.
I do not think it matters for doubling or any other amount of Water Vapor feedback. It seems to me that when they calculated this feedback as positive they neglected the surface energy loss from the increased evaporation necessary to get this water vapor into the atmosphere.
The goal is to increase WV from 3000 ppm to 6000 ppm right? If you want to complete that in a 10 year period you would have to increase the current evaporation rate from 1.60e15 kg/day to 1.61e15 kg/day. In other words we only need to increase the evaporation rate and thus latent flux by 0.6%. So what I’m saying is that surface energy loss is relatively small compared to the energy gain from the increase in DWIR. The difference is wide enough that if doing first approximation you can just simply ignore the latent flux increase…again because that increase is so small relative to the DWIR increase. Obviously please double check my math and figures though.
bdgwx
I do not believe your math is correct. Use the tool.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
As Tim Folkerts suggests set the view to “Looking Up” and set the altitude to zero. So this will be the IR received by the surface from the atmosphere. Currently set for tropical atmosphere, you can change that.
Run it at the current WV setting of 1. Save the RUN and you get the DWIR.
Rather than your 0.6% just use simpler numbers. Put in 1.01 for WV (an increase of 1%). You get an increase in the DWIR reaching the surface. It goes from 369.264 to 370.206 or an increase of 0.942 W/m^2. So you would have to evaporate 1.01% more water. It takes 86.4 watts/m^2 to evaporate 1 Unit on the Modtran calculation so it would require an addition 0.864 Watts/m^2 to reach this level of WV.
So at this point the WV feedback loop would be a positive as 0.942 is greater than 0.864. But the radiative effect is logarithmic and not linear as would be the Water Vapor evaporation energy.
You move to another increase of 10%. So in your Modtran calculator put 1.1 for Water Vapor. The DWIR increases to 376.8
The increase over 1 is 7.536 Watts/m^2 but if you evaporate water to reach 1.1% you need 8.64 Watts/m^2. Now the evaporative energy loss exceeds the gain from the Water Vapor radiative increase. So again I do not see how Water Vapor has been calculated to be such a strong positive feedback. Climate Change is modest and not even a threat without the Water Vapor Feedback.
bdgwx
I cannot follow your logic. You have this idea of increasing the amount of water vapor to double its current amount in a 10 year span so you take the total amount of energy it would take to evaporate this much water in 10 years to get a surface energy loss of about 2 more watt/m^2.
The 86.4 W/m^2 for evaporative cooling is continuous. The system needs to evaporate this much water continuously to maintain the constant loss from rain and snow and even dew. If your atmosphere can hold more water when warmer it still has to evaporate more water to maintain this higher WV content. It will condense out continuously and need to be replaced. I do not understand how you logically come up with the idea you can double the atmospheric moisture content with only a 2.4 Watt/m^2 evaporative loss change. Maybe you understand what point you are making, it makes no sense at all to me. My understanding is that to double water vapor content you must continuously evaporate twice the amount of water to make up with continuous losses. So you would need to have 172.8 W/m^2 to have enough energy to evaporate enough water to maintain a doubled amount of water vapor.
You can’t just slowly add water vapor and increase the amount over several years to get a doubled amount. Water vapor is removed continuously and to increase the amount you have to increase the evaporation rate accordingly.
The atmosphere currently holds 15.00e15 kg of WV.
15.00e15 kg * 1.01 = 15.15e15 kg
So to increase WV by 1% we need to add 0.15e15 kg.
We can do this one of two ways.
– Decrease the condensation rate temporarily.
– Increase the evaporation rate temporarily.
In either case to cap the atmospheric increase to 1% the condensation/evaporation rate must return to their normal balance level.
I have elected to bump up the evaporation rate and keep the condensation rate the same.
To get 0.15e15 kg of WV into the atmosphere via evaporation we can do the following.
– Spread the 0.15e15 kg out over 1 year. The daily rate needs to increase by 0.15e15 / 365 = 0.00041e15 kg/day for 1 year. That is a latent flux increase of 0.02 W/m^2.
– Spread the 0.15e15 kg out over 10 years. The daily rate needs to increase by 0.15e15 / 365 / 10 = 0.000041e15 kg/day. That is a latent flux increase of 0.002 W/m^2.
Norman said: So you would have to evaporate 1.01% more water.
Right. But that 1.01 multiplier should be applied to total mass of water in the atmosphere; not the evaporation rate. Remember, it’s not the rate that gets increased by 1%; it’s the total mass.
Norman said: Modtran calculation so it would require an addition 0.864 Watts/m^2 to reach this level of WV.
Let’s do the calculation assuming the latent flux increased by 0.864 W/m^2.
0.864 W/m^2 * 510e12 m^2 * 87600 s = 3.86e19 j/day
3.86e19 j/day is enough to evaporate 3.86e19 j / 2257e3 j/kg = 17e12 kg of water.
In 1 years we have added 17e12 * 365 * 1 = 6.2e15 kg of water.
In 2 years we have added 17e12 * 365 * 2 = 12.4e15 kg of water.
In 3 years we have added 17e12 * 365 * 3 = 18.6e15 kg of water.
So if we maintain that 0.864 W/m^2 latent increase then WV concentration in the atmosphere will double in less than 3 years.
bdgwx
Your logic still baffles me.
I have zero clue as to why you would: “I have elected to bump up the evaporation rate and keep the condensation rate the same.”
The amount of water vapor in the air is constant because the rate of evaporation and condensation are the same over the entire Earth surface. I do not know why you have this time delay for accumulation of water vapor??
The theory is CO2 increases the temperature of the surface which in turn heats the atmosphere and the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. The increased water vapor gets there by evaporation.
Since condensation constantly is taking place to maintain the Water vapor in the air, at this time, requires 86.4 W/m^2 of energy are used to vaporize enough water to replace what it lost by condensation.
If the Earth warms you do not bump up evaporation rate and keep condensation rate the same to get more water vapor. The atmosphere can hold more so more energy is expended in evaporating more water. More evaporation, more water vapor, greater GHE, more condensation.
The two go together, water vapor does not just stay in the air. In places where there is no surface moisture to evaporate have very low relative humidity (deserts are around 10% during daytime, goes up at night as the air cools) and low condensation but they would not have a high level of GHE compared to wetter areas and would not drive the surface to greatly elevated feedback levels.
If you go to 1.1% Water Vapor from current. You get an increase in DWIR that will add energy to the surface but you increase evaporation rates to maintain this increased Water Vapor. You will also increase your condensation and removal of Water Vapor.
This link will help you understand what I am saying.
https://gpm.nasa.gov/education/videos/water-cycle-steaming-air#:~:text=Surprisingly%2C%20only%20about%2012%20trillion,an%20average%20of%2010%20days.
The oceans evaporate 440 trillion tons of water a year. Land evaporates 66 trillion tons of water a year. With enormous amount of evaporation only 12 trillion tons remain in the air at any one time. Water Vapor only stays in the air for about 10 days. That is why your long term accumulation of water vapor makes zero sense to me.
Let’s use the values from your link. If we start with 12.000e15 kg of WV and want to increase it by 1.1% to 12.132e15 kg how do you propose that extra 0.132e15 kg gets there? Does it spontaneously appear or does it accumulate over time? And after the 0.132e15 kg is added what do the evaporation and condensation rates settled back toward?
Norman actually brought up a good point.
Then bdgwx jumped in with his usual BS, totally confusing Norman with nonsense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Norman,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I’ll have to go back to the previous post to fully catch up, but I don’t think you will be able to answer your question without considering the non-linear aspects of the situation. Energy budgets are a zero-sum game, but daily energy transfers are not.
Keep in mind that there is only a discrete amount of heat entering the atmosphere and getting to the surface. The UWIR responds according to subsequent changes in surface temperature. In most circumstances, there is sufficient CO2 and H2O to capture all that radiation and be thermalized in the bulk air near the surface. More of those IR active gases will not increase the resulting DWIR. Convection is transporting all of the energy contained in the bulk air other than that which goes through the spectral window where CO2 and H2O don’t absorb.
Thanks for pointing out Mr Spencer that the Paris Agreement does not go far enough.
rob…”Thanks for pointing out Mr Spencer that the Paris Agreement does not go far enough”.
The Paris Agreement was written by idiots for idiots. Even the mother of all alarmists, James Hansen, calls it a fraud. Now we have a major idiot in Biden signing back onto it.
I feel badly for the people of the US having to endure this bs. I hope they practice some good old civil disobedience and reject it. The US was built on civil disobedience, time to get back to the roots.
Even the mother of all alarmists, James Hansen, calls it a fraud.
Would you please explain his reasons for calling it a “fraud”.
No poetic license now, OK.
rob…”Would you please explain his reasons for calling it a “fraud””.
The reason is irrelevant, he was right. I know he was not only an alarmist but a political activist. He was arrested with actress Daryl Hannah for protesting the Keystone Pipeline, probably his greatest accomplishment. A higher-up at NASA tried to fire him but intervention came from on an even higher plane, from his buddy Al Gore.
I know what you’re getting at but I am not going to prop Hansen up. He was a physicist who spent most of his career in astronomy before becoming a climate modeler. The premise of his climate alarm was the tipping point, a play on the incorrect theory that the high temperatures on Venus were caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. According to astronomer Andrew Ingersol, and based on the Pioneer probe revelation of a surface temperature close to 450C, Ingersol claimed, if true, the runaway GH theory would contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In 1988, Hansen appeared on national television to offer a warning regarding the tipping point theory if we did not cut back on GHGs immediately. Over 30 years later we are still waiting for evidence that GHGs are warming the atmosphere. Nary a sign.
As part of his charade on TV in 1988, on a hot summer’s night, he had the air conditioning turned off in the studio to emphasize his warming meme. Like his mentor, Carl Sagan, who invented the Venusian runaway theory, Hansen was far more an entertainer and propagandist than a scientist.
Within 10 years of his scare tactic, he had to recant his extremism, which he blamed on his computer. These days, idiotic so-called scientists use computer models in the context that the models think for themselves and are not representative of the ideas of the people who programmed them. Such unvalidated models are about as useless as a broken toy.
No…your buddy Hansen was likely lamenting that the Paris Agreement is a fraud because it does not allow for jailing global warming skeptics in specially built concentration camps. That is the kind of idiots you have currently running the US and working for the Paris Agreement, a load of politically-correct Nazis who won’t allow real science to get in their way.
Please link to Hansen stating, or even implying, that it was a problem “because it does not allow for jailing global warming skeptics in specially built concentration camps.” Either that, or display SOME sort of honesty by retracting that nonsense.
Google: “James Hansen why nuclear energy needed”
By James Hansen and Michael Shellenberger
“Many environmentalists have changed their minds about nuclear energy over the past decade. While the share of energy produced by solar and wind has grown rapidly, nuclear remains America’s largest source of clean, zero-emissions electricity. Anyone seriously interested in preventing dangerous levels of global warming should be advocating nuclear power.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-needs-nuclear-power-11554420097
Michael Shellenberger is more of lefty than James Hansen,
James Hansen is stick in mud conservative dem who likes to frolic with silly/crazy lefties. Michael Shellenberger is more of lefty because is more serious about “lefty views”- in a rational sense, not the more common sense, of chaos for the sake of chaos. Or in sense of the religion of totalitarianism- or who imagine the book 1984 is a handbook to a better future.
In sense that “Michael Shellenberger is more of lefty than James Hansen” I regard myself as more left than Michael Shellenberger or at least we are both equally more left, than Bernie Sanders.
And Bernie Sander is idiot, what he wants, might not a problem, it’s how to get there which is the problem- or why he is an idiot. And mass majority of Left are “a mass uneducated idiots” who imagine they know everything {or at least everything which is most important].
Google: “James Hansen Climate accords fraud”
–COP21: James Hansen, the father of climate change awareness, claims Paris agreement is a ‘fraud’
The professor and environmental activist said denounced the draft deal agreed on Saturday saying ‘there is no action, just promises’–
It certainly is a fraud. Everyone knows this.
But lefties love frauds.
But I am not lefty in that sense.
Fraud is why NASA is not exploring space. Fraud is the one of evils of government.
entropic…”As a Christion, what is your excuse when you, or Dr Spencer behave in a way that your own Bible describes as hypocritical?”
Idiots pull from the Bible what they want to see. Jehovah Witnesses saw one reference to animal blood and interpreted that to mean blood transfusions are bad.
There’s nothing in the Bible that addresses global warming or related matters. The quote you offered is applicable to climate alarmists, not scientists like Roy.
Lots of verses in the Bible about retribution, punishment for wrong behaviour or poor stewardship.
Climate change will be retribution for poor stewardship of planet Earth.
How about these?
2 Peter 3:3-7 3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. ”
Last time He sent a flood. This time He’s sending global warming.
Entropic Man,
I like these better…
Romans 1:18-25
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
-Rafe
Biden is shaping up to be a complete turkey. He is destined to be the most stupid President in US history.
The woman he has designated as his climate advisor has a bachelor’s degree in anthropology. She would not understand science if it was carefully explained to her since anthropology is not a science but a pastime.
definition of pastime….
an activity that someone does regularly for enjoyment rather than work; a hobby.
Gordon,
You are lying by omission, Gina McCarthy has a Masters of Science degree, so it’s a safe bet she knows more science than you.
Gordon, how come you don’t become exhausted just by being you?
She has a Masters of Science. What do you have? You lie that you went to UBC Engineering school. You are a mail-order school technician.
Don’t pick on the people who made choices that allowed them to work and contribute to the world, rather than lie about their place in it.
@Nate: “If almost all countries cut their CO2 emissions, it WILL make a difference.”
But will the difference be positive or negative? Attempts to tally the supposed costs and benefits are ridiculously speculative, occupying an academic la-la land somewhere between social science, numerology, and divination. Biden & his supporters are really exemplifying act first and think later here.
P,
Climatology depends heavily on numerology and divination. It is well known that climate scientists believe that the future can be divined by closely studying lists of numbers.
If the divination appears awry, the numbers are changed until the future seems sufficiently gloomy.
If predicted disaster does not occur on time, fresh divination is performed, until a new tipping point is foreseen.
Repeat until retirement.
swenson…”If predicted disaster does not occur on time, fresh divination is performed, until a new tipping point is foreseen”.
In relation to the HIV/AIDS theory, renowned microbiologist, Peter Duesberg, referred to that process as ‘moving the goalposts’. Since appearing on the scene in 1983, the theory has been revised every time parts of the theory fell apart. Diehards stick to the theory even though Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, has been claiming for at least two decades that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system.
Montagnier has gone so far as to claim HIV does not cause AIDS, that the immune system has to be compromised first. Yet here we are with a covid global hysteria pandemic on our hands which is based on the HIV/AIDS theory. When Duesberg made the same claim about HIV circa 1983, his career was ruined.
This is serious stuff, we cannot afford to stand by while politically-correct idiots ruin this world. In the past, the same kind of people, who believed in eugenics, talked women into being sterilized. This same kind of mental illness is running rampant today and fostered by the politically-correct who are trying to shove climate alarm down our throats.
Time to tell them in no uncertain terms to beggar off.
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/
Duesberg’s career was “ruined” with good reason. He’s a contemptible dinosaur liar. Like you. Maybe that’s why you suck his ass in every single thread.
salvatore…”Right now the number one priority for Biden is the virus . This is where his energy needs and will be directed”.
With all due respect, Salvatore, that propaganda is the least of his problems. No country on the planet has suffered deaths exceeding 0.06% of their populations. Even at that, we have no idea why the deaths are being considered as being caused by covid. There is simply no scientific proof that covid is dangerous to the average person with a healthy immune system and we have no information on what else was involved with the so-called covid deaths.
Here in Canada, 82% of the deaths have involved seniors in frail condition in rest homes. Our government admitted recently that no data is available to reveal the condition of the people who have allegedly died from covid and in California the Nazi governor is refusing to release the data.
As epidemiologist Johan Gieseke put it re deaths of seniors in Sweden, “we may have robbed them of a few months of their lives” by missing the outbreak. A local nurse here in Canada revealed that many seniors have a ‘do not resuscitate’ order on their records. It’s likely that many if not most could have been saved with aggressive intervention.
There’s is far more to this story than we are being told and we are at the mercy of the politically-correct who would rather we lose our democratic freedoms than revealing them as having been wrong.
Your 0.06% is out by a factor of three. For the US it is 0.13%, for the UK 0.15%.
In the US it equates to more than a decade worth of road fatalities. Perhaps we should remove drink-driving as a criminal charge – after all, that many lives are expendable.
Rob, Salvatore
Mortality in the United States, 2019
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 659,041
Cancer: 599,601
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
Diabetes: 87,647
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
Influenza and Pneumonia: 49,783
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511
To be compared with 443,705 COVID-19 in 2020, allegedly due to other causes.
Some people prefer to stay in stubborn denial.
J.-P. D.
Gordon you are not in reality.
Pretty big talk for someone who IS a frail senior with circulatory conditions. And someone who never leaves his shitty unfurnished basement can’t be too invested in freedom of movement.
Get bent, “Gordon”.
The problem with the two main renewable is they don’t work when its dark and windless which here in the UK usually happens on very cold winter nights when we need the energy the most.
Fortunately we have gas fired power stations on standby.
A worthwhile compromise.
When the Sun shines and/or the wind blows the renewables work and we do not emit CO2.
When it is dark and still the gas fired power stations fill the gap with lower CO2 emissions than equivalent coal plant.
“When the Sun shines and/or the wind blows the renewables work and we do not emit CO2.”
You are deliberately ignoring the largest ramp up of manufacturing and mining required for building wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines.
Plus cutting a lot of trees down to make space for the solar and wind farms.
And killing a lot of birds and bats with wind turbines.
And there will still need to be almost 100% backup for wind and solar with fossil fuel plants, which must be staffed and ready to go at random times.
Pumped water and other energy storage technologies could even out the variation.
Batteries and pumped water at great expense.
And probably will. Battery storage technology is becoming economic. Tesla updated one in Australia recently and there’s a new one in California.
Wrong GORDON. The virus is a global pandemic and to say otherwise is not reality.
My in-laws died after being infected with Covid in two weeks’ access. They were 84 and 86 years old. The condition of the circulatory system determines survival. If someone has poor blood circulation he is at risk, even though the virus is no longer detected. This is due to a disturbance in the renin-angiotensin system.
You seem to be in the habit of claiming that if you can find one cause, then that is the only cause.
Wrong conclusion. As usual.
“The condition of the circulatory system determines survival.”
That was an absolute statement that didn’t allow for any other possibility.
“They have already made it clear that they do not want us to be great country. ”
Too late. By at least one economic indicator China has already overtaken the US.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/china-gdp-tops-us_n_5951374?ri18n=true
They also have four times the population and a larger military.
The USA is now a second rate country. Get used to it.
Don’t they lead in the number of children for one chocolate treat?
China has four times the population of the US.
So a comparison of GDP totals is meaningless.
On a GDP per capita basis, the US is well ahead of China.
If you are comparing countries on a GDP per capita basis, then bow down to Ireland baby!
Which do you find more demeaning?
Hi.
I would like to post this link, by Kjell Aleklett, who is a Professor of Physics at Uppsala University, Sweden.
It is about IPCC an their fossil fuel calculation.
https://aleklett.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/the-paris-agreement-requires-more-fossil-energy-than-the-worlds-reserves/
That can’t be right.
We pass 2C warming above Preindustrial at 450ppm CO2.
5.35ln(450/280)3/3.7 = 2.05C
We are currently at 415ppm.Aleklett is saying that we will run out of fossil fuels before we reach 450ppm.
An extra 25ppm at the current 2.5mm/year growth rate will be reached in ten years.
If we are due to run out of fossil fuels in 2031, global warming will be the least of our troubles!
Ent, you’re using that bogus equation again. You should know that equation is NOT science. It is based on belief. The oceans release and take in CO2 based on temperature. That’s why you BELIEVE you see a correlation. But it is temperature that leads, NOT CO2.
“But it is temperature that leads, NOT CO2.”
Kindly explain how the Industrial Revolution and it’s increased CO2 emissions were caused by increasing temperatures.
“Ent, youre using that bogus equation again. ”
Actually it’s derived from conventional physics.
globalwarmingequation.info eqn derivation.pdf
But since you do not believe in conventional physics, I am not surprised by your disbelief.
Just out of curiosity, what do you use to calculate the warming effect of a greenhouse gas?
Ent, look at equation (5) of that link.
?
Yeah, I agree. It makes no sense.
If you actually examine the nonsense, you realize it’s all a house of cards. You have to be a brain-dead cult member to believe it has any validity.
I don’t see a problem.
The first of the two equations in 5) allows you to derive surface temperature from emission temperature and vertical opacity.
The second allows you to calculate surface temperature given vertical opacity and flux density.
I realise that in your curious physics there is no causal link between temperature, vertical opacity and flux, but that’s your problem not mine.
Ent, there is only ONE equation labeled “(5)”, not two equations. And, it’s bogus.
If you looked up the derivation of that bogus equation you would find it is based on nonsense. Just by inspecting the equation you should realize it’s bogus.
Like many others, you don’t have a clue about the physics involved.
Could you be more specific.
What equation would you use to calculate surface temperature given the emission temperature and vertical opacity?
Surface emission is related to surface temperature by the S/B Law. Opacity has NOTHING to do with surface emission. The only considerations are temperature and emissivity.
Climate shysterz are back in the saddle , they will stop hurricanes floods and drought by sucking your valets dry
https://youtu.be/wNaJ7ZXuD_U
I say first of all the U.S.A is as strong as ever nothing to worry about here.
Virus is still out of control but things do look better moving forward.
Biden is the guy we need right now.
Global warming is a myth and will come to an abrupt halt I just don’t know when but from major volcanic activity, to low solar/geo magnetic fields ,to cooling oceanic surface temperatures it will happen.
When ? I do not know.
When global warming ends it will be abrupt not some gradual decline over decades it will happen within a decade.
Salvatore
Here I agree with you at 100 %.
Decades ago, oceanographers predicted the possibility of an abrupt temperature decline in Northern America and Western Europe, due to a disruption in the worldwide Thermohaline Circulation, being due to an excess of salt-free water in the Northwest Atlantic region, which would itself be due to an excess of ice melt there, of both sea and land ice.
According to their ice core analysis, a similar situation existed at the beginning of the harsh temperature decrease during the Younger Dryas.
It doesn’t matter at all whether or not such an event is man-made.
And already volcanic event like the Samalas eruption in 1257, would quickly teach us how tiny the gap between ‘warm’ and ‘cold’ can be for a decade or two…
I don’t like cold temperatures, let alone meters of snow and ice around me, and hope we won’t have to experience any of such events.
J.-P. D.
Meanwhile GM has announced a goal to produce only zero emission vehicles by 2035 and use only renewable energy in all production earlier than that.
GM must be run by leftist lunatics.
MM
It would appear that way, Mark. But it’s actually worse. Large public corporations are run by politically-savvy criminals. You should see the annual salaries of the bums.
And don’t forget, GM has been bailed out before. It’ll get bailed out again, as the management team laughs all the way to the bank.
For the record, this is why I believe climate science and specifically models are fake science.
A new nature paper claims the climate models are correct and the data is wrong. The authors and reviewers alter climate proxy data supporting holocene optimum (warmer past than today) with a correction factor and then suggest the climate models are correct after all.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03155-x
But….
There are clearly warmer phases prior to this event, when well documented glacial retreat occurred in the past at about 1000 years BP. Glacial retreat is a proxy for global warming and as we warm today and glaciers retreat we expose similar events in the past.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/crossing-the-ice-an-iron-age-to-medieval-mountain-pass-at-lendbreen-norway/F6C3FDBC94AD652EF4D2E79ED1697F1A#
This is not objective science. A real review would point out this inconsistency and many other objectives observations in conflict and reject this paper from Nature and all other legit publications.
From the abstract.
“our reconstructions demonstrate that the modern global temperature has exceeded annual levels over the past 12,000 years and probably approaches the warmth of the last interglacial period (128,000 to 115,000 years ago). ”
Salvatore Del Prete won’t like that!
It is all made up.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Sure the earth has never been warmer and yet oceanic surface temperatures are .14c above the 30 year mean.
What a joke. Why didn’t they say it 25 years ago,20 years ago ,10 years ago?
Reason is because they know they are wrong, and going more extreme with their claims.
What the global temperature is “this month” or even “this year” is NOT the current global climate.
You know this, but despite this you insist on pretending otherwise. Why is that?
Of course policy by Biden administration is built on this fake science and fake environmental catastrophe. Otherwise there would be no reason to force renewable.
I can understand why the fossil fuel lobby are wetting themselves.
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2021/01/28/us-environmental-policy-part-4/
Why are you arguing about a factual statement? If the goal is in fact to reduce CO2 emissions then focusing on the country that produces 15% (and shrinking) of those emissions isnt going to get you anywhere.
As Dr. Spencer states:
Not unless the Biden Administration pushes for a massive increase in the taxation of fossil fuels, and then embraces either nuclear plant construction or widespread wind and solar projects to service a huge fleet of electric vehicles (currently at 1.2% of U.S. market penetration) will there be any substantial move away from fossil fuels.
Anything less will only falsely assuage fears rather than address facts.
If you want to control global emissions the three big emitters are China, India and the US.
The US are the wealthiest of the three, in the best position to drive the process.The best strategy would be for the US to help them get through the high emission coal period as quickly as possible.
Rather than opposing China as a competitor, which is a no-win strategy, why not recognise that they are about to overtake the US and help them transition peacefully into position as the new global leader?
Again on Water Vapor Feedback.
I am looking for material that takes in to consideration that increasing water vapor in the atmosphere will remove energy from the surface via evaporation. I cannot find this surface loss in any equation or paper I have looked at.
Entropic man had told me on a previous thread the NET gain is positive. I only see radiative calculations. I see nothing calculating the surface energy loss because of increase in evaporation.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html#:~:text=The%20addition%20of%20the%20non,of%20a%20positive%20feedback%20effect.
Not here
https://brian-rose.github.io/ClimateLaboratoryBook/courseware/sensitivity-feedback.html
Not in this model
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
Not in this one. This one states that CO2 warming with doubling would be 1 to 1.2 C The danger zone comes from Water Vapor Feedback with an additional increase of 1.6 C. That much difference may cause some disruptions.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html#:~:text=Water%20vapor%20feedback%20can%20also,vapor%20to%20enter%20the%20atmosphere.&text=And%20since%20water%20vapor%20is,the%20warming%20from%20carbon%20dioxide.%22
Still not a word on how much energy the surface loses from increased evaporation.
“I am looking for material that takes in to consideration that increasing water vapor in the atmosphere will remove energy from the surface via evaporation. ”
Should be easy enough to calculate. Upthread someone quoted the mass of water evaporated. Multiply that by the latent heat of evaporation and you get the energy leaving the surface.
Warm the atmosphere by 1C and it holds 7% extra water. That requires 7% more evaporation and 7% more energy.
You try it, I’m off to bed.
E,
Are you saying that heating the surface evaporates more water which then cools the surface?
Isnt H2O supposedly the most important GHG? By cooling the surface due to the energy needed to convert liquid H2O to the gaseous form, no doubt.
Presumably this would be covered by the non-existent GHE hypothesis, but you are just sowing the seeds of confusion.
There is no GHE. Burning hydrocarbons creates H2O, CO2, and heat, at minimum. Heat makes things hotter, believe it or not! Not H2O. Not CO2.
And when it condenses or freezes in the atmosphere it gives up that heat and warms the atmosphere.
Just a zero sum game, just moving heat around.
Wrong again, bob.
The evaporation/condensation cycle moves thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere where it can be radiated to space. It is NOT a ‘zero sum game”. The cycle cools the planet.
But as much goes up as down so it helps warm the surface.
Most of this condensation and freezing happens way below the tropopause, even cirrus clouds are below the tropopause.
Wrong again Clint R.
Want to take that foot out of your mouth so you can stick the other one in?
Wrong again, bob.
What “goes down” has negiliable effect, but what “goes up” is definitely lost to space.
It is NOT a “zero sum game”. The cycle cools the planet.
bob,
As Clint pointed out, what goes up (to space) is lost forever.It doesnt come back down.
The atmosphere continuously radiates heat to space. It is above absolute zero. That is why it cools at night, in winter.
It doesnt really matter much. When water vapour condenses on the surface, the majority of the IR goes straight through the atmosphere anway. As does any IR emitted above the surface which is absorbed by the surface. Think about it.
You have illustrated your basic ignorance of physics yet again.
Back to pushing buttons at the chemical plant for you, bob.
Not necessarily lost to space, there is still plenty of CO2 and Water vapor about the cloud tops to absorb the emitted energy from the water vapor.
Some of the energy emitted still goes down and adds energy to the surface.
Everything is cooling with you two non-science majors.
I’m waiting on Monday’s data update. Last month it went down 0.5C. Look ma; no global warming.
It actually went down 0.26C.
Yet more proof that you people make up your “facts”.
Ken’s knowledge of UAH is amazing.
Here is the top10 of the sorted list of the month-to-month differences since Jan 1979 vs. Dec 1978:
2013 2 0.32
1984 9 0.29
1987 3 0.29
1998 11 0.28
2020 3 0.28
2017 11 0.28
1983 6 0.27
1995 12 0.26
2020 12 0.26
1988 10 0.25
Yeah. No global warming of course – only 0.14 C / decade, so what!
That’s nothing, believe me.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
That’s interesting. I usually make an absurd statement when these type discussions arise. Here is this month’s contribution:
Based on the data you cite, there was no warming since 1983.
Based on the last minimum that went to zero at 2011, the warming trend is at least 0.27 deg/decade over the last decade.
The 13 month mean in 1983 maxed at -0.05C.
The 13 month mean is currently at +0.50C.
Using the 13 month mean the warming from 1983 is +0.149C/decade.
I don’t think it is appropriate to draw conclusions about the temperature trend using a local min at the start and a local max at the end. You’ll get a trend that is biased high.
It is also not appropriate to determine a trend by considering only the start and the end but ignoring the middle, regardless of the relative values of the start and end.
Yeah. Good point.
Linear regression works quite well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/trend
+0.6C over the full period since 1979.
Chic Bowdrie
What I wrote was just an answer to Ken’s absolute nonsense.
What you write looks like eye-balling.
Feel free to interpret my words as you want!
J.-P. D.
bdgwx
This article will explain what I am saying about water vapor feedback.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l4_p4.html
The have a closed system with water in it. It reaches an equilibrium state where the evaporation rate and condensation rate are the same.
In the next picture, heat is added. What happens then is both the evaporation rate and the condensation rate increase.
This is the point I was making. If you increase the Earth temperature with CO2, you will increase the evaporation rate (it will be higher equilibrium than 86.4 W/m^2). But the condensation rate will also increase until a new equilibrium is achieved.
When the evaporation rate increases the surface cools. I still am not sure how to properly figure out the NET balance between the loss from increased evaporation in a warming world vs the gain from increased DWIR from the greater amount of water vapor in the air. That is what I am trying to get an idea of but I can’t find any calculations for water vapor feedback.
I know what you’re saying. You’re saying that with more WV in the atmosphere BOTH the evaporation and condensation rates are higher. And I think you’re also saying that they will both necessarily be X% higher if WV is itself X% higher.
What I’m trying to saying is that is not necessarily the case. All you need to do to get X% more WV in the atmosphere is to have a period of time in which the water cycle is not balanced such that evaporation rates are slightly higher than condensation rates. This allows WV to accumulate. Then after WV has increased by X% both evaporation rate and condensation rate have settled back their original values.
What I have shown above is that all you need to double WV is a 10 year period in which the latent flux was 86.8 W/m^2 and then reverts back to the original 86.4 W/m^2 value.
I’m not saying that condensation and evaporation would not maintain higher rates indefinitely, but considering how little addition latent flux is required relative to the existing flux I seriously doubt there is a linear relationship with the amount of WV in the atmosphere and the rate of condensation/evaporation.
I definitely could be wrong about that. And your question is certainly interesting.
I think what would arbitrate this is a measurement of global precipitation. How much has it increased? Does it increase 1% for every 1% increase in WV?
I did some googling on precipitation changes. It looks like the consensus is that it has changed by about 7% since 1990 with a range of 2-12%. https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/73/2019/
Interesting indeed…
N,
And, of course, from your reference –
* In the next section, we’re going to explore the fallacy of warm air holding more water vapor than cold air. *
That exploration should be fascinating.
“When the evaporation rate increases the surface cools.”
When the surface temperature increases, the evaporation rate increases.
It does not cool the surface in the sense that the surface will be cooler than it was before the temperature rise. The evaporative cooling can cancel out some of the temperature increase.
Picking some numbers out of the air for illustration, Global warming might increase the surface temperature by 1C. If increased evaporation has a 0.1C cooling effect, the net surface warming becomes 0.9C.
E,
Global warming increases nothing. Its a measurement, isnt it?
You are presumably implying that CO2 makes the globe hotter, but you are too frightened that people would laugh at you if you came right out and said such a foolish thing!
All radiation from the Earths surface is eventually lost to outer space.
That is why the surface is below 1000 C now. It cooled.
Swenson
Yes the Earth did cool from a molten state. But is it cooling now? Can you find evidence to support this belief? Most studies show the surface is warming at this time. Not sure what point you are attempting to make?
N,
The physics involved havent changed recently.
Heat goes from a warmer body (eg Earth) to a colder environment (outer space).
Dont forget, 50% of the surface faces outer space at any given time (called nighttime). It cools.
Even alarmists concede that the input from the sun cannot sustain an isothermal Earth at a temperature above about 255 K. Still a fair way to cool, as the interior is well above 5,000 K.
Geophysicists give cooling estimates of 2 – 8 millionths K per year at present. Real science, based on theory supported by reproducible experiments.
You have speculation supported by nothing.
Swenson
It is as I said. You are not able to understand energy input. The surface cools at night but only so far (because of GHE keeping it much warmer than without such an effect) but warms during day. the overall Earth surface is not cooling at this time, it is increasing in temperature. Your wild theories have no validity and zero support. You come on this blog and every month Roy Spencer publishes his version of Global temperatures and he even breaks it down to regions in the posts. Where is the cooling? The atmosphere that he monitors is warming over time. Look at the graphs.
N,
So how far does the surface cool at night? How many degrees hotter is it because of a magical GHE which you cannot even describe?
And winter?
Cant say, can you?
Entropic man
I am not sure you are correct on this issue. Evaporation does actually cause cooling. The surface will actually have a lower temperature with increased evaporation. One big example is sweating. The evaporation actually cools the skin. You can be out on 110 F temperature and not overheat because of evaporation of sweat. The reason is evaporation removes the water molecules with the highest kinetic energy and leaves lower energy molecules remaining actually causing cooling.
You might check on your own but I do not see any negative feedback given to an increased evaporation rate at all. In the Water Vapor feedback they talk about clouds and ice and snow but no mention of the cooling from increased evaporation.
As stated, the amount of temperature increase from doubling CO2 is around 1 C. Without the supposed effect of water vapor feedback (which is estimated to be 1.6 C additional temperature rise on top of the 1 C from doubling CO2 alone) the amount of global warming is considerably less than 2 C.
You can check out Zeer pot cooling. A person did some measurements on the cooling effect and he found it was around 40 F cooling over ambient temperature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nctr9xJIxUs
Norman,
You bring up a good topic of discussion. And I’m sorry I blew off you off at first. I honestly didn’t think evaporation had increased that much. Given the increase in precipitation its hard to question lower evaporation amounts.
What we know is that evaporation pulls heat off the surface and deposits it in the middle’ish troposphere via condensation. Is this part of the mid troposphere tropical hot spot effect?
b,
If a parcel of air becomes hotter than its surroundings, it cools.
Outer space is nominally colder than the atmosphere. As a result, at night the atmosphere cools. By radiating energy to outer space.
Not hard to understand, really.
Entropic man or bdgwx
Here is more showing evaporation causes cooling (lowering of temperature). It removes energy from the surface. Increasing the evaporative rate will cool the surface, the energy increase (say from increase in DWIR) will be used to evaporate more water which will then cause a cooling effect so that there will be a balance at some point where the increased energy and the cooling of the increased evaporation will balance.
My main point is to actually find some equation or calculation that takes into consideration the cooling effect of increased evaporation as the Earth surface warms or increases in energy received with more DWIR. I am looking at all the Water Feedback links I can find and have NOT found even one that brings up the effect of increased evaporation.
https://web.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/11/11-16.pdf
I did find this. The Author of this article seems to point out the flaw I am stating. The water feedback ignores the negative effect of evaporation (latent heat) so it makes a much larger value for this effect. His model much more closely matches real world temperatures. Roy Spencer has pointed out numerous times the models run hot. This may well be the reason why. If they add the negative effect of evaporation on water vaper feedback then the models may very well match reality.
Forgot the link in my last post:
More on evaporative cooling effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler#:~:text=Evaporative%20cooling%20is%20the%20conversion,in%20a%20lower%20air%20temperature.
Norman, the “equation” for evaporative cooling of the surface is simply the calculation of the amount of latent heat involved. In the bogus “energy imbalance”, they simply use the estimates of annual precipitation. The “assumption” is that the precipitation was the result of evaporation, at some time. So, the calculation goes something like this:
Annual average global precipitation = 1 meter (estimated)
So a cubic meter of precipitation falls on each square meter of Earth’s surface.
Latent heat of evaporation = 2450 kJ/kg (estimated)
For the “cube” of water ==> 2450000 kJ = 2.45 (10)^9 J, or 77.7 W/m^2
As you indicated, the bogus “energy imbalance” cartoon shows 86.4 W/m^2. You can get almost any value you want by adjusting the “estimates” and “assumptions”. That’s just one of the reasons the “0.8 W/m^2 imbalance” is nonsense. The other reasons involve violations of the laws of physics, as previously discussed.
I went through Miyazaki’s paper.
One thing that was missing was the effect of latent heat on the atmosphere. Indeed on page 7 he says that his Equation 20 does not include the effect of latent heat.
To state the obvious, when water evaporates it removes heat from the surface as latent heat, hence evaporative cooling.
Water vapour laden air then convects to a higher altitude and lower temperature.When it reaches the dew point it condenses and the latent heat is released into the atmosphere.
The net effect is neutral. All that the evaporation/condensation cycle does is to provide an alternative pathway for the surface to transfer heat to the atmosphere. In a dry environment the surface would be warmer and the same amount of heat would transfer as extra radiation.
If Miyazaki has calculated the effect of evaporation, but not the effect of condensation, he would get a negative feedback for the cycle instead of a neutral effect and underestimate the warming effect.
This is exactly what he concludes, that the IPCC overestimate the warming effect of water vapour by 50%, because their figures are twice his.
Has the IPCC overestimated or has he underestimated?
On balance, I’d go with the consensus, rather than with a single unpublished paper in which even a retired biologist could spot the flaw.
” The assumption is that the precipitation was the result of evaporation, at some time. ”
It seems a reasonable assumption, unless water is spontaneously appearing in the atmosphere from nowhere.
EM,
Burning hydrocarbons produces carbon dioxide and water. Water enters the atmosphere. More water than carbon dioxide, for hydrocarbons in general.
What do you reckon – 50 gigatonnes? 500 gigatonnes? Certainly more than CO2.
Not from nowhere – just burning stuff.
Entropic man
I do not believe it is a correct assumption to believe that the net effect of evaporation/condensation is zero for the surface. The amount of energy leaving the surface via evaporation is only one way. Say the 86.4 Watt/m^2 is a correct number. The surface will lose this energy and it will manifest in the atmosphere. Now the energy transfer from atmosphere is 2 way. Some returns to the surface and the rest leaves to space. So of that 86.4 joules/sec only a fraction will return to Earth. It can’t be a NET zero process. It would seem more likely that the energy to return would be about half that lost since clouds will radiate both up and down.
If models run hot and if you include a negative value for evaporation and you get a better fit, that would be evidence that the consensus got that one wrong. Since if is not logical to conclude that the one way loss of energy from the surface via evaporation is NET zero with returning IR after condensation in the higher levels of the atmosphere, it would not be logical to go with the consensus on leaving this negative effect out of their equations and models.
Entropic man
If you consult the Global Energy Budget:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
The atmosphere loses a total of 580.2 W/m^2 the gain is given as 580.1 W/m^2 (possible rounding issue).
So of that 85.4 surface loss by evaporation it is converted into the total of the 580 W/m^2. Of that 340.3 return to the surface of the 580.2 which is 58.65% return and 41.35% is lost.
So of the 86.4 W/m^2 given 50.67 Watts/m^2 will return to the surface but 35.73 W/m^2 are lost to space. The NET is a loss of energy from the surface. If you increase the evaporation rate you will have a greater loss of energy than 35.73 W/m^2.
So assuming it is a NET zero is wrong. It will always be some negative value that has to be addressed. The water vapor feedback will increase the DWIR but at the same time the surface will increase its loss by evaporation.
N,
And any energy returned to the surface is an impossibility if it purports to come from a colder atmosphere.
Even if it did, it would be lost at night, wouldnt it?
Forget about W/m2. That is just misleading obfuscation from self-styled climatologists who dont understand basic physics. Ice can emit 300 W/m2. Try increasing the temperature of water with ice. Use as much as you like. Gigawatts of radiated power, perhaps?
Not worth a cracker. No effect at all.
Just like the nonsense of alarmists.
Swenson
People have given you the actual physics several times. With you it changes nothing. You do not understand what people are saying and you make comments no one argues against. You state the same points over and over. No one disagrees with them but you make them anyway.
Ice will not warm water. A colder atmosphere will not warm the Earth surface. We all know this. You are not able to simultaneously grasp the difference between a heated surface and a non heated surface and no amount of explanation will help.
Ice will increase the temperature of HEATED waster (do you know what the word HEATED means? Energy added from and external source…say like the Sun) above the temperature it would reach if the surroundings were yet colder than the ice. Do you understand these things. No I guess you don’t and never will. But that will not prevent you from making the same points over and over will it?
Swenson
You are clearly wrong with your statement that ENERGY cannot return to the surface from a colder atmosphere. I have no clue what source allows you to think such a claim is true.
The 2nd Law states that HEAT (commonly used as NET energy today) will not transfer from a cold object to a hotter object. It does NOT make the claim ENERGY will not. You just make this stuff up it seems.
Here please read this:
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
From this or any textbook on Heat Transfer if you are willing to read. No one but contrarians dispute this.
From your link the surface receives an average of 160.3W/m^2 from the Sun and 340.3W/m^2 back radiation. That is 500.6W/m^2.
Barring a 0.6W imbalance, an average surface should lose as much as it absorbs, 500W.
This balance should apply regardless of local climate.In a dry climate the 500W will all be convection and radiation. In a wet climate a greater proportion will be evapotranspiration, with less radiation
Like yourself I’m not sure how to do the maths, but I think I can make a prediction. The total energy loss from the surface latitude will be a near match to the incoming energy. All that will differ between wetter and dried environments is the relative loss by the three mechanisms.
Bottom line. Each Watt/m^2 of extra evaporation from a surface decreases radiation by a similar amount. The total energy loss from the surface remains unchanged.
Entropic man
What it sounds like you are saying is that the Water Vapor Feedback would be zero effect so the Earth will not warm much above 1 C with doubling. The one paper believes it will be 1.4 C.
Still my question is why does the consensus not include the negative feedback from increased evaporation in their water vapor feedback calculations. That is what I am trying to figure out. They do not propose a net balance, they just totally ignore the effects of increased evaporation on surface energy balances. I have looked at many links on the water vapor feedback and found no mention of the effects of increased evaporation. The paper I linked to was the only one that asks this question.
N,
Off you go then, put some water in the sun, let it heat up. When it gets no hotter, do you what your imaginary physics tells you is possible. Make the water hotter using ice.
Dimwit.
Face reality, fool. Dancing around with semantics cannot hide the fact that you cannot raise the temperature of an object using the energy radiated by something colder.
If you start carrying on about heating liquid nitrogen with ice, I will just point out that ice at 270 K is hotter than liquid nitrogen.
By the way, hotter than it otherwise would be is misleading nonsense. Slower cooling is not an increase in temperature.
Go back to your gullible beliefs.
Swenny,
“Face reality, fool. Dancing around with semantics cannot hide the fact that you cannot raise the temperature of an object using the energy radiated by something colder.”
Sorry dude, but there are smarter people than you out there that do just exactly that. If something is being heated by something else, you can make it hotter by using the radiation from something cooler.
I have provided examples but you are just too stupid to understand them.
https://cryosphere.today/IMAGES/antarctic.recent.png
When you take this into account the fact sea surface temperatures are barely above average, the fact no major volcanic eruptions of late have taken place, the urban heat island effect the global warming that is forever hyped is just that hyped.
Here is my comment again that you chose to ignore:
What the global temperature is “this month” or even “this year” is NOT the current global climate.
You know this, but despite this you insist on pretending otherwise. Why is that?
Let’s try that again without the copy-paste:
What the global temperature is “this month” or even “this year” is NOT the current global climate.
You know this, but despite this you insist on pretending otherwise. Why is that?
R,
What the heck is the definition of the current global climate?
Did you mean to say temperature?
One hick at a time please.
rob…”One hick at a time please”.
Typical climate alarmist, get caught in a major gaffe and you can only reply with an insult. Explain what you mean by global climate.
Sorry? What was this “major gaffe” you were referring to?
R,
What is the current global climate?
You cannot actually say, can you?
Just another obfuscatory alarmist dimwit, trying to appear clever. Fail.
Consider the difference between the earth today and the earth during the last glacial period, and try to come up with your own answer. Then come back after OP has had a chance to respond.
R,
You have no clue about how to describe the current global climate, have you?
Just more attempts to dodge answering!
Dimwitted alarmist.
The current climate is that of an interglacial – cool in comparison to geological history but not cold, warm in comparison to the existence of genus homo, and hot in comparison to the extent of human civilization. But you already knew that.
R,
So what is an interglacial global climate?
Climate is the average of weather. What interglacial global weather did you average?
None at all? You dont know what you are talking about, do you?
Back to the point.
What is the current global climate? What have you averaged, and what number do you think represents it?
More thought needed. Assume you are talking to people who prefer facts to faith.
Proxies record average weather. You probably believe ice cores record weather at a particular millisecond in history.
R,
You still haven’t managed to define global climate.
Current or past.
Did you mean to say temperature?
You still havent answered, I understand.
You’ve already defined it: “Climate is the average of weather.”
Local climate is weather averaged over a long period of time.
Global climate is weather averaged over the planet over a long period of time.
Why would I mean temperature? Temperature is only one component of weather. It happens to be the component that is currently driving changes in the other components.
What exactly is confusing you here?
rob…”What the global temperature is this month or even this year is NOT the current global climate”.
Did one of you eco-weenies actual refer to a global climate. What are you, a freaking idiot? What is a global climate?
Why don’t you goof-balls study some science and get off your emotionally-based climate crusade?
entropic…”I can understand why the fossil fuel lobby are wetting themselves”.
You’ve heard the old saying, “let a sleeping dog lie”. As a typical climate alarmist you fail to understand the utter stupidity of Biden’s action. When people begin to get it that these Nazi eco-weenies intend to turn off the fossil fuel supply it will be a different story.
Biden had better be very careful not to piss off anyone in the know about the way he cheated to get into power. When people reliant on fossil fuel energy start to fight back, one of those Biden hacks might just spill the beans.
Biden is so stupid he has not seen the rolling power outages in countries where the stupid Green energy plans have been implemented. We are dealing with abject naivete and your naivete is part of the problem. I have seen it in your comments on this blog.
I have seen it in the stupid arguments supplied to the Moon rotation debate, Not one of you have supplied scientific evidence that the Moon has an angular momentum about its axis yet you all argue from a basis of authority figures and a juxtaposition of reference frames. You do exactly the same with climate issues…no scientific evidence and a lot of misplaced emotion geared toward a cause most of you don’t understand.
norman…”You are clearly wrong with your statement that ENERGY cannot return to the surface from a colder atmosphere. I have no clue what source allows you to think such a claim is true”.
That’s right Norman, you have no clue. It has been explained to you again and again that the 2nd law of thermodynamics explains it.
Once again, in the words of Clausius, who wrote the 2nd law: “Heat can NEVER be transferred, by it’s own means, from a colder body to a warmer body”.
I have also explained to you several times that no energy can be transferred, by its own means, from a lower intensity energy source to a higher level energy source. A source with a lower temperature is a lower energy source than one with a higher temperature. Ergo, energy cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The sick part of this is that the surface supplies the heat to the atmosphere, according to AGW theory. Your argument that this heat can be recycled to raise the temperature of the heat source is clearly perpetual motion.
Gordon,
You are wrong, and it makes it obvious that you have never taken a college level course that covers thermodynamics such as physics or chemistry.
Still more stuff that should stay in the trash
“I have also explained to you several times that no energy can be transferred, by its own means, from a lower intensity energy source to a higher level energy source.”
This is no part of the second law of thermodynamics. And wrong.
bobd…”You are wrong…”
If you are indeed a scientist you should know better than to claim someone is wrong without offering an explanation.
*******
GR…I have also explained to you several times that no energy can be transferred, by its own means, from a lower intensity energy source to a higher level energy source.
This is no part of the second law of thermodynamics. And wrong”.
***
Never said at any time that my statement is part of the 2nd law. If you can show me one example where energy is transferred from a lower energy source to a higher energy source—by its own means— it might lend some credence to your propaganda.
Have to you ever seen water run uphill by itself? Ever seen a boulder raise itself onto a cliff by its own means? Ever see heat transferred from a colder body to a hotter body, by its own means?
Gordon Robertson
Are you actually willing to learn real physics or are you pretending (a sympathy contrarian troll) that you want to learn?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Elastischer_sto%C3%9F2.gif
You can do a real world experiment on your own with billard balls.
The black object has more kinetic energy than the slower moving blue object. When they collide the two objects transfer their energy to the other. The black object gains the energy of the slower (less energetic, “colder”) blue object and the blue object gains the energy of the black object. The slower moving object transferred its energy to the higher energy object and visa versa.
That example satisfies your quest: “If you can show me one example where energy is transferred from a lower energy source to a higher energy sourceby its own means it might lend some credence to your propaganda.”
N,
Dont be stupid. Energy cannot be negative. Next thing youll be claiming that phlogiston does have negative mass!
Heres the thing – if a colder body transfers energy to a hotter, the colder body must get colder (less internal energy). In order for the hotter body to increase its temperature (remember your conservation laws).
So the hotter body gets hotter, the colder body gets colder, until the colder body reaches absolute zero, all the while refusing to absorb the energy radiated by the hotter! It doesnt happen in reality.
As to your comment about the Sun being the source of heat for the surface, you overlook the fact that around 30% of this heat never reaches the surface, making the surface colder than it otherwise would be – as the 127 C surface temperature of the airless Moon indicates.
To some up, you are another delusional alarmist, full of crap, and refusing to face reality.
Swenn,
You might need to check the difference in albedo between the Earth and the Moon in order to understand why the Moon gets hotter than the Earth.
Gordon,
As far as I understand it, you are just a electronics technician at best, no formal completion of a college degree, but I could be wrong.
Can you explain reflected power, using your electronics expertise?
For me it is energy going from a low energy source back to a high energy source, it’s something we monitor in my business to keep from frying the high energy electronics.
I have gone over this all with you too many times, it’s time for you to crack a textbook or two and learn for your self.
The second law does not prohibit the transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the surface or from colder to hotter for a couple reasons, one being that it is not happening by its own means, there is transfer in the other direction and there is a source capable of performing work on the system, namely the sun.
Try and figure out what the second law of thermodynamics is about, you have it all wrong.
bob,
It is easy to see why you are not allowed to do anything of importance in your workplace.
You apparently do not understand the difference between 300 W/m2 radiation from ice, the Sun, or a container of boiling water or molten lead!
You can crack all the textbooks you like.
You still have no comprehension of basic physical principles, or you wouldnt believe that the Earth somehow accumulates energy from the Sun, getting hotter in the process!
And still managing to lose all that heat at night, in winter, .. .
Sweenny,
So at night, or in winter, the earth loses all the energy accumulated by the Sun and cools to absolute zero?
“You apparently do not understand the difference between 300 W/m2 radiation from ice, the Sun, or a container of boiling water or molten lead!”
Dumdum, you actually think that you get 300 W/m2 from the Sun, or a container of molten lead?
Could I get fries with my Big Mac?
And furthermore my employer is quite nice, they let me make antimatter.
Which we then sell.
Want to buy some?
Go find the right kind of pharmacist.
Cool! What kind of bubble wrap do you use to package it?
Seriously, how do you confine it?
Bubble wrap made out of Tungsten.
We don’t contain it, we make it as needed, stored in radioactive atoms.
Ok. Is it atoms that emit positrons?
Yes, a number of radioactive isotopes emit positrons.
Gordon Robertson
I have already given you Clausius’s own words on radiant energy transfer. You just ignore them. I could post them again but it is a pointless waste of time.
You are still unable to understand the concept of GHE. You have made up your own incorrect version of what you think people are saying but you are not able to actually understand what is being said.
The Surface is NOT the heat source. The Sun is the only significant heat source. The surface is the same as the atmosphere. It is absorbing the Solar energy and then emitting this energy (in lower frequency energy).
The atmosphere returns some of the emitted energy back to the surface. This will not increase the temperature of the surface. It will decrease the NET heat the surface loses. With the solar input being the same the surface will rise to higher temperature than if no GHE were present.
It is the same effect as insulating a heated object. The temperature of the heated object increases in temperature when you reduce the rate of outflowing energy.
You have been given countless evidence. You reject it all. You prefer your made up fnatasy physics that you got of Internet blogs. Just made up garbage. No supporting evidence, no experimental verification, and it does go against all established phsysics.
Clausius: “The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
Radiant energy transfers both ways. He says it quite plainly. You are just wrong about all what you think is “true” physics. No one can alter your beliefs, only you can do this and it appears you are comfortable where you are at.
norman…” have already given you Clausiuss own words on radiant energy transfer”.
“…nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter…”
****
Do you see the words “double exchange of heat”? Scientist of his day thought heat traveled through an ‘aether’ as a physical entity. They were wrong and you are still hanging onto that error. In the process, heat is converted to electromagnetic energy and back to heat.
Despite what he said in your quote, in his summation of radiant energy, Clausius claimed it had to obey the 2nd law. I have explained to you what was going on with his misunderstanding of radiant energy which was typical of the day.
Until the 1890’s, and a bit beyond, top scientists thought heat itself was radiated as heat rays. They knew nothing about the relationship between electrons in atoms and electromagnetic radiation. None of them understood how electrons convert heat to electromagnetic energy nor how the radiation measured by the likes of Stefan and Tyndall was not heat at all, but electromagnetic energy.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr put it all together. He was trying to understand why the hydrogen atom could only emit and absorb light frequencies at specific frequencies. By then, he knew about electrons, which were discovered in the 1890s. He postulated that the sole electron orbiting the hydrogen nucleus could only exist in certain quantum orbitals and that when the electron dropped to a lower orbital it emitted EM at a specific frequency.
If the electron absorbed EM of a specific frequency and intensity, it caused the hydrogen electron to jump to a higher orbital energy level. At first, his theory was met with disbelieve but 10 years later, or so, Schrodinger worked out differential equations to explain his theory. Since then, the theory has been modified to explain radiation in atoms with multiple electrons but the basic theory is still intact.
Bohr’s theory explains clearly why EM from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by electrons in atoms at a higher temperature. It also justifies the claim of Clausius that radiative heat transfer can only happen from a hotter body to a colder body.
Incorrectamundo as usual Gordon,
Bohr’s theory only stipulated what energies the photons being emitted or abbbbysorbed could have, not the temperature of the source of those photons.
You should know that a photon does not carry the information about what the temperature of its source was. The temperature of the source of the photon has no affect on whether the photon is abbbsorbed or not.
Norman, your description of the GHE is not correct. You are describing “night” and “day”. What you have described happens daily, but that is not the GHE. Whar is confusing you is that you left out “night’. In your description, temperatures cool at night. Then rise dying day.
CO2 is not an effective radiative “insulator” because it emits such a low energy photon.
ClintR
Amazing level of ignorance of actual science!
YOU: “CO2 is not an effective radiative insulator because it emits such a low energy photon.”
Good Grief! The stupidity of your posts is painful! It is not the energy of the individual photon that matters, it is the number of photons emitted per second that are what matter.
Your false physics may appeal to fellow contrarians but it is just really bad science. Of course you have never been able to find one link that will support your fantasy physics (which is all it is). When you make up your own version of science you can claim anything you want.
Wrong again, Norman.
Photons, like flux, do not simply add. Two 82.7 meV photons can NOT raise the temperature more than one 82.7 meV photon. It’s the same as two ice cubes can NOT raise the temperature more than the ice.
Your inability to learn is fascinating. If helps for people to see what types are out there.
ClintR
Fluxes do add. You are just wrong. Will you provide supporting evidence for this opinion of yours. Repeating things over and over does not make them become true.
With your example of a cone receiving 900 W/m^2 but having multiple sides that are not receiving this energy and only emitting an average of less than the input energy you conclude this proves fluxes don’t add. This is not even logical since one is an input flux the others are emitting fluxes so they are not the same thing.
You can do it yourself, someone on PSI did an experiment and published it (not there now). Take two heat lamps (make sure they are different wattages so that the fluxes are different) and position them so they both can have some of their energy reach a plate surface with a thermometer to monitor the plate surface temperature. You turn on one heat lamp and wait for the plate to reach a steady state temperature with the surroundings. (choose the higher wattage light first). Now turn on the other lamp and you will find the plate temperature goes up. The two fluxes that reach the surface add energy to it, more than either light by itself. Change the combination and the plate will reach the same temperature and will be hotter with two lamps instead of one. For fun you can add even more heat lamps and you will find each one adds energy to the plate and increases the temperature. The fluxes are adding.
N,
Good grief! Einstein received his Nobel prize for pointing out that your thinking is seemingly logical, but wrong.
I wont provide a link. You could look it up yourself, but of course you wont. Lurkers may find the information useful.
Acceptance of reality does not seem to be in your playbook.
N,
Heat lamps?
Wattage is not temperature.
You are as misguided as the Government which believed it could use solar PV panels to generate electricity by exposing them to intense IR at night.
What you are saying is a misleading distraction. Try reading the paper for which Einstein received his Nobel Prize.
Try heating water with an ice block emitting 300 W/m2. No luck? Use more ice blocks! According to you, fluxes add, now you have 600 W/m2 (or more energy, or something!).
Dimwit!
Norman, the “cone” example illustrated that flux is not conserved. It did not involve “fluxes adding”. Not only are you uneducated in science, but you can’t even follow simple examples!
And as Swenson already pointed out, your “heat lamps” are not the issue. That issue was the two ice cubes in a room with everything 32F. Place one ice cube very close to, but not touching, a thermometer. When the thermometer equalizes at 32F, add a second ice cube on the other side. The thermometer is now receiving 300 W/m^2 from each side. But the temperature will NOT increase. The thermometer is NOT receiving 600 W/m^2!
Fluxes don’t simply add.
Yeah, but
meV is not flux, meV is energy
“Photons, like flux, do not simply add. Two 82.7 meV photons can NOT raise the temperature more than one 82.7 meV photon. Its the same as two ice cubes can NOT raise the temperature more than the ice.”
So this is wrong!
1 eV is 1.6 * 10^19 joules
and energy plus energy is more energy
So 2 82.7 meV photons have the same energy as one 165.4 meV photon, though you can’t take two 82.7 meV photons and smash them together and get one 165.4 meV photon.
You can add energy together simply.
When are you ever going to crack that physics textbook?
Oops
That should be 1 eV = 1.6 * 10^-19 joules
norman…”This is the point I was making. If you increase the Earth temperature with CO2, you will increase the evaporation rate …”
Norman…the reason you cannot understand water vapour feedback is that you are still hung up on the notion that a trace gas added to the atmosphere by humans can warm the surface. The same pseudo-science claims WV added to the atmosphere by warming as a positive feedback.
Neither you nor the pseudo-scientists making these claims understand the 2nd law or positive feedback. Positive feedback requires an amplifier, a process causing WV to increase is not a feedback it is simple cause and effect. If you increase the temperature of the oceans, lakes, etc., they will emit more WV. That is not a feedback.
Neither is the mistaken notion that increased CO2 or WV will increase the surface temperature. Despite their insistence that back-radiation from CO2 and WV can raise the surface temperature beyond what it is raised by solar energy, the 2nd law states that a transfer of heat, by its own means from cooler GHGs to the surface, is not possible.
These alarmists know full well that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body spontaneously so they have devised a process, called a positive net energy balance, to get around the 2nd law. There is no such thing as a net energy balance because they are talking about a balance between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy, an impossibility. The 2nd law applies only to thermal energy, aka heat, and has nothing to do with EM radiation.
If there was such a device as a heat amplifier, where you could input heat at a lower level and output it at a higher level, you might be able to talk about positive feedback, but only as a control agent. Positive feedback cannot amplify, it is one part of an amplified system that controls the amount of output.
Talking about WV feedback is just plain stupid. There is no amplifier and no means to create a feedback loop. In electrical control systems there is a reference to feedbacks in servo systems where an output is sampled as a voltage and fed back to an input controller. Depending on the sign of the voltage sampled at the output, and maybe its amplitude, the controller can adjust the current into the device causing its output to change.
That’s how electrical motors are controlled. A tachometer is attached to the output shaft and it’s output is converted to a voltage. If the output is meant to run at 3000 RPM, that represents 0 volts. If the RPM drops below 3000 RPM, the voltage becomes increasingly negative. If above 3000 RPM, the voltage becomes increasingly positive. At the controller, that feedback voltage tells it whether to increase or decrease the current driving the motor to maintain its shaft speed at 3000 RPM.
There is nothing close to that in the atmosphere. The theory that it can be an effect is based on bad science. Climate alarmists think that heat can be fed back from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface which is just plain wrong. Since it is wrong, that means WV feedback is wrong as well.
Gordon Robertson
You share similar problems that Swenson exhibits. You are not able to grasp what a heated surface or object means.
If you could understand this simple reality the rest of the understanding might come to you.
Note: Ice will not warm up liquid water. Ice can warm up heated water over a compared state with surroundings that are yet colder than the ice. The temperature of a HEATED object has no determined temperature. The temperature it can reach is dependent upon other variables.
Solar energy at our distance can only heat a blackbody to a temperature of 120.82 C because a blackbody emits 1366 Watts/m^2 at that temperature. You can take a selective surface with the same solar input (one that absorbs most solar input but emits very weakly in the IR band of EMR) and achieve temperatures of 225 C which is far higher than a blackbody in full solar input can achieve.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05235-x
It is the same with insulating materials. The temperature is not just based upon how much energy an object is receiving when HEATED but just as important on how much energy it is losing. A wide range of potential temperatures are possible.
100 watts of energy (joules/second input) can heat a filament of tungsten to thousands of degrees (because the emitting surface is so very small that the emitting EMR has to reach visible light to emit 100 watts of energy). If you add the same 100 watts to a 1 square meter sphere in cold space it will only reach a temperature of -68 C. So the same input energy can produce a large range of potential temperatures for any given object.
If you had a super insulation around and object that you were adding 100 watts to how hot would it get? It would just keep getting hotter and hotter until the insulation broke down.
N,
You are talking nonsense again.
A surface which would reach 255 C in unconcentrated sunlight would obviate the need for PV or wind power, or other supposedly renewable forms of energy.
That would enable steam pressure of about 40 bar.
Maybe you are confusing speculation or wishful thinking with reality?
Norman, you are still confused about ice cubes. Remember, you tried to dodge the “two ice cubes” scenario.
For some reason, you want the GHE nonsense to be real. You have to ask yourself why you want such a thing. Two ice cubes cannot warm the thermometer more than one ice cube. That’s reality. You try to come up with some implausible situation to deny reality.
You do the same thing with Moon. You try to find some way to avoid reality.
Why?
ClintR
No I never dodged your scenario. Yes two ice cubes CAN warm a thermometer more than one depending upon the surroundings. Your thought process is so simplistic it is unable to process complex ideas. KISS is all you know (Keep it Simple Stupid).
I explained in detail the various situations. Two ice cubes can cool the thermometer more than one in some cases. Two ice cubes can have no effect on the temperature of the thermometer or two ice cubes can increase the temperature of the thermometer over one. It all depends upon the surroundings. Since, in your simple mind, you can’t grasp complexity you can only imagine one possible solution. The walls are the same temperature as the ice.
It is pointless to engage in complex ideas with you, your mind is not capable of processing the information and you default to your protection device by calling people, far more intelligent than yourself, “idiot”.
Norman, maybe your need to resort to insults and false accusations is linked to your insecurity over your false beliefs?
And then, there is also your fear of reality….
ClintR
Far better would be for you to actually read some text book material on Heat Transfer and then come here with more intelligent discussion. As of now your points are useless as they have zero support and are mostly incorrect or simplistic.
You do not understand the GHE because you do not possess knowledge of actual heat transfer physics. The contrarian blog physics you peddle on this site are not valid.
Similar to your false physics there are some on blogs who go to great lengths making up physics (not logical though) that proves the Earth is a Flat circle in space and the Sun and moon are very close and rotate above the circle.
Anything is possible when not grounded in evidence, proof and logical thought process.
Your made up physics is right to you but it is not based upon any supporting evidence, logic or experimental proof.
As usual Norman, you have no science.
That’s why you have a need to resort to insults and false accusations.
And then, there is also your fear of reality….
ClintR
Is it your belief that repeating a post makes you appear intelligent?
You did not take my sound advice to actually read a heat transfer textbook and learn what REAL science says. No you just like to repeat a post and call it good.
You make up false physics and whine that you are being insulted. That is the way of a contrarian. You make up things and get upset when called out on it.
You could use your words on yourself, it is what you do and then people respond in kind.
YOU DO THIS “resort to insults and false accusations is linked to your insecurity over your false beliefs?”
You nailed yourself with this one. That is what you do. You have false beliefs on physics then when called out on them you resort to insults and false accusations.
Again Norman, you have no science.
You only insult, make false accusations, and deny reality. You seem to be quite content being an idiot.
Feel free to continue in that endeavor.
ClintR
I give you all the science you want and then some. You reject it all and then some. What is your point?
Norman, that sounds like something you would say. It has the “false accusation” and the “perversion of reality”. And no science.
But it’s much too brief. We need to see one of your 500-word mindless keyboard exercises, so I will know it’s really you.
Gordon Robertson
A lot of errors in your post. First is you do not know what the term “feedback” means. You have your own idea and then say that people using the term properly are wrong.
Here is the standard definition of “feedback”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback
The CO2 warms the system. the atmosphere can hold more water vapor increasing the GHE which in turn warms more and allows more water vapor into the atmosphere. This loop fits the definition of feedback.
You are also wrong in your understanding of what climate scientists say about the GHE. NO they do not think HEAT (which can be described as the energy transferred from a hot object to a colder one.
https://www.thoughtco.com/heat-energy-definition-and-examples-2698981
The atmosphere GHE effect means that instead of the surface transferring 390 W/m^2 to space, with a GHE it will only transfer 50 W/m^2 to space.
The solar input reaching the surface averages to 163 W/m^2.
If you use logic then you can see if the surface is losing 390 W/m^2 and receiving only 163 W/m^2 it will be cooling. Likewise if it receives 163 W/m^2 but now, with GHE, loses only 50 W/m^2 then it will warm up until other heat transfer surface mechanisms remove the excess energy to create a balance of energy (in this case evaporation and convection, air is such a good insulator that it is not a significant energy transfer mechanism)
N,
Air is such a good insulator?
I dont believe it!
Even Pierrehumbert calculated the whole atmosphere as being about as effective an insulator as one seventh of an inch of polystyrene.
In any case, you do realise that insulation works both ways, do you?
No magical one-way energy accumulation. That would just be fantasy, wouldnt it?
Swenson
Maybe you should do some research before commenting and pointing out you ignorance. Wouldn’t that be an interesting idea for you?
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
That is a list of insulating values, how much energy can move across the material based upon the thickness. Look at air and tell me again you don’t think air is a good insulator. The atmosphere is not a good insulator because it allows energy motion via convection which moves a massive amount of energy from the surface to the atmosphere, but very little energy conducts through the atmosphere.
N,
Air is not a good insulator.
Or do you disagree with Raymond Pierrehumbert? He even wrote a textbook!
Lie on frosty ground before dawn. How warm does the wonderful air insulation above, keep you? Not much convection at that hour, either!
Face reality. Playing with definitions wont help.
Norman, you have a lot of things wrong there: “The CO2 warms the system.”
Wrong. You are twisting, perverting, distorting reality. CO2 cannot warm the surface more than Sun.
The rest of your comment is wrong because you are using values from the bogus “energy imbalance” nonsense. Doing so will make you wrong more often than not.
ClintR
You do not know enough real science to tell anyone they are wrong. You also do not possess logical thinking ability to discuss ideas in rational fashion. You are a contrarian ideologue who does not possess the reasoning or logic to discuss ideas in scientific fashion. Also you never support any of your points, claims or statements with valid science. You just make unsupported claims and attack anyone who presents you with actual science.
Maybe if you learn how to think logically you might make a good skeptic and provide valid debate. At this time you are just an ignorant contrarian pretending to know things you can’t understand.
Again Norman, that’s all insults, false accusations, and opinions. You have no science.
I debunked the bogus “energy imbalance”, but you probably couldn’t understand it. You’re still clinging to it.
Norman
They occasionally post something worth a reply, but it’s not usually worth talking to these gaslighters.
Regarding modelling of evaporative cooling this might be worth reading.
http://www.clim*ate.be/text*book/cont*ents.html
Remove the stars. For some reason the site doesn’t like this link.
Look at 2.1.6, 2.2, 2.3.3 and especially 3.3.4.
The idiots get “gaslighted” by reality. That’s a good way to put it, Ent.
That link is just the same old nonsense–GHE, “energy budget”, etc.
I was surprised to see them admit (2.1.2) that the GHE nonsense caused Earth’s temperature to be too high: “Because of the greenhouse effect, the surface temperature is thus much higher than Te, reaching 303 K (30 °C) in this example.”
But, they tried to cover it up with: “This temperature is actually higher that the observed mean surface temperature of 288 K (15 °C) because of some strong crude approximations made in this simple model.”
Don’t we love it — “…some strong crude approximations made in this simple model.”
Translation: The GHE “proof” is nonsense, but it’s okay since the agenda is more important than reality.
Entropic man
Thank you for the link. Again it does not answer my question but seems to ignore it. They go directly into the topic in section 4.2.1. They state that an increase of water vapor will increase the GHE (more water vapor lowers the NET IR leaving the surface) but they do not mention the surface cooling from increasing the evaporative rate. As you know, without the Water Vapor feedback the AGW would be just above 1 C for a doubling of CO2. The water vapor feedback is estimated to increase the effect by 2.3 times. If there is a negative component (which there certainly is) to the water vapor feedback it will not be equal to 2.3 times an effect and may be quite a bit smaller. Only the paper I linked to talks about the negative feedback caused by increased evaporation rates.
They recognise the effect.
From 2.1.6
“In addition to the radiative fluxes, the surface and the atmosphere exchange heat through direct contact between the surface and the air (sensible heat flux or thermals) as well as through evaporation and transpiration. Indeed, when evaporation (or sublimation) takes place at the surface, the latent heat required for the phase transition is taken out of the surface and results of a surface cooling. ”
Latent heat flux is included in their heat balance equations.
“The fluxes of sensible and latent heat are generally estimated as a function of the wind speed at a reference level, and the difference in temperature (for the sensible heat flux FSH) or specific humidity (for the latent heat flux FLH) between the surface and the air at this reference level, using classical bulk aerodynamic formulae:
FSH =ρcpc hUaTs-T a
(2.33)
FLE =ρLvc LUaqs-q a
(2.34)
where Ua, Ta, qa are the wind velocity, air temperature and specific humidity at the reference level (generally 2 m or 10 m), Ts and qs are the surface temperature and specific humidity at the surface, ch and cL are the aerodynamic (bulk) coefficient. In general, they are function of the stability of the atmospheric boundary layer, the roughness of the surface, the wind speed and the reference height. In the majority of cases, ch and cL are not too different from each other and their value ranges from 1.10-3 to 5.10-5. The highest values occur with unstable boundary layers and very rough surfaces which tend to generate strong turbulent motions and thus higher exchanges between the surface and the air than quieter situations.”
They are well aware of its effect on heat balance, but are not interested in isolating its effect.
“The specific humidity, qs, above a wet surface is generally very close to saturation. It can thus be expressed using the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which shows that the amount of water vapour in the air at saturation is strongly dependent on the temperature. For instance, the amount of water vapour that can be present in the atmosphere at a temperature of 20C is more than three times higher than at 0C. As a consequence, the evaporation and the latent heat flux are much larger at low latitudes than at high ones. The latent heat flux is thus larger than the sensible heat flux at low latitudes, while the two fluxes are generally of the same order of magnitude over the ocean at high latitudes. The ratio between the sensible heat and latent heat fluxes is usually expressed as the Bowen Ratio Bo:
Bo= FSHFL E
(2.35)
Over land surfaces, the latent heat flux is a function of the water availability and Bo can be much higher than unity over dry areas. “
Entropic man
Yes they do account for evaporation. They give it 80 W/m^2 other budgets list it at 86.4 W/m^2. I will agree with ClintR those are just estimates, too hard to measure to get precise values.
Anyway that is not my point. Since they know evaporation will remove heat from the surface they do not consider it later with the water vapor feedback. They do not imply some negative component of the water vapor feedback nor discuss it. The current evaporation surface loss will go up with increased evaporation. Yes condensation will add this lost energy to higher levels of the atmosphere but increasing the surface evaporation rate will be a negative component regardless and this is not mentioned. Thanks again for your thoughtful posts.
norman…”The 2nd Law states that HEAT (commonly used as NET energy today) will not transfer from a cold object to a hotter object. It does NOT make the claim ENERGY will not. You just make this stuff up it seems”.
Good grief, Norman, heat is energy. And no, heat is not net energy, that is a fiction created by idiots.
I explained this once to ball4 and he never supplied a decent rebuttal. If heat is in fact the net transfer of energy between bodies of different temperatures, as he claimed, and the energy being transferred is thermal energy, then heat must be the net transfer of heat, an absurdity.
If you have a body at 100C adjacent to a body at 20C what energy is being transferred? Is it light energy (EM), electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, mechanical energy, gravitational energy? Nope…it’s thermal energy, also known as heat.
This is the problem a lot of you have. You think the word energy, or kinetic energy, by itself means something. There are no units for genetic energy. Energy is nothing more than a word till you specify the type of energy. Kinetic energy means nothing by itself unless you specify the energy involved. Thermal energy is measured in calories whereas mechanical energy is measured in watts.
Different forms of energy have vastly different properties. EM has properties entirely different than thermal energy. EM is not associated with mass whereas heat relies on it, so much so, it cannot exist without mass. EM is defined as an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field with a specific wavelength/frequency. Heat is defined as the kinetic energy of atoms and has no wavelength or frequency.
Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature was invented to measure that kinetic energy as its average. Yes, temperature is a measure of heat, a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms and their aggregates, molecules.
In a solid, heat as kinetic energy flows from atom to atom via electrons, just like electric charge. We know heat in a solid can only flow from a high temperature region to a lower temperature region. It’s the same with radiation, heat can only be transferred, via EM, from a high temperature region to a lower temperature region.
Higher temperature regions are also higher thermal energy regions whereas lower temperature regions are lower thermal energy regions. Therefore heat can only be transferred from a higher thermal energy region to a lower thermal energy region whether the transfer is by conduction, convection, or radiation.
norman…”100 watts of energy (joules/second input) can heat a filament of tungsten to thousands of degrees (because the emitting surface is so very small that the emitting EMR has to reach visible light to emit 100 watts of energy)”.
If you add 100 watts of ELECTRICAL energy to a tungsten filament the filament will heat (thermal energy) and emit ELECTROMAGNETIC energy in the visible spectrum. If you tried to add radiative energy from an ice cube it would do nothing. Neither would 100 watts of mechanical energy. You could pound it, twist it, or rub it vigourously against another tungsten filament and it would not heat significantly or radiate EM in the visible spectrum.
The tungsten filament is used because it has a high melting temperature. The secret of tungsten filament for producing light is the very narrow cross-sectional area combined with a high current. A high current through a narrow cross-section forces more electrons through a smaller area, meaning more heat-producing collisions.
For a 100 watt bulb operating at 120 volts, power = EI. Therefore I = P/E = 100 watts/120 volts is close to 1 amp of current. That’s a lot of current to run through such a narrow area (typical filament diameter = 10 microns) and the tungsten heats to such a high temperature that it glows brightly.
Therefore it’s a conversion of electrical energy to thermal energy to electromagnetic energy that explains the phenomenon. Talking about a generic energy is sheer nonsense.
try wrapping a light bulb in aluminum foil and see if the lightbulb gets any hotter.
Leave a little space between the foil and the bulb, blow enough air through inlet and outlets, and see if it gets any cooler.
Are you saying you want to fluff the tin foil?
bobd…”Bohrs theory only stipulated what energies the photons being emitted or abbbbysorbed could have, not the temperature of the source of those photons.
You should know that a photon does not carry the information about what the temperature of its source was”.
***
First of all, with regard to your allegations that I’m a technician, you’re way off. I actually got my degree in electrical engineering form a box of cereal. There were certificates inside the box and I just had to send away for the degree. It states plainly on my degree that I am an electrical engineer, certified by the Kellogg’s Bran Flakes Academy of Science. Of course, I had to pick up training in calculus, physics, quantum theory and the likes along the way. It’s equally obvious that you don’t understand any of the physics.
With regard to your nonsense above Bohr, the energy quanta which you refer to as photons, have specific frequencies derived from the kinetic energy of the emitting electron. That KE represents the heat content of the mass hence its temperature.
It should be obvious to you that the EM in electromagnetic energy is derived from the electric charge and the magnetic field carried by a moving electron. All EM in the universe is related to and generated by electrons. They are the only particle that can produce visible light and IR in the universe.
It’s simple. As the atoms acquire heat, the electrons in each atom move to higher quantum energy levels which are defined by the kinetic energy level in each quantum orbital. If the electrons should drop to a lower kinetic energy level, energy is radiated away and the entire body cools.
The KE in each quantum orbital is based on the velocity of the electron and the frequency is based on how many orbits it accomplishes per second. If an electron with frequency, f, drops between quantum level E2 and E1, the energy radiated away is E2 – E1 = hf. The f belongs to the electron at the higher quantum level because that is the energy lost via radiation.
There is no in-between state in Bohr’s theory, it’s one or the other. If the energy is lost as radiation, the frequency had to represent the higher level since nothing is radiated at the lower level.
Gordon,
You are way off of the mark here
“With regard to your nonsense above Bohr, the energy quanta which you refer to as photons, have specific frequencies derived from the kinetic energy of the emitting electron. That KE represents the heat content of the mass hence its temperature.”
You should go find a textbook that can tell you that temperature is the average kinetic enegy of atoms and molecules, not electrons.
And how come I have to keep telling you that electrons don’t orbit the nucleus of the atom?
Do you know that you have to add the ionization energy to the electron to get it to have zero kinetic energy.
I would assume not, since you think bound electrons have kinetic energy.
Look dude, you have to do more that grok on something to have an understanding of what’s going on.
So I take it you are not actually a technician, maybe you should have gotten that degree from a box of cracker jacks, I hear that degree is more valuable than the one from Kellogg’s.
And by the way,
“If an electron with frequency, f, drops between quantum level E2 and E1, the energy radiated away is E2 E1 = hf.”
The equation is ok, but if the electron in level E2 has frequency f, well, you need to check the math to see if it makes any sense.
EM,
Any radiation (flux if you like) from the surface escapes to outer space.
No trapping or accumulation.
The Earth continues to cool.
As does anything hotter than its environment.
And the rate of escape has the potential to be altered.
R,
Slower cooling is still cooling, isnt it?
You just repeat the meaningless alarmist mantra. Try coming up with something useful – a testable GHE hypothesis would be nice, but first you would have to describe the GHE in a scientific way.
And this, my friend, you cannot do!
Over to you.
Only if there is no incoming energy from the sun. If rate of energy in = rate of energy out is stasis, then a lower rate of energy out while maintaining the rate of energy in is warming. Pretty simple stuff.
R,
Your supposition that energy in = energy out is completely nonsensical. If it was true, the the Earth could not have cooled, could it?
You might have noticed that the surface gets colder at night, winter is colder than summer, and 6 months of continuous sunlight at the Poles doesnt seem to make the surface warmer at all.
You are confused or simple.
Which is it?
So you are claiming that when it gets cold at night at your particular location, or when winter approaches were you live, that the entire planet has cooled. It takes a certain lack of personal pride to not be afraid being seen making claims such as those.
R,
Are you as stupid as you pretend?
Trying to put words in my mouth, when anybody can see what I actually said, just makes you look either devious or stupid. You dont appear smart enough to be devious, so stupid it is,
Wriggle away. You have hooked yourself, with your nonsensical energy in = energy out.
Just for your information, the sun only heats one side of the globe. The brightly coloured NASA graphics a la Trenberth, showing otherwise, are climatological fantasies. Night does actually exist, allowing the heat of the day to escape to outer space – never to return!
And yes, the entire Earth experiences seasons, due to its elliptical orbit and obliquity.
Feel free to reject the reality that the Earth has cooled, it wont change facts.
Please quantify this cooling in degrees Celsius per decade.
R,
Already done it per annum. Multiply by 10 for the decadal figure. It shouldnt be too hard. Why should I repeat myself?
Just for fun, do your own research. See if you can find any peer reviewed work that differs significantly from the figures I provided previously.
I doubt it.
It’s obvious why you didn’t want to repeat your 0.00005 degrees per decade. It’s quite embarrassingly low in comparison to the current upward trend, isn’t it. Has the earth experienced a net energy loss in the past 40 years?
R,
You are confused.
The Earth is cooling. Slowly. It must, being hotter than the surrounding environment.
The Sun cannot make an isothermal Earth any hotter than about 255 K.
Any heat generated at the surface is fugitive – fleeing to space, never to return.
Rub your hands together vigorously. They get hot. Stop. They cool down. The heat has fled.
Build a giant bonfire. A nearby thermometer will show a higher temperature, as long as you maintain the fire, but the heat generated is still lost to outer space.
Let the fire go out. The thermometer temperature drops. All the heat of the fire has vanished, never to be seen again.
Cooling. No GHE. Just physics.
And yes, the Earth has experienced a net energy loss in the past 40 years. How could it be otherwise? Have you ever managed to trap some heat? Hot things cool down.
Though of a possible way to calculate the effect of evaporative cooling on surface temperature.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg
From NASAs energy budget a typical surfacec emits 503W/M^2.
398.2 is radiation, 86.4 is latent heat and 18.4 from thermals.
If it was dry, the latent heat would be emitted as radiation, 398.2 plus 86.4 is 484.6W/M^2.
wIthout latent heat radiation increases by a factor of 484.6/398.2 = 1.22
From the SB equation the change in temperature will vary as the 4th root of the change in radiation* Kelvin temperature.
That would be a temperature increase to √√√1.22*288K = 295.2K.
That is 7.2 C of evaporative cooling.
What of the water vapour? That accounts for 2/3 of DWLR.
If you remove the water DWLR drops by 2/3*340=226W/m^2
Total surface insulation becomes 502-226= 297W/m^2. The water vapour increases the radiation reaching the surface by a factor 502/297 =1.69
The temperature becomes √√√1.69*288=307C, a warming of 19C.
So evaporative cooling reduces surface temperature by 7.2C and water vapour DWLR increases temperature by 19C.
The net effect of water on a typical surface is to warm it by 19-7.2=11.8C.
Ent, the 7.2C cooling is at least going in the right direction. But you should realize that if WV cools the surface by 7.2C, it can’t turn around and warm it by 19C!
Of course, if that’s your belief, reality doesn’t matter.
E,
Your DWLR is nothing more or less than the thermal radiation from the atmosphere.
You do realise that everything above absolute zero emits IR radiation, dont you?
All gases. Everything.
The atmosphere varies in density and temperature, so a radiometer on the ground will measure an integrated signal of varying wavelengths and intensities emitted by the various components of the atmosphere within its view.
Nothing magical. No CO2 control knob, nor an H2O knob! These are delusional fantasies of the climatological variety.
Entropic man
Those are interesting calculations but I am not sure they are answering my question.
With Water vapor or CO2 the radiant DWIR is based on a logarithmic scale. It is exponential in the early parts and then becomes almost flatline.
With evaporation, the rate will be a linear cooling. If the evaporation rate doubles, the evaporative cooling will also double.
So the way you calculate you show that DWIR does dominate but as the water vapor increases its effects go way down.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
If you use this model, set the altitude to 0 and set it looking up then you get the DWIR. If you change only the water vapor and increase it by 7% so that you put a 1.07 in the Water Vapor Scale you change the DWIR from 369.264 W/m^2 to 374.602 W/m^2 which increases the DWIR by 5.338 W/m^2.
The problem is I cannot find a simple formula that will determine the change in evaporation rate with a 1 C temp increase (the amount of increase that would increase Water Vapor by 7%) to find a surface cooling effect.
This graph was the best I could find for now. I might keep looking.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-6116ab54945f185ec2cbaa7941f3ed49.webp
Try this one.
The maths is way above my pay grade, but Figure 5 looks promising.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/geofluids/2017/5892867/
EM,
If you think Figure 5, or the whole paper, helps you, then not only are the maths beyond you, but the rest of the paper is also.
Maybe you should try linking to something that supports your pseudoscientific nonsense.
Do you really believe that evaporating water from a surface, by using sunlight, will make the surface 11 C hotter?
That would seem to fly in the face of conventional physics, but if your religion requires that you believe the impossible (and many seem to), who am I to challenge your beliefs?
Entropic man
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
If you look at the simulated results, even though the solar flux was highest the first two days, the temperature remained lower by around 10C.
In figure 7 they show that for the first few days the latent heat flux is around 300 W/m^2 then it quickly drops to less than 100 W/m^2.
Equation 15 seems to be the one for evaporation rate. I am looking at other places for the correct variables. I just want to know what a change of 1 C will do to the evaporation rate so I can keep the other variables the same.
The water vapor density in air is given here:
https://www.engineersedge.com/physics/water_vapor_density_15296.htm
The vapor density is inversely proportional to temperature so as temperature increased the water vapor density decreases (at least until more water molecules are evaporated into the air). But the Pva term will decrease as temperature rises so the Evaporation rate will increase.
For the Soil water density
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR018874
Equation 6 of Appendix A may have the variables. The soil water vapor density I do not yet understand. The wetter the soil the greater the density but I am not sure how temperature affects it. In the equation 6 it looks like as T increases the soil water vapor density also increases. I do not know what numbers to plug in at this time. But in your article you linked to it does show that evaporation is a significant cooling process.
Another possible source.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evaporative-cooling-d_698.html
Some potentially useful graphs.
N,
You cant find a simple formula for the simple reason there isnt one.
Keep looking.
Oh to be clear, “Gordon” , it was not Bob who first suggested you are a technician.
Your joke about the cereal box degree in Engineering is quite along the lines of truth.
“When you can’t dazzle with the truth, blind with bullshit. ”
Maybe that should be your epitaph.
t,
Is your comment supposed to be attacking Gordon?
Or are you just providing a demonstration of idiocy through obscurity?
I assume your comment was in relation to –
* McCarthy holds a Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy from Tufts University and a Bachelor of Arts in Social Anthropology from University of Massachusetts at Boston. *
Tufts dont appear to offer a Masters in Environmental Health Engineering currently. The Bachelors degree is curious. Tufts states –
* The Bachelor of Science in Engineering – Environmental Studies and Environmental Health (BSE) degree is not accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET, Inc. *
This is your idea of science? Ho ho ho!
swenson…”Is your comment supposed to be attacking Gordon?”
I receive it as a pathetic ad hom. Plasdick cannot supply any physics to refute anything I’ve said.
The major advantage I have over Plasdick and bobd is that I have actually worked in the field doing applied physics. The electronics/electrical field is a part of physics. Never worked in thermodynamics but the work of Clausius appealed to me. The guy obviously understood the precision required in science, moreover, he could explain it in terms a scientific mind could grasp.
I have yet to see one example refuting the work of Clausius and the 2nd law. Most people talking about the 2nd law talk in terms of entropy and not one I have read understands entropy as Clausius intended when he invented the law. He coined the word entropy and by it he was referring only to heat. To hear people talk about it today, it has turned into some mystical phenomenon no one understands.
Physics is precise. When a scientist like Clausius makes a statement like “Heat can NEVER be transferred, BY ITS OWN MEANS, from cold to hot”, that’s exactly what the 2nd law means. Then you have wannabees like Plasdick, Bobd, Norman, et al, trying to cherry picking and modify the work of Clausius by modifying what he said to suit their pseudo-science.
As Clint likes to say, it’s hilarious. Clausius worked this out precisely using heat engines and demonstrated, using hard physics, with the greatest clarity, why heat cannot be transferred cold to hot, by it own means, under any circumstances. His statement is not mere words to be altered based on thought experiments and other inference.
You don’t need to be an engineer to understand this, a high school student could see the sense in it. Yet Plasdick, Norman, Bobd, Swannie and Binny struggle with it mightily.
I make antimatter, I think that qualifies as applied physics.
And you still stumble over what Clausius and everybody else qualified to teach you about the second law of thermodynamics would say.
Yes the rule is that heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by it own means.
What that means is that are conditions that can be met which allow the transfer of heat from cold to hot.
Namely that there is an energy source that can do that for the system.
Have you ever heard of a tropical cyclone referred to as a heat engine?
“A tropical cyclone may be viewed as a heat engine that converts input heat energy from the surface into mechanical energy that can be used to do mechanical work against surface friction.”
The Sun does the work necessary to transfer heat from cold to hot.
bobs…”Yes the rule is that heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by it own means.
What that means is that are conditions that can be met which allow the transfer of heat from cold to hot”.
***
Yes, we know that Bob, air conditioners do that using smoke and mirrors.
Two points:
1)the process cannot be initiated by itself.
2)the air conditioner et al are not really transferring heat per see from a colder source to a warmer source. They are transferring heat from a colder source to a gas at low pressure then compressing the gas to a high pressure liquid. Then that HP liquid is run through a radiator of sorts that allows it to transfer heat to a cooler atmosphere that is warmer than the source from which the heat was extracted.
That’s why I call it smoke and mirrors. Yes, in the end, the heat does get transferred, but nowhere near directly. in between, there are serious interventions from energy supplied to drive a compressor.
There is nothing remotely like that process available in the atmosphere. Therefore, heat cannot be transferred in the atmosphere from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Creating justifications like a ‘net energy balance’, based purely on thought experiments doesn’t cut it. The 2nd law must prevail despite the protestations of those who would overturn it.
Gordon,
this says it all
“Never worked in thermodynamics”
Well I have and I know a Carnot cycle when I see one.
There are Carnot cycles in the atmosphere, transferring heat from cold to hot.
“Yes, we know that Bob, air conditioners do that using smoke and mirrors.”
Not smoke and mirrors, but by the addition of energy or work or joules.
“The 2nd law must prevail despite the protestations of those who would overturn it.”
We are not overturning the second law, we just have a better understanding of it, due to having studied thermodynamics, not like you, who admits not having worked in the field.
“There is nothing remotely like that process available in the atmosphere.”
Actually there is, tropical cyclones and even thunderstorms are fine examples of heat engines.
You do know that lightning is pretty hot, right?
bobd…”There are Carnot cycles in the atmosphere, transferring heat from cold to hot”.
Bob…your full of c.r.a.p. Carnot preceded Clausius and the work done on the 2nd law was aimed at correcting errors in the Carnot cycle.
“Yes the rule is that heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by it own means.
What that means is that are conditions that can be met which allow the transfer of heat from cold to hot”.
Cripey, you’re worse than Barry for creating tall tales to explain your pseudo-science. No…Clausius explained what it means with great clarity…that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.
I doubt if you finished high school.
Gordon
“that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from cold to hot.”
Bindindon has actually provided you the quotes from Clausius and this is just half of what he said, you conveniently leave out half of it.
“I doubt if you finished high school.”
Based on what? That I repeatedly correct you misunderstanding of the second law?
I have a degree that actually requires passing a course in thermodynamics.
Here are several equivalent statements of the second law, and not one of them says that heat can never be transferred by its own means from cold to hot!
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
“It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature.”
“It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.”
“It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and cooling of a heat reservoir.”
“It is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work.”
A natural gas plant or an oil pipeline isn’t doing anything compared with what’s going on in China, India, and Africa. We are going to increase worldwide emissions significantly in this century.
Requiring the West to shoulder the burden of trying to offset that is undemocratic at best (eg it is not in the interest of the people), and is likely to not matter in the long run anyway.
MJ…”Requiring the West to shoulder the burden of trying to offset that is undemocratic at best…”
The current mobs running countries like the US, Canada, the UK and Europe have no interest in democracy. Anyone who thinks they are experiencing democracy in such countries is kidding themselves. The current covid bs reveals just how much politically-correct dweebs are in control.
I have never received an answer to these questions from any Climate Scare Warrior: What should the earth’s perfect temperature be and has it ever been and for how long; and what should the correct level of CO2 be and do you believe like some that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. And most important who amongst us should be forced to hold our breath to stop CO2 from getting into the atmosphere???
Last but not least, is there a published or otherwise empirical paper or experiment linking CO2 to the Earth’s temperature? I think
NOT.
Megaslot game เล่นสล็อตผ่านไลน์ รวมสล็อตทุกค่ายดัง เอาไว้ในเว็บไซต์เดียว MEGASLOTGAME สมัครที่เดียวจบ คุ้มครบทุกแนว ท่านจะได้รับสิทธิพิเศษมากมาย เป็นเกมที่ได้รับความนิยมเยอะที่สุด