Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Next
Comments 4551 to 4600:
-
wilddouglascounty at 02:11 AM on 6 March 2022Addressing the Climate Crisis:
Evolution orRevolution1
Well, that is one of the more depressing posts that I've seen: looking at those charts and numbers can be used to convincingly argue quite a different conclusion: it's too late. According to World Energy Consumption patterns I've looked at (and there are no doubt more current analyses), there was a huge jump in energy consumption in the 1970s, with a 65% increase in 10 years, dropping off to a mere 15% energy growth per capita by 2000, bouncing back to 25% increase from the previous decade by 2010, and yet there was barely any change in the growth rate of CO2 emissions during those times. I presume that this is due to population growth that ate up the increases in efficiencies, so that even modest increases in global per capita energy consumption (1965: ~48Gj/person, 2010: ~74) resulted in almost no change in the emissions trajectory.
While it is easy to turn a line dramatically down to zero from this incessant, steady rise in consumption, it is very hard to envision the circumstances it would require to actually turn that arrow downward in such a dramatic fashion. Compared to the 1970s, so much has changed, and yet the slope of the curve marches on and up. The word Revolution seems to be a gross understatement. Collapse might turn the curve in the manner you draw it: either through some unparalleled catastrophe, or if the trends continue, climate-induced collapse. Please tell me I'm wrong and why.
-
MA Rodger at 22:27 PM on 5 March 2022It's albedo
Bob Loblaw @131,
I also have struggled to identify any sign of a significant driver of climate in the arguments presented by blaisct. If we wind back to the initial proposal (in the 'Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends?' thread @59), I feel the scoping of a direct potential forcing can be scoped quite simply** but refining such an analysis does not appear possible with commenter blaisct who now introduces further speculative feedbacks into the discussion, thus piling unhelpfulness on top of unhelpfulness.
(**According to Wild et at [2015] fig2a, the average land albedo equates to 48Wm^-2(land) = 14Wm^-2(global). If urbaniseation reduced that to zero over 1M sq km, that would equate to a 0.1Wm^-2(global) forcing, thus a maximum value for a quantity which may not even be positive. Note Guo et al [2022] suggest the effect is negative over urbanisation in China.) -
swampfoxh at 20:42 PM on 5 March 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9 2022
Yes, a difficult area. I'm unsure why you label my comment a "rant", my not having felt at all "ranty" when I wrote it. It has always seemed to me that the scientific method should stop taking a back seat to religion and politics. Just a few weeks ago, SkepSci carried an article by "scientists" lamenting the lack of attention of "policymakers" to our rather well developed evidence that if they don't follow the science, why should the scientists keep bothering to produce it?
I wasn't singling out any particular body of belief bereft of science grade evidence. The statements of Richard Dawkins comes to mind: "you just can't say anything bad about religion...you just can't...His point being: "why not?" We say things bad about Corona virus, pine beetles and the proliferation of plastic nanoparticles in the oceans. We should be able to criticize the entire human race for its "shortcomings", whatever they be. Our human nature apparently disposes us to be ignorant of the implications of our propensity to ignore the evidence provided by the scientific method: Religion's status is the principal reason. It seems always to sit at the debate table with the scientists.
There is a quaint aphorism that speaks to this problem: "Those that don't study history, are doomed to repeat it...yet, those who do study history are doomed to stand by, helplessly, while everyone else repeats it."
Moderator Response:[BL} let's try again. Another section of the Comments Policy:
- All comments must be on topic. Comments are on topic if they draw attention to possible errors of fact or interpretation in the main article, of if they discuss the immediate implications of the facts discussed in the main article. However, general discussions of Global Warming not explicitly related to the details of the main article are always off topic. Moderation complaints are always off topic and will be deleted
To put is simply. tone down the rhetoric. I"ts not helping you.
-
swampfoxh at 07:51 AM on 5 March 2022Skeptical Science New Research for Week #9 2022
Hard science will never be accepted by anyone relying on the myths of the Religion directing their lives. "Hope springs eternal from the human breast". The acceptance of the promise of an afterlife in a "heaven" cancels any hard science that might challenge a person to account for the possibility that human conduct, or our omissions to act on evidence, might ought to be the course of action necessary to save the planet for our future and the future of our progeny. We know that all living organisms, except humans, simply adapt to the environment in which they find themselves...and survive or become extinct if that environment becomes unstable for the lifeform in question. Humans either hope for the best within their particular religious dogma, or take steps to manipulate the environment, refusing to adapt thereto. Some Religions are "worse" than others. Some people believe that the Lord would never harm his followers. That disposition cancels the efficacy and usefulness of hard science as a tool of adaptation.
Moderator Response:[BL] I suggest that you read the Comments Policy. In particular, the following sections apply to the deleted parts of this comment. Since you will know what has been deleted, you should have no problem understanding why.
- No ad hominem attacks. Personally attacking other users gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get moderated. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' as derogatory terms are usually skating on thin ice.
- No politics. Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted. Occasional blogposts on Skeptical Science touch on issues intimately related to politics. For those posts this rule may be relaxed, but only if explicitly stated at the end of the blogpost.
-
Hal Kantrud at 01:45 AM on 4 March 2022US coal use on the rise, but renewables continue rapid growth
You need a new term. Physicists will tell you energy cannot be renewed. How about 'extraterrestrial'? Far less misleading.
Moderator Response:[BL] You have made a similar point before, and it is just as pointless now as it was then.
You should learn that vocabulary has meaning in a context, and I am not aware that "physics" has control over the definition of "renewable energy".
In this context, the definition provided here suggests that its use in this post is not at all misleading.
renewable resource (plural renewable resources)
A natural resource that is replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable to its rate of consumption by humans or other users. -
swampfoxh at 20:07 PM on 3 March 2022New IPCC report highlights urgency of climate change impacts
I can't help but ask why the IPCC report always suggests that moving away from fossil fuels is the remedy, when a growing body of peer reviewed research clearly demonstrates that Industrial Animal Agriculture is the main problem...admitting, of course, that fossil fuels are problem number two. Always, the narrative paints the fossil fuel companies as the villain, even though the real villains are the humans who burn it. With Animal Agriculture, it's not the livestock, it's the humans who eat them. The irony is in the fact that getting off fossil fuels isn't easy, but weaning ourselves off meat is easy because we have an immediate adequate and alternate food supply...
Plants.
-
swampfoxh at 19:49 PM on 3 March 2022New IPCC report highlights urgency of climate change impacts
...Probably needless to point out that this IPCC narrative is essentially identical to all prior IPCC reports. I doubt any amount of money will fix this, but a change in human behavior and a draconian cut in global population might do it. Neither of those will happen, so a near extinction of the human race will clear things up, eventually.
What Elizabeth Kolbert once called the Sixth Extinction has been, recently, called Permian II by some of us. Others, at least in our group, are calling it "HumaPermiTu".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:48 PM on 3 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
Dear Peter,
I have quickly reviewed the Intro and Conclusion of the paper and skimmed the contents, my standard way of starting to read a Report. I have yet to do a full reading, but I will.
I will open this response by confirming that we appear to be aligned regarding measures that will help limit population growth and the importance of limiting the total global population.
I will start by presenting the context of my perspective which is always open to improvement. But it is based on a significant amount of experience and learning. My name on this site reflects that perspective.
Awareness of the bigger picture is needed when looking at any part of the bigger picture. And for humans the bigger picture is the need for human activity to be governed (limited) to not harm Others or future humans, including not harming their ability to live a decent a life. And people will naturally be tempted to aspire to the examples set by the portion of the population that has developed the impression of being the highest status. That is important understanding since this planet is likely to be habitable for more than 100 million years. Sustaining humanity through that long period (almost forever) is the big picture. Many developed human activities are inconsistent with that understanding. And they would be inconsistent with sustained living on any other planet. The unsustainable nature of what has developed is not new. The growing awareness and understanding of the growing magnitude of the harmful unsustainability of what has developed is what is new.
Total Harmful Impacts of the Total Global Population are a developed problem that requires the development of solutions. The Sustainable Development Goals are a fairly comprehensive presentation of the solution that is open to further improvement.
We appear to be aligned regarding actions that would help limit global population. What you mention are understood parts of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Millennium Development Goals. Those sets of goals are steps in the constantly increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and unsustainable. The pursuit of sustainable development understanding became a global coordinated collaborative effort 50 years ago with the Stockholm Conference.
It appears that the efforts to identify and limit harmful developments also sparked some harmful resistance to learning to be less harmful, particularly in the supposedly superior, more advanced, nations. But the resistance to that learning also appears to be strong among the supposedly superior, more advanced, portions of many less developed nations. And people who develop their thinking inside systems that promote smaller shorter-term perspective can struggle to see the bigger picture beyond their developed worldview. And, indeed, a part of the problem is the development of political groups that appeal for support by opposing, or not supporting, abortion and family planning. Some of them argue for 'abstinence' as the solution. But that is like arguing that 'not living' is a solution to the 'total climate change impacts of the total population' problem.
So we may also be aligned regarding the need to identify and try to reduce the popularity of political groups that would act in those less helpful ways. That would be good since it appears that 'these days' the political groups that are less supportive of measures to limit population growth are also less supportive of measures that would limit the climate change impact growth. And they also appear to be less supportive of actions that would limit or correct many developed harmful activities. They appear to be opposed to almost all the Sustainable Development Goals, one issue at a time (they even oppose limits on plastic use – the next globally acknowledged problem needing a global agreement to correct).
That brings me to a point I wish to make regarding something I noticed in the paper: “Emissions = Population x GDP/capita x Energy/GDP x Emissions/Energy”. That presentation can make it difficult to see the important need for superiority and advancement to be recognized as "reduced energy use per person" and "reduced harm done by the energy that is used" (because any use of technologically produced energy has the potential to produce harmful results).
I offer the following sequence of changes as a way to more comprehensively present the issue (guided by Einstein's advice to keep things simple, but not too simple):
"Emissions = Population x GDP/capita x Energy/GDP x Emissions/Energy + (a similar evaluation of all Other Emissions causing activity)".
That corrects for the over-simplification of only focusing on energy. However, fugitive emissions related to natural gas extraction, processing and transport also need to be counted. So Emissions/Energy is too simplistic. It could miss impacts associated with energy use that need to be counted. A more comprehensive statement would be:
“Global Warming Impacts = Population x GDP/capita x Energy/GDP x Global Warming Impacts/Energy + (a similar evaluation of all Other Global Warming Impact causing activity)”
That captures Evan's accurate point that many other things, particularly agriculture, cause global warming impacts that result in climate change. I noticed that the paper includes awareness of land use impacts on global warming. So the above would appear to be aligned with the understanding presented in the paper.
But there is also more harm done by energy use and agriculture than the climate change impacts. So a more comprehensive "Bigger Picture" presentation of the issue is:
“Total Harm Done = Population x GDP/capita x Energy/GDP x (Total Harm Done)/Energy + (a similar evaluation of all Other Harmful Impact causing activity)”
Now we get to the simple crux of the over-simplification that can be understood to apply to all of above presentations. The simplest way to present the above appears to be:
"Total Harmful Impacts = The sum of the harmful impacts attributable to each person"
That leads to understanding that there will be a diversity of degrees and types of harm that would be hidden by averaging the impacts of a group of people. And, as Evan also accurately points out, everyone wants a better life for themselves, their children, and others they identify closely with. So people can be expected to aspire to live like the people who they identify as being more advanced, more superior. And there is ample evidence that the current norms for identifying superiority and advancement, like the measure of GDP per capita, are harmfully misleading. People have been working to correct that misunderstanding about what deserves to be considered superior or more advanced, how to measure improvement, for a while now. The 2020 Human Development Report points out some of the efforts to correct that harmful developed misunderstanding.
That also leads to understanding that the people with the highest amount of harm attributed to their actions need to be the focus of efforts to limit harm done (Rule of Law works best when it is done this way). And it leads to understanding that people who act in ways that cause harm are not made acceptable by Other people acting to undo or adapt to the harm that is done. Reducing harm done requires the harm to be ended and, as much as possible, it requires those who benefit from the harm done to do what is required to undo the harm done.
Averaging the per capita impacts of a nation helps compare nations to identify which nations should be most focused on for harm reduction. But per capita does not identify the people within a nation who should be the focus of harm reduction efforts. As an example, immigrants into Australia may have remained as lower than average impacting people, which means their addition to the population actually disguises the increased harm done by the more harmful members of the population.
That brings me to my concluding point.
It is fundamentally unacceptable for a person to benefit from something that Other people will be harmed by, or be at risk of harm from. And regarding climate change impacts, it is unacceptable for people to be benefiting from creating the impacts even if Others are acting to reduce the impacts. And an averaging of a group of people can be harmfully misleading by hiding what the different people in the group have done.
Achieving Sustainable Development, developing a truly lasting future for humanity that can be improved by the development of truly sustainable improvements, can legitimately maintain or increase GDP per capita. Achieving those goals is likely to result in a lower peak population than would otherwise develop. And the per person impacts of that smaller total population would be lower. But to achieve that the harmful developed activities need to be identified and corrected.
The fundamental rule of "Do No Harm - Help Others" needs to be governing the actions of people. Everyone self-governing that way would be great. But that is a fantasy world. And the lack of that rule governing what has developed to date has produced an significant need for corrections, particularly corrections of the ways that the supposedly more advanced and supposedly superior people, who everyone looks up to and aspires to be like, live their lives.
That is the fundamental understanding I will be applying, and have been applying, to the reading of the paper, or any other presentation of thoughts. It is not the norm ... but it would be helpful if it became more of the norm.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:04 AM on 3 March 2022It's albedo
I have been watching this discussion for a while, and I too have a really difficult time understanding what blaisct's real purpose or argument is. With respect to albedo, it seems as if he is implying that albedo causes the change in climate, while ignoring the possibility that other factors are changing the climate and albedo is responding to that - the classical albedo feedback that is a standard part of climate science.
I have access to some high temporal resolution surface radiation data from a continental location. Let's look at four graphs of daily values:
January radiation and albedo:
...and the same location in July
Let's talk about the last two first. It's a mostly sunny day. with some morning cloud and mid-day scattered cloud. Global radiation peaks at over 1000 W/m2. There is a strong diurnal pattern to albedo - lowest in mid-day (less than 0.2), and highest around sunrise and sunset (around 0.3).
Then let's compare these to the first two, from January. A similar day in the sense of morning cloud and afternoon clear skies, but global radiation is much lower - (peaks at about 300 W/m2). Albedo is quite different - it drops from about 0.9 in the morning to
I also know a bit about the temperatures on each day. In July, it was much cooler in the morning and evening, and hottest in the early afternoon. January was much, much colder.
Should I assume that the differences in albedo have caused those temperature differences? After all, there is a strong correlation: albedo drops, and temperature rises. Very high albedo? Very cold temperatures!
...but all I have done is shown that winter is colder than summer, so you can get snow on the ground instead of agricultural crops. After all, the energy input from solar radiation in January peaks at 30% of what it was on that July day, even if we don't account for the higher January albedo and shorter daylight period.
And the diurnal cycle in July? It is well-known and well-documented that surface albedo shows variability with solar zenith angle in clear skies. The sun is high in the sky at solar noon (which is about 1pm clock time on these graphs), and low in the sky at sunrise and sunset. It's not the albedo that is driving temperature differences: it is the change in solar input.
Nothing surprising here. Albedo differences are the result of other factors that affect weather and climate.
I think the same applies to blaisct's humidity and cloud arguments. There is nothing that I can see in his comments that gives any evidence that albedo or humidity are the driving force behind changing climate - they can (and are more likely to be) the result of a changing climate. A feedback, not a forcing.
-
MA Rodger at 18:26 PM on 2 March 2022It's albedo
blaisct @129,
The correction of the numbers is good but whether it leads you to anywhere useful is another matter entirely. I repeat my parting comment @128 - "But these are just numbers. I don't see them relating to what we see of the real world climate change."
Perhaps you should read up on the literature examining the impact of UHI on climate. But be warned, to my understanding there is no evidence suggesting anything but local effects.
-
nigelj at 16:46 PM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
About four years ago I read a study on population trends in an African country. I can't remember the country or find the study but the government gave away free conraceptives to two rural communities, and despite them being poor and the women badly educated and having few rights, birth rates fell dramatically, and this trend endured. This seems to support the idea Peter Cook mentioned that family planning is the key factor in encouraging small families. Of course womens rights and education are important for many reasons and should be encouraged.
-
TVC15 at 16:27 PM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
If in just 7 days, 4-5K people cause the staggering amount of consumption, waste and pollution that was shown in the cruise ship documentary...imagine what 7.7 billion people generate in 30,000 days!
One can't look at those numbers and remain hopeful.
-
TVC15 at 16:14 PM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
I have given up hope as the more I learn about all the many forms of human consumption/destruction the more I realize this situation is so far out of anyone's reach.
I recently watched a documentary highlighting the processes of the cruise ship industry. During a one-week voyage with 4-5K people onboard the massive amount of waste and environmental destruction/pollution was astonishing.
This industry is just one tiny slice of the pie contributing to earths demise.
The more the population grows, the more dire the problem becomes. -
Peter Cook at 13:16 PM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
Dear One Planet Forever
The Lancet scenarios are only one set of projections, and well below the UN projections. It would be unwise to place great reliance on the former, in order to conclude that the population issue is settled.
Without wanting to rehash to detailed arguments in the discussion paper: funding for family planning programs has declined since 1994. There is a misunderstanding by many that economic development and women's education necessarily causes reduced birthrates. In fact, the evidence supports the view that the causal relationship is often the other way round: availability and funding of family planning programs (and promotion of smaller family norms) causes economic development and women's education. The evidence is presented in detail in the discussion paper.
The question of timing in relation to the effectiveness of population measures, is also discussed in detail in the discussion paper. Sure, in the short term we must be reducing per capita emissions in rich countries. In longer term (mid- to late- century), population size will make a big difference to mitigation and adaptation.
As we point out in the paper, only models using the low population versions of the IPCC's ‘shared socioeconomic pathways’ (SSP) can prevent >2°C warming.
I understand that some may find these conclusions challenging, when they may have thought population 'settled' and would have preferred to avoid some difficult conversations. All I can do is to invite people to read this discussion paper. Happy to hear feedback and comments.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:35 PM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
Building on, and responding to, Peter Cook's comment @7,
A relevant related report is the following which was published in the Lancet on October of 2020 "Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: ..."
The report essentially presents the case that the population problem has been understood for a while now. And the report presents in detail how the population problem is being effectively dealt with, unlike the climate change impacts of the highest impacting portion of the global population.
The expected peak global population is less than 10 billion, and it is expected to be reached in the 2060s. Also, and more importantly, the report acknowledges that the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (established in 2015), will reduce the peak global population.
The highest impacting portion of the global population (primarily composed of Australians, Canadians and Americans along with a significant portion of the richer people in other nations like India and China) has not collectively responsibly responded through the past 30 years.
So this new report may help, but it is a little late to the game. I have not read it yet. I look forward to seeing if it refers to the above well established understanding about the successes to date on population limits and the importance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (which means global pursuit of leadership objectives like the USA Green New Deal, but more comprehensive than the Green New Deal). I will be particularly interested in seeing if it effectively identifies the problem as 'the highest consuming and highest impacting portion of the population'.
-
Peter Cook at 11:58 AM on 2 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
It is good to see this post acknowledge the importance of population growth. Professor Ian Lowe and colleagues have just released a discussion paper, commissioned by Sustainable Population Australia, about the urgent need to bring an end to population growth, as an essential part of an integrated strategy for climate mitigation and adaption. As this report says, "The sooner we end population growth, and at a lower global peak, the better for climate mitigation and adaptation.... Population stabilisation alone can’t solve climate change, but ignoring population will ensure we fail."
I urge everyone to read this paper, which is argued in-depth and with the latest evidence, before coming to judgement. For too long there has been a 'population denial'. Full version of the paper here (PDF).
-
Evan at 17:37 PM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
OPOF and Nigelj, thanks for your input. I am not hopeful about NET systems counteracting our full GHG emissions. But, even if we are successful replacing fossil-fueled energy production with renewable energy production, there will remain baseline GHG production that is largely related to agriculture. That will have to be offet by using NET. And as the global population grows, NET systems will also have to grow to keep up with the continued population growth.
When writing these posts, however, I am trying to keep my feelings out of the writing as much as possible, and simply present the challenge that faces us. Getting to net zero will likely be much more challenging than most people realize, partly because we are growing at the same time we are trying to reduce GHG emissions.
OPOF I changed the post to explicitly use days, as you suggested, instead of rounding off to years. Reader feedback is always welcome. :-)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:19 PM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
nigelj @4 brings up a very good point about the legitimacy of expecting that the future generations will develop the ability to undo the harm that is being done. That is as disingenuous as expecting the future generations to be able to adapt to whatever climate changes end up being imposed on them.
The latest IPCC report is reported on in the BBC item "Climate change: IPCC report warns of ‘irreversible’ impacts of global warming"
That report indicates that 1.5C, not 2.0C, needs to be the understood target of maximum impacts ... to be fair to future generations.
The lack of effort and sacrifice to limit the harm done through the past 30 years has already caused levels of impact that, to be fair to future generations and the already harmed members of the current generation, require those who are 'more fortunate because of fossil fuel use and other actions that have impacted climate change' to give up the harmfully obtained perceptions of grandeur and extravagance of the lives that the 'supposedly more advanced' people live. That will limit the magnitude of the created problem and set sustainable objectives for less fortunate people to aspire to develop towards.
And the current generation also owes the future generations and others already harmed reparations, including starting the actions that draw-down the harm already done even if those actions cost a lot for very little being accomplished, and only implement draw-down technology that does not produce other harm as it attempts to reduce a harm. A new technological solution for a 'technology-use problem' must not be a new problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:06 PM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
Evan @2,
In addition clarifying that the evaluation is a compound rate, it may be better to say that:
The 30,000 days are used up on the 574th day. And the rate of living is almost 300 days per day on that last day.
-
nigelj at 12:32 PM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
Reading Evans article I recalled this:
"The world’s biggest carbon-removal plant just opened. In a year, it’ll negate just 3 seconds’ worth of global emissions....Put another way, Kalmus told Insider, “at any given moment, it will capture one 10-millionth of humanity’s current emissions. ”
www.businessinsider.com.au/carbon-capture-storage-expensive-climate-change-2021-9?r=US&IR=T
This doesn't look very promising even if efficiency improves. You would obviously need considerable reliance on other technologies as well. There are other negative emissions technologies like enhanced rock weathering, planting trees, BECCS and regenerative agriculture, and a combination looks feasible to me and reduces pressure on planetary mineral resources. I believe it could be done in theory if the motivation is there. The operative word is "if".
-
blaisct at 12:08 PM on 1 March 2022It's albedo
Rodger @128
Once again thanks for your input and patience. My objective in these three cases was to show the difference in air quality (temp and RH) of possible man-made land changes. These air changes are related to the cloud ceiling.
Sorry for the errors. I do not do a good job going from my excel sheet to this format. I should have shown the before water step in case 1, and I did copy the results of case 1 wrong.
To correctly compare these cases a base case enthalpy change must be picked based on real world data that represents the middle part of the earth with the sun shining. I have made lots of temp vs RH plots and came up with 8 kJ/kg(da) as a good average change in enthalpy. The same data shows that adding 2g/kg dry air was typical of tropical conditions.
The short cut you suggested is ok as long as it crosses the 18g/kg water line and the 74kJ/kg(da) (66+8) line simultaneously. The two albedo cases are ether side of the 8kJ/kg base case at 6.4 kJ/kg and 9.7kJ/kg. I corrected the cases to include the case 1 with out water added and the enthalpy difference for each case. All cases start at the same 25’C and 80%RH.
Cloud ceiling (m) = (ground temp. – ground dew point)/2.6 *1000*0.3084
I hope all the errors are out of these cases and we can discuss the conclusions.
1. These simple cases show that the beginning (event 1) of the LHAC theory in @121is valid in that land changes that result in lower available moisture will produce higher temperatures and lower RH air even if the albedo is increased.
2. This higher temperature lower humidity air is correlated to cloud ceiling.
Base case water added: typical rain forest (other vegetation or water sources would have less water added)
Base case no water: Just to show what the rain forest would look like without water added. Note same enthalpy change and same dew point of all the other cases.
Low albedo: intended to simulate a UHI.
High albedo: intended to simulate the rain forest conversion in Amazonia.
Summary of these cases:
Base case water added: 8kJ/kg(da), 27.9’C, 75.5% RH, 23.3 dew point calculating 561 m ceiling
Base case no water: 8kJ/kg(da), 32.5’C, 52.0% RH, 21.4’C dew point calculating 1318 m ceiling
Low albedo: 9,7kJ/kg(da), 33.4’C, 47.0% RH, 21.4’C dew point calculating 1543 m ceiling
High albedo: 6.7kJ/kg(da), 31.5’C, 55.5% RH, 21.4’C dew point calculating 1171 m ceiling
Cloud ceiling and cloud cover should have a negative correlation? This exercise also suggests that the LHAC theory is more related to cloud prevention than destruction. The real-world origins of the ceiling correlation to temp and dew point suggest the plume of hot low RH air reaches high into the atmosphere supporting the model in Figure 3 @121.
Comments on how big (% of earth’s surface) this effect is? See event 2 calculation @121. I get 7.8% of the earth surface that could be affected by hot low RH air to some degree. Figure 2 @121 show a decreasing RH over time, suggesting low RH air is being produce. -
Bob Loblaw at 11:13 AM on 1 March 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
alonerock:
That seems to be a zombie myth resulting from a search-and-replace on the old canard that CFCs cannot reach the stratosphere because they are "heavier than air". As in all good zombie myths, there is a tiny smidgeon of truth to the idea that heavy gases settle at the bottom - c.f. the risks of toxic gases in enclosed spaces. The trick in enclosed spaces is that air does not circulate.
As scaddenp points out, turbulent mixing is so common in the atmosphere that nearly all non-reactive gases are largely uniformly mixed. After all, N2 is lighter than O2, and yet we do not see those concentrations change with height. If the O2 all settled to the bottom of the atmosphere, fire hazards would be extremely high.
And the Mauna Loa CO2 observations are at an altitude of about 3400m above sea level - yet are much the same as those at much lower altitudes.
Google Scholar will provide lots of papers with measurements of vertical profiles if you search for "atmospheric CO2 concentrations vertical profile".
-
scaddenp at 10:37 AM on 1 March 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
alonerock - the amazing confidence of the ignorant continues to surprize. Gases are well-mixed by kinetic motions of molecules. This is demostration that is usually done at high school. (Bromine being much heavier than CO2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLPBnhOCjM
Of course, you could also measure the vertical concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere if you want to deny the kinetic theory of gases. Not hard to find. eg https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf
-
Eclectic at 09:22 AM on 1 March 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Fair enough , BL , on the deletion. There was (IMO) some amusement value in the lame excuses and schoolyard argumentation from the good Santalives.
The real danger of his tonto antics, is that the SkS readers might relax into smug superiority feelings, on seeing his low-quality nonsense.
In the earlier years of SkS , there were a handful of high-quality trolls ~ capable of half-skilful dissimulation (of intentions) , and capable of some subtlety of argument [ultimately refuted, of course]. These superior ones provided less amusement but more entertainment & intellectual exercise.
Ah, where are the Trolls of Yesteryear ? And is their seeming demise a good sign or a bad sign of the way things are going ?
[ Please delete this post if you feel it is too far Off Topic. ]
Moderator Response:[BL] Let's let that dead horse rest in peace.
-
Evan at 08:55 AM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
OPOF, you are too clever. :-)
It is indeed a compound rate. But 1 day * 1.01^10 = 1.1046 which when rounded down, is 1.10. So the first example comes out about the same whether is grows arithmetically or geometrically. And whether the rate is 232 or 300 after 1.5 years, I hope you agree that the message is the same: growth always leads to catastrophic consumption, emissions, etc.
To get from 232 to 300 days consumed per calendar day at a compounding growth rate of 1% requires just an additional 26 days. The actual number was 1.57 years. Because I did not expect anybody to check my math, I used a convenient, easy to remember number of 1.5 year, instead of writing the nerdy number of 1.57, or rounding up to 1.6.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes. :-)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:09 AM on 1 March 2022The problem of growth in a finite world
The selected topic is an excellent way to present the problem and potential solutions.
I am preparing some thoughts that may improve the presentation. But I need to ask about: "...after 1.5 years we are consuming our lives 300 times faster than on Day 1!"
With the growth rate being simple growth (after 10 days of 1% growth the result is a rate of 1.1000 days per day) after 1.5 years the rate would increase from '1.0 day per day' to '6.47 days per day'.
Using coumpounding increase (each day is 1% more than the day before), which is more like the growth pursued by investors, a compound rate of 1% per day would result in a consumption of life rate of '232 days per day' after 1.5 years.
-
alonerock at 03:51 AM on 1 March 2022Welcome to Skeptical Science
Can anyone please suggest some links or scholarly articles pertaining to the relationship of CO2 density versus air density ? A lady recently stated that CO2 resides near the surface of the Earth due to its greater density and that is why she does not believe in its contribution in climate change. I want to prove her wrong !
I am an expert at biogeochemistry, not atmospheric chemistry, but my undertstanding is that due to air currents, atmospheric gasses are reasonably well mixed ? I recently finished a paper on the damage that Earthworms have established to the forest ecology of Northern New England (former glaciated soils), which includes their contibution tof releasing CO2, if anyone is interested.
-
Steve L at 03:19 AM on 1 March 2022Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1
I still find the "Going down the up escalator" graph to be very useful. In a way, I prefer it to the rebuttal to "It's cooling" climate myth rebuttal. I wish there was a more up-to-date version. In fact, it would be nice to do this and even add citations to the escalator figure (like Svensmark — I had to click his linked name in the rebuttal article to go to the archived WUWT to see that he made the claim of cooling 12 years ago). Is anyone interested in building an automatically updated version? (Out of my league on a technical level, I'm afraid.)
-
JohnSeers at 20:59 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
SantaLives @ 19
"I have read nearly everyone of the Climate Myth and many of the comments. They are less than convincing ..."
Really? You have read nearly all the Climate Myths? They are ALL less than convincing? ALL of them? That comment makes you even less than convincing as you cannot come up with just one point and discuss it sensibly. You are not commenting honestly or in good faith.
Hopefully the Grim Moderator will pay a visit soon.Moderator Response:[BL] Due to his repeated inability to read, understand, and follow the Comments Policy, and his repeated pointless,non-responsive behavior in the discussions, Santalives will no longer be participating here.
-
Eclectic at 19:41 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
MA Rodger @42 ,
Yep, he often is on WUWT, denying Greenhouse Effect. Incorrigible.
-
MA Rodger at 17:53 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Concerning 'The Greenhouse Defect' website.
At the back-end of last year I encontered a commenter at RealClimate calling himself E. Schaffer who linked his presence there to that defective website. E. Schaffer proved to be a proper numpty.
-
Eclectic at 16:03 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @40 . . . er, no ~ I would say that the truth is more important than "reputation for maturity". Think: Galileo . . . who really wasn't trying very hard to win a Miss Congeniality contest. Einstein was a bit of a flake when it comes to treating his first wife. Even Isaac Newton could be a bit of a curmudgeon. Santalives, earnest seekers of the truth ~ such as yourself ~ should never seek to deflect the scientific argument by means of Tone Policing. Wokeness is not welcome at SkS.
AFAICT , the SkS site here is educational ~ in providing a huge source of excellent & well-organized scientific information (and links) for your convenience. And a pathway for self-education. Especially via the Most Used Climate Myths ~ a really excellent section. But you have to do the lion's share of work yourself. For it is a shoe-string organization, run by a small number of volunteers. There's not a "boiler room" full of staff eager & willing to spend countless hours spoonfeeding you. Sorry.
Did you really think all the angry nutters at WUWT or other denialist sites, could be educated on science? No, they don't want to be.
SkS is for normal people who are interested in learning about climate ~ an important and interesting subject.
-
Santalives at 15:32 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Eclectic 39. I agree A insulting B does not means A arguments are automatically wrong but it does call into question A's maturity which diminishes A in the eye of the reader.
But the topic ot hand you say to rebutte articles like this the-holy-grail-of-ecs is too time consuming, lifes too short. But I would have thought isn't that one of the key purpose of the site. If noneone is taking on the people writing these articles then they have the field to themselves. It was one of the main reasons I came to this site.
Moderator Response:[BL] Another substance-free pointless comment deleted.
-
Eclectic at 14:32 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Thanks, Santalives @38 , though the name of the author/s at the greenhousedefect blogsite is irrelevant to his argument ~ just as my borderline-insulting description of him is likewise irrelevant. ~Because none of us would take the schoolyard attitude that: if A insults or hurts the feelings of B , then A's arguments are automatically wrong. None of us would wish to act like a radical woke snowflake Leftie . . . as I'm sure you will agree !
So what are the connections between the widely-condemned Coe et al., paper? ( But let me first point out that Coe is a regular in the comments columns at WUWT so in effect, WUWT is featuring an "inside job".) Quite simply, both state the planetary ECS is negligible. Despite a mountain of evidence that they're wrong. Not that this ever bothers Denialists ~ they simply close their eyes and say: What forest of evidence, what mountain?
And what is so wrong about the numptiness of greenhousedefect ? Reply is : How long have you got? But I won't tire the readers here, by going into all the details. For to quote the sainted Rud Istvan (at WUWT ) who, when pressed for detailed analysis of the problems of the Coe paper, said: "Life is too short to sort that out." [unquote]
Let me just say: the greenhousedefect author's biggest mistake is that, like Spinoza, he simply creates definitions to suit himself. I see that his brain is shying away from examining the empirical data ~ the physical evidence of the bleeding-obvious GHE. It's a marvel of convoluted rhetorical thinking, where he seeks to fool himself.
. . . and Robin Hood he ain't, when it comes to archery. By choice !
-
Santalives at 13:43 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Eclectic 37. I would be interested in you coments on that site as I only stumbled across it recently. Have read a few articles which seem very plausible and written in a first person style. But there is no info on the author or I suspect multiple authors as some writing style changes mid article.
This is still fun, but it's a bit like going on a date and your mum comes along as Chaperone.
Moderator Response:[BL] We are no longer interested in hearing what you have to say.
-
Eclectic at 13:25 PM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @36 . . . it is a marvel how you are magnetically attracted to the Numpties, time and again.
Really, Santalives, you wish to back up the Numpty paper by Coe et al., by appealing to the authority of the even bigger Numpty at the greenhousedefect.com blogsite? (As linked at the now-deleted part of your #36. ) The same gh-defective site which states: "It is impossible to produce an ECS beyond 0.5K ."
Granted, the gh-defective author sounds like his IQ is higher than Coe's above-average IQ. But what use is intelligence if it is not used rationally? So many of these prominent denialists (even Nobel Laureates) are like insane medieval longbowmen. They have a good bow, a good arrow, and a strong arm. But their emotional bias & motivated reasoning cause them to turn their bow & arrow 20 degrees to one side of the target. That's why they score Zero in the scientific field of climate. Santalives, it is a pity you don't wish to recognize that.
[ After coffee ~ more on the greenhousedefect site . . . as I hope the Moderator will regard that as informative for readers who have never encountered that blogsite. ]
-
Santalives at 11:06 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
MA Rodger @31. Thanks for your response I thinks it the first time somone has actually refuted the science. But really name calling the authors numpties. I am an average guy reading these posts (like lots of others) trying to understand the issues, but will generally dismiss comments that start name calling. Anyway I went over to wuwt which is having a lively debate and would warn anyone there is a very wide(weird) degree of views. But one of the last posts refutes the article also but say the result is still bascially correct, the basis for tha; greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/a-total-synthesis-the-ecs-estimate
The scope of this article is to outline how consensus assumptions violate logical restrictions and produce impossible outcomes. Whether an ECS of about 0.45K could somehow fit an extended “consensus range”, if something like it even exists, is not the question. Rather this estimate is based on the very same foundations the orthodoxy uses. The only difference is in the elimination of logical mistakes. And these mistakes are undeniable.
Moderator Response:[BL] No, it isn't. You just aren't listening. And you are not actually responding in any manner that suggests you understand or read the response in any detail.
Sections that complain about others,and refer to other blogs without actually responding to comments posted here, deleted.
-
MA Rodger at 07:51 AM on 28 February 2022It's albedo
blaisct @127,
I'm not sure this interchange is going anywhere. You are not noting the obvious errors in these numbers you are throwing around and if they were corrected I don't see any relevance to the climate change occuring, either globally or regionally.
On the errors thing, do note that your numbers from the Free Online Interactive Psychrometric Chart are wrong. Consider simplifying the process you are trying to represent. This is not some reversable process so all that matters is the start & end points, not the route between.
Thus if you choose to start at 25°C & RH=80%, you can add the SH from 16g/kg to 18g/kg (that is 11% increase not 22%) giving RH rising to 89.4% & Enthalpy increasing from 66kJ/kg to 71kJ/kg.
Now if you add further energy through warming with SH fixed at 18kJ/kg, the enthalpy will rise and the RH will drop with that warming.
So your Case 3 with an endpoint of 72.3kJ/kg gives a temperature increased from +25°C to +26.2°C & RH drops to 83.6%.
Your Case 1 with an endpoint of 74kJ/kg gives a temperature increase to +28°C & RH dropping to 75.5%.
And your Case 2 with reduced albedo giving additional warming to +9.7kJ/kg from the same start conditions yields an endpoint of +29.3°C & RH dropping to 69.7%.But these are just numbers. I don't see them relating to what we see of the real world climate change.
-
nigelj at 06:15 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
MAR @31, thanks for going to that effort. It's interesing and your comments generally look right to me. The paper looks suspicious straight away because we have already had considerably more warming than their calculations suggest we should have had. However could you (or anyone else) perhaps explain in simpler laypersons terms why the n factor is flawed. If you have a spare moment.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 05:56 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
I thought that n factor looked funny.
I also thought that the publication looked suspicious. This is not a paper that I would ever had paid attention to, regardless of what it said.
Explanation: After following this so-called debate for 20 years, digging in the "skeptics" (a qualificative they truly don't deserve) arguments and examining what is actually in the science litterature to the best extent of my abilities, I reached the conclusion that the weight of the scientific evidence points, without contest, to CO2 caused anthropogenic warming.
However, that does not exonerate me from being critical toward any piece of information. If something as dubious, as low quality, poorly thought out as Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb came along in a publication with all the hallmarks of a pseudo-journal, but with a conclusion reinforcing the one I already reached, I would dismiss it as junk because, well, it is.
That is what being skeptical consists of.
I'm having serious doubts that Santalives is putting forth a sincere effort to evaluate information.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:07 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
In my comment @32, there is an unstated, but undeniable, link to understanding the harm of rapid climate changes due to human activity.
Structures are designed to safely resist expected climate conditions. If those climate conditions (such as wind speed, snow load, rain accumulation on roofs) change rapidly before the end of use of what has been built they can harmfully change the performance requirements, increasing the chance of a harmful outcome of items that were developed without consideration of the changed performance requirements.
And developments that would be affected by sea level rise are also a concern 'from a Civil Engineer's perspective' of things like roads and sewers and surface run-off management, and concern a structural engineer if the higher water levels compromise the performance of the foundation.
However, a more significant concern for harm done is likely the changes of climate conditions affecting developed regional agricultural practices. There are no guarantees that developed agriculture can adapt to climate changes. And growing conditions shifted to new regions can be very harmful to regional developed societies.
And that leads to understanding the additional concerns for the harm of unsustainable industrial agricultural practices like heavy fertilizer and pesticide use, or reduced genetic diversity in agriculture. And deforestation and heavy use of fossil fuels in industrial agriculture development has the added harm of climate change impacts.
And there is so much more 'developed activity' that is harmful and unsustainable, all excused by misleading marketing that promotes the popularity of harmful unsustainable pursuits of benefit in the short-term.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:48 AM on 28 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives,
It is possible that you have become one of the many unwitting victims of harmful misleading marketers. The following may help.
I am an engineer. I learned to have the fundamental ethic of "pursuing increased awareness and improved understanding and applying what I learn to limit harm done and help develop lasting improvements for Others". But I have also learned that my work as a Civil Engineer, particularly my Structural Engineering work, divisively sets me apart from other Appliers of Science, especially the appliers of marketing science. My work powerfully motivates me to have that fundamental ethic govern over pursuit of popularity or profit. If I do not govern what I do that way "People will be far more likely to Die".
I also have an MBA. So I understand the powerful motivation Others can develop. They will be powerfully tempted to allow pursuit of personal benefit (like popularity or profit) to govern over 'concerns to limit harm done or develop lasting improvements for Others'.
As a Structural Engineer if I learn that an existing development is harmful or unsafe I am ethically obliged to push to have the use of the existing development be stopped until it can be made to be safe. Others who benefit from the risky harmful developments will resist the required corrections, because they do not want to suffer the loss of personal benefit that is associated with being governed to have safer, less harmful, developments.
Many developed societies, especially the western capitalist ones (but certainly not exclusively western capitalist ones), can be understood to harmfully allow misleading marketing in pursuit of popularity or profit to govern over concerns for limiting harm done or compromise the understanding of what is required to limit harm done and develop lasting improvements.
Misleading marketing is a powerful "Applied Science". And it is likely that you have, like so many others, developed your thinking, learned, while immersed in the influence of misleading marketing. I even notice other engineers who have been motivated away from governing their thoughts and actions base on limiting harm done and developing lasting improvements. The temptation to acquire more personal status relative to others is very powerful. And misleading marketers prey on that human vulnerability by producing and disseminating harmful misunderstandings that will be very tempting.
Becoming aware of the temptation to be harmfully misled is an important first step. The next step is to learn to change your mind for Good Reason (to be less harmful and more helpful) so that you are less likely to be tempted to be harmfully misled by messages that appeal to your 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs'. If I, or any other structural engineer, were to design structures based on 'gut instinct' or 'developed personal preferred beliefs' the results would likely be disastrous.
I hope helps you appreciate the ways that others here have been trying to help you.
-
MA Rodger at 22:43 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @28,
You now present a third pile of nonsense here at SkS. At least you show a level of consistency. Coe et al (2021) 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' is as ridiculous as the other two you presented.Coe et al (2012) claims that it addresses the issue of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which, as is well known, has not been well-nailed-down by science for four decades now. So it would be quite a feat if there was even a smidgeon of promise in this paper to some contribution to the asssessment of ECS.
I could set out why this is an entirely non-scientific paper that well deserves its place in the trash can but in your ignorance you would likely see this as "one side" being disrespectful to "the other side".So instead let me address what these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing that is so badly wrong.
The crux of the ignorance presented within Coe et al (2012) begins to congeal in their Section 1.4. Here they derive entirely on their own** a value called “n” the “energy retention factor” given "a" the "atmospheric absorptivity" (or the proportion of surface radiation gets to space through a clear atmosphere. By using HITRAN to derive "a" (the calculated percentage of surface radiation that reaches space through that clear atmosphere), they derive "n" by balancing "a" against the radiation that has to reach space to balance the incoming solar warming.
The process they use runs as follows.
(**Note the one citation presented by the numpties for this grand work, Wilson & Gea-Banacloche [2012], is a total misrepresentation.)If a black body of 288K (representing the surface temperature) was in equilibrium with today's absorbed solar energy which equates to a 255K black body, they calculate that the energy out into space would be just 61.5% of the 288K black body radiation.
Thus, they derive for today's atmosphere (with a=a0) n.a0 = 38.5% of the surface radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere. However, they also calculate using the grown-up HITRAN database, that the transmission through today's clear atmosphere of such 288K black body radiation would be a0 = 73.0% allowing them to derive in their Section 2.7 a value for "n"; n = 52.7%.
And this incredibly simplistic method allows all the sceintific effort over the last four decades attempting to derive accurate ECS values to be sidestepped. Even the complex impact of clouds on this finding is sweetly side-stepped because, as they tell us in their Section 5.1, clouds are already accounted for in the derivation of "n".And all this is their own work. No supporting evidence. What clever numpties are these Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb.
Of course, there are feedback mechanisms to be negotiated and the numpties calculate (using simplistic assumptins) feedback values for water vapour (+18%) and the wavelength change in the radiation from a warmer world (-5%) with a net result feedback of (1.18 x 0.95 =) +12%.
They then calculate the impact of differing levels of CO2 GHGs on the absorption of surface radiation through a clear atmosphere to calculate direct warming from a doubling of CO2 (400ppm to 800ppm) of +0.45ºC (when the science is irrefutably sure the value is +1.0ºC) and thus with a feedback of +12%, they can derive ECS = +0.5ºC (when the science says +1.5ºC to +4.5ºC).Of course, the GH-effect doesn't work in anything like the manner assumed by Coe et al (2012) so all these numpties Coe, Fabinski & Wiegleb are doing is advertising their own stupidity.
-
BaerbelW at 21:07 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #28
What in this caveat don't you (want to) understand?
"Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt."
Bottom line: The likelihood that the paper is correct is fairly small and it's fair game to point that out, lest some gullible people might fall for it. Some papers might warrant a proper response, others not so much if indicators like those listed point to it not being up to standards.
-
Eclectic at 19:15 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Thanks, BaerbelW @28 , for those "identifiers".
Amusing how Santalives wants a full-genome DNA analysis of "his" paper, even when the average guy (like me) can look at the paper and say :- If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . and lays a great big duck egg . . . then it is a duck. No DNA test needed. ;-)
-
Santalives at 18:49 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Baerbelw @ 27. Thanks for that response as you confirmed my hypothesis that rather there be any attempt at serious rebuttal @19 comments will be to trash the authors, the publication or dismiss it on the grounds its settled science
Moderator Response:[BL] Note that in one of your earliest comments here, you mentioned a paper with "backscatter" in its title, and commented "The experiment is a fairly straight forward test of the physical properties of c02 to produce back scatter radiation.".
To anyone with even a minor undergraduate-level understanding of the physics of CO2 and climate change, the use of the phrase "back-scatter" in this context shows an abysmal knowledge of how the greenhouse effect works in the atmosphere.
In a comment on a climate science blog. it shows a level of ignorance that can be remedied by learning.
On an undergraduate test, it would result a grade of zero on that question.
In a "scientific" publication, it gives an immediate indication that the authors, reviewers (if there really were any) and editor are completely unqualified to to be writing about or publishing anything on CO2 and climate.
Yes, in some cases it is easy to know that a "paper" is rubbish.
-
BaerbelW at 18:10 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
@Santalives #19
We had received an email about the paper you mentioned and sent back the below as an initial reply. It contains some quick hints of what to check when encountering a paper to quickly judge it's credibility (or lack thereof):
Here are a few initial "red flags" about the paper and journal it has been published in - none of which necessarily mean that the content is actually wrong but that it at least needs to be taken with a suitably large grain of salt.
- Science Publishing Group, which publishes the "journal", is on Beall's list which is a collection of potentially predatory journals
- The "journal" doesn't have/show an impact factor
- less than 200 papers have thus far been published in it
- judging by the time line - Received: Aug. 2, 2021; Accepted: Aug. 11, 2021; Published: Aug. 23, 2021 - not much (if any) proper peer review happened
- non of the authors seems to have a background in climate science, two of them are retired from companies
- questionable authors like William Happer and Herman Harde are listed in the references
In addition, the authors appear to have made a common (or perhaps even deliberate?) error in evaluating the total greenhouse effect (which we know is much larger than the observed changes) instead of the change to the greenhouse effect (which is what matters in discussions of climate change).
Hope this helps to put this publication into perspective!
-
Eclectic at 16:47 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @25 , I note that you still haven't played any valid card.
As for the energetic Rud Istvan, you are mistaken. He appears in many threads, often more than once, at WUWT. He doen't need to explain everything, every time over, to you. He often has something sensible to say (in contradistinction to perhaps 85% of the run-of-the-mill WUWT commenters).
True, he's not a scientist nor a climate scientist. He's more the case of an intelligent guy who's allowed himself to be torpedoed by his own emotions that are producing a bunch of motivated reasonings. Sad. But he's always worth reading, because he can come out with some useful information or some contrarian points worthy of consideration (if only briefly ! )
# Yes, Santalives, WUWT is not quite a complete wasteland of cranks, conspiracist nutters, and luny political extremists. It is possible to learn a bit at WUWT ~ but you have to start with a solid knowledge of science, so you can immediately spot the all the garbage and faulty logic and self-delusion which so many WUWT regulars keep recycling day after day and year after year. So, Santalives, it wouldn't be genuinely useful to you in the slightest. Sorry. The WUWT site is a disorganized mess, and a hopeless case for educating the novice.
For myself reading WUWT , I have a quick skim through the Leading Articles (which are mostly a lot of sour grapes, designed to generate clicks). Anything looking like it might be a bit scientific [though mostly these ones are recycled trash] . . . then I skim through the comments columns ~ trying not to read all the nauseating rubbish comments, and I look for the tiny number of regulars' names who might just be worth a consideration. So scanning through is usually only taking a brief time !
Santalives, if you want to educate yourself above the know-nothing level, then you'll need to do the bulk of the heavy lifting yourself. Start at your zero level (where you seem incapable of judging good from bad) and take one step at a time. You cannot expect me or Rud Istvan to spend umpteen hours spoonfeeding you. Especially when you are giving out a strong vibe that you are reluctant to learn . . . and reluctant to accept that anyone (scientist or denialist) knows more than you.
Good luck in improving yourself !
-
Santalives at 14:51 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Eclectic @24. I'm glad Rud Istvan is energetic but maybe he shouldn't being making statements like those quoted above and where he cannot explain himself other than point to other scientists who, he thinks because they are labelled deniers makes his rebuttal valid.
I thought the whole point of sks was to to provide rebuttal to evidence presented not play he said, she said. Simply you said the paper is rubbish, based on what? Are any of the equations wrong?
Moderator Response:[BL] This comment will will be left intact, as others have responded, but note that is violates several aspects of the comments policy, and would have been deleted entirely. Santalives is simply repeating his nonsense over and over again, without responding directly to any previous criticisms.
-
Eclectic at 14:23 PM on 27 February 20222022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
Santalives @23 . . . very droll of you, again. The SkS comments column not being in a logical dated order, is something worthy of the Stephen Colbert show. (Does Stephen have a successor lined up yet?)
And yes, Santalives, you should get a handle and jump right into the tepid . . . er, water . . . at the comments columns of WUWT . You can then tell Rud Istvan (whose level of energy I respect) that he should completely ignore all published papers older than 12 months. Tough about Einstein and all that crew . . . but really, they were so yesterday's fashions. Thumbs up !
Santalives, for a long time here, you have been asked to play a sensible card. So far, all you've played are two Jokers [Koutsoyiannis paper and Coe paper]. I would like to think that's that for now, and you are going to get serious. But I am worried by the multi-deck sized bulge up your left sleeve. ( Is it possible to buy a deck which is all Jokers? ~Probably only at the WUWT shop.)
