When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 11:58:25

The Atlantic Ocean could soon be closed off by a ring of furious volcanoes

BB1izs71.img?w=768&h=511&m=6

kbd512 · 2024-03-17 16:55:39

SpaceNut,

This is the end
Hold your breath and count to ten
Feel the Earth move and then
Hear my heart burst again
For this is the end
I've drowned and dreamt this moment
So overdue, I owe them
Swept away, I'm stolen
Let the sky fall
When it crumbles
We will stand tall
Face it all together

SpaceNut · 2024-07-04 13:33:59

Scientists Study Radical Plan to Artificially Cool the Earth

SpaceNut · 2024-07-06 07:52:14

Inside the University of Chicago’s controversial solar geoengineering initiative

SpaceNut · 2024-08-18 11:38:46

Siberia's growing 'gate to hell' crater sparks climate fears

"gate to hell,"
1. Batagaika crater, Siberian
2. Pluto's gateT, urkey
3. Hellam Township in Pennsylvania, US
4. Turkmenistan (Darvaza crater), China
5. Fengdu, the so-called "ghost city"
6. Kenya, where a "gate to hell" can be found in one of the local national parks (Hells Gate National Park)

kbd512 · 2024-08-18 15:44:46

SpaceNut,

Is there anything at all that doesn't "spark fears" amongst our climate death cult membership?

Will they ever figure out that people who hate other people are dripping poison into their minds?

Void · 2025-02-03 13:27:55

All though my life there seems to have been scare warnings of some kind. It used to be a up and coming ice age.

Then it was acid raid, pollution.

Ozone...............

Climate crisis, change, terror.

I actually think that climate is warming, but that we may catch the problem in time, without having to kill the human race and its technology off.

But, lets roll back to 1989: https://www.bing.com/search?q=movie+mil … 1&hsmssg=0

I am not recommending you watch the movie for free.

The woman from 1000 years in the future has to smoke cigarettes because she is so adapted to pollution.
So, a different fear.

We need to be careful as it appears to me that there is a group of people who want to destroy the industrial system and replace if with poverty stricken surfs ruled by royalty. I as an American am not in favor of that.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-02-03 13:31:51)

Void · 2025-02-06 09:22:34

Nuke the Ocean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxGLOzIB6wg
Quote:

The Haverly Plan: Nuclear Explosions for Large Scale Carbon Sequestration
AnthroFuturism
25.6K subscribers

I suppose if things get really bad.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-02-06 09:23:47)

Void · 2025-03-18 08:31:10

I had wondered if CO2 had been partly Saturated, but this video indicates that it is totally saturated: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … ORM=WRVORC Quote:

The Science They Won’t Tell You: CO₂’s Warming Limit
YouTube
The Heartland Institute
1.5K views
17 hours ago

https://climateataglance.com/
Quote:

Carbon Dioxide Saturation in the Atmosphere
Underlying Science
Image: Global atmospheric CO2 concentration as recorded by NASA’s OCO-2 satellite mission. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech Key Takeaways: Adding more carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere will have virtually no additional…

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Quote:

Latest

Daily CO2

A reminder that our world is pushing the planet's thermostat beyond safe levels of 350 ppm CO2, and that more people are needed to combine our ingenuity and resources to keep the present overshoot brief.
Mar. 17, 2025 427.23 ppm
Mar. 17, 2024 423.96 ppm
1 Year Change 3.27 ppm (0.77%)

That looks like saturation if what was said in the video was true. 400 ppm would be maxed out.

I am eager to be better educated by the greens if they care to make the effort.

Now, I will be reasonable. It may be that the warming is also accumulating heat in the Oceans, and so then a melt of polar and other ice is baked, in. That part I do not have certainty on.

Going into a conspiracy speculation, maybe this whole thing is in part a fraud. If so, who would present the fraud, and why?

It appears that it could be possible that somehow the forces of a fraud have wanted to deindustrialize the peoples of a certain culture. Some deindustrialization happened to our rust belt, to bribe China to leave the Soviet Union as a partner.

And so now then big parts of Europe are now being deindustrialized.

And on top of that there is an obvious effort to colonize and replace the populations of so-called western nations. I have long suspected that shadow figures stimulated WWI and WWII. And now we have the attempted depopulation of Ukraine. Even the attempt to do another World War.

Thank God America has begun to wake up. We need others to wake up as well.

But by my calculations a wakeup of at least parts of the west was somehow in the works of the flow of time. The things I had been suspecting might happen are to some reasonable degree, in evidence.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-18 08:47:24)

GW Johnson · 2025-03-18 18:08:19

The fraud is perpetuated by those whose livelihood comes from selling fossil fuels, which inherently increase CO2 content in the atmosphere.

I do NOT believe there is a "saturation" level of CO2! That notion is a new part of the fraud-for-profit. It has been far higher in the distant past on Earth, and it IS far higher on Venus and on Mars. It was life on Earth that helped pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and deposit it as limestone on the bottoms of the oceans. That effect may have been too small over geologic time on Venus, and it was likely overwhelmed by atmospheric erosion on Mars by the solar wind without a string magnetic field.

I know the right-wing and far-right media will do or say anything to deny climate change, but their motive for that fraud is very simple and easy to understand: short-term profit.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-03-18 18:08:45)

Void · 2025-03-18 18:36:59

Thank You for your help to learn Dr. Johnson.

I do recall though that the severe greenhouse effect of Venus is not just by CO2, but by a broad mixture of substances, each which block a specific wavelength. I think also that in the case of Venus much heat may come from the heat of the planet, not just the sun. The planet itself glows a dim red.

But I will wait to see things about saturation elaborated on proved or disproved.

Ending Pending

Void · 2025-03-21 10:33:43

I am going to chase this around a bit more for the sake of learning. Not to favor or disfavor Carbon burning, or for a political perching, but to attempt to understand better.

There are two major notions I have seen in my searches.
1) Greenhouse warming is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) Each equal unit of the greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere will have reduced warming as a unit of temperature rise.

#1 sounds fishy from the start.
#2 suggests that a saturation can occur, and some sources suggest that it has occurred.

*Saturation of CO2, in this case does not indicate how limited the amount of CO2 that the atmosphere can absorb might be. Both Venus and Mars have CO2 as the dominant gas.

* I think both #1, and #2 consider the surface of the Earth as the reference of what heat is blocked from radiating into space. However, some wavelengths may be absorbed before encountering the ground. And the Surface is not uniform in altitude, so the depth of atmosphere, and total CO2 is not uniform over the Earth, but the surface of the Oceans is the dominant surface. Clouds are a wild card as well, low clouds and high clouds. Water vapor as well is a greenhouse gas.

So, I can say the two things I are established in my mind.
A) I don't believe that warming is proportional to increased amount of CO2.
B) I don't know that the atmosphere is saturated with CO2 yet, but it might be.

The wavelengths that CO2 block are: https://www.bing.com/search?q=what+wave … 4b&pc=DCTS Quote:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) blocks infrared radiation (IR) in the following narrow bands of wavelengths:
nov79.com+3
2.7 micrometers (µM)
4.3 micrometers (µM)
15 micrometers (µM)

So, the sunlight that may penetrate to the surface might then convert to emissions in those wavelengths and so the CO2 may block it from leaving the lower atmosphere.

* I have a concern that the atmosphere not only blocks infrared from radiating into space but blocks some of the sun's infrared wavelengths from penetrating to the ground. We have no calculation that I know of for the light that it blocked from reaching the ground by CO2 and associated secondary effects, water vapor, low clouds, high clouds, so that is beyond my reach at this time. But it is likely that if CO2 has blocking effects from the ground up, if has blocking effects from the sun to the surface.

Here is a claim of non-linear reaction of temperature to CO2 increase: https://www.therightinsight.org/CO2-Sat … hs%20in%20
Here is the claim, quote:

Enlarge
The effect of CO2 in the globe’s atmosphere on global temperature is the result of the absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the surface of the globe toward space. The quantity of radiation emitted by the surface of the globe is finite. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation only in limited portions of the radiation spectrum. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the fraction of the radiation in those portions of the spectrum absorbed by CO2 increases, within the limits of the total radiation emitted in those portions of the spectrum. Therefore, as the CO2 concentration increases, the quantity of radiation available to be absorbed by the next increment of CO2 decreases logarithmically, as shown in the graph below.

Graph Quote: climate242-1%20Heating%20Effect%20of%20CO2.jpg
Further Claims, quote:

AMO physicists William van Wijngaarden and William Happer have recently completed an extremely detailed study of radiation absorption by the principal “greenhouse” gases including water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). Their paper has been released as a preprint entitled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases”. Their research regarding CO2 determined that the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs radiation from the surface of the globe are essentially “saturated”, meaning that the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to absorb virtually all the radiation emitted at the wavelengths in which CO2 absorbs.
This is an extremely important conclusion, since it indicates that emission of additional CO2 into the atmosphere will have little or no effect on global temperatures, confirming the logarithmic relationship shown in the graph above, but based on far more detailed research. The conclusion confirms that there is no climate “crisis” now and that there would be no climate crisis in the future, regardless of the quantity of additional anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The conclusions of this study are obviously inconsistent with the consensed climate science community’s narrative and with the political science narrative of the UN and numerous national governments and NGOs. They would be even less consistent with the revised narrative being prepared for the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and with the projections embodied in the CMIP6 ensemble of climate models.
The authors released the report as a preprint after it was rejected for publication by three peer reviewed journals. These rejections of the work of two renowned scientists recall the efforts of the consensed climate science community to prevent publication of research which does not support the consensus narrative, as revealed in the Climategate emails in 2009 and 2010. It is extremely likely that this research will not be included in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report for the same reason.
It is long since time for the consensed climate science community to transition from defending the narrative to advancing the science. This cannot occur in an atmosphere in which serious scientific research is ignored or worse buried. The consensed climate science community is aware of the weaknesses of its narrative and the public is becoming increasingly aware as well, due to the history of failed predictions of imminent calamity.

* I might say that if you clipped off a portion of the chart, you might be able to try to claim that it is linear, to some extent. But that is like a magic trick.

So, if there is an attempt at deception, who might do it and why?

Coffee pause............

Well, it could be used as a tool for Equity of outcome, not Equality of opportunity.

Within a sort of national assembly, you could find "Judas Goats" who might betray the people they supposedly belong to as a group, for personal gain.

The USA by accident or talent, (Probably a bit of both), inherited a good position, so, it would be expected that jealousy might motivate others to seek tools to change that equation.

This can manifest in the UN, the British Commonwealth, and other communities.

As a tool for the Left and for other national governments, the de-industrialization of future completion would be sensible hostile tricks.

Well don't get me wrong, I am very much a fan of alternative energy sources including solar, wind, and battery. But I don't think they are mature yet. For instance, they are vulnerable to hail in the case of solar. I suggest considering sun following technology that can also tip the panels to avoid falling hail.

The Alternative Energy cannot mature without practice, so practice makes perfect.

And I have trust issues as concerns leftism, and also anti-colonial excess. That is I believe that the colonial era was a motion from one state of geometry to another per ethnic balances, and that it did need to finish the motion, but I see not productivity in excessively trying to change the geometry back to what it was and consider such efforts to be a waste of time.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-03-21 11:29:08)

Void · 2025-04-04 20:44:10

I am still at a loss to understand if the CO2 can be saturated, what the saturation value would be, or if it is saturated. I still need to find out.

But this showed up. Seems like a nice guy but he (As his voice sounds masculine), speaks in British Science speak, which is far over my head. So, I will have to work on this quite a few times.
But I am very tired. I will listen but not expect to crack the code yet.

But as I am selfish, I can pin it here and review it later: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … 2e67195655
Quote:

Christopher Monckton: “The costliest error in the history of science” | Tom Nelson Pod #291
YouTube
Tom Nelson
117 views
12 hours ago

If anyone wants to translate and render a judgement to give, then please do.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-04-04 20:45:42)

Void · 2025-04-04 21:45:11

Well, I finished the video in the previous post, and I think I understand that for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth will rise 1.8 degrees Kelvin (I presume).

Nobody other than the west is trying to stop the clime in CO2 content, so the west cannot save the world anyway, but the world does not need saving because the planet is not going to overheat.

Donald Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accord as he believes in the projections of this video.

The west is indeed deindustrializing just as its competitors/enemies want it to.

According to the video the entire western grasp of climate change is wrong, but they will fight tooth and nail to suppress this supposed and I think possible truth of the video.

I am willing to be corrected if the above can honestly be corrected.

Ending Pending

If true, if I understand what was said, the 427 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now would have to double in order to raise the temperature 1.8 degrees Kelvin.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-04-05 10:30:39)

Void · 2025-04-05 10:33:17

I have reviewed the video in this post again this morning: https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.ph … 66#p230866

I think I understand it a bit better, even though in all honesty, I do not have the proper mind or training to speak and understand this form of science dialog very well. Even so blunt force repeated reviews may get me closer to competence over time, I expect.

The video seems to have 3 identifiable sections.
1) The first 6 minutes makes the claims.
2) The main body is a very deep dive for me.
3) Starting at 1:00:32 a final conclusion begins.

All I can say is that I plan to review it again.

The main claim, I think is that the calculations done by the Doom Goblins, does not include the input of the sun shining, so then the calculations are amplified too much for warming effects, very much too much.

Also, by the calculations of the Doom Goblins, there is supposed to be a hot spot over the equator, quite a way up i the troposphere, where increasing water vapor should be present. It is not there, and also the Absolute Level of Moisture has gone down, not up.

So, quite suspicious.

I liked Carl Sagan a whole, lot, but when they took a look at Venus, they made some guesses, as to why it is as it is. They supposed the Runaway Greenhouse Effect, but it is also quite possible that Venus started hot and stayed hot. For one thing, the impactors that constructed Venus had much more energy than the impactors that constructed Earth and Mars, so, it may never have been possible for Venus to have liquid surface water.

It is a pity that Carl Sagan, passed away, because I think it is likely that he would have revised his theories about Venus. But he passed and the theory became some sort of religious record which is hard to revise, without him.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-04-05 10:42:19)

kbd512 · 2025-04-06 02:37:39

Void,

Rather than take anyone's word for it, let's do our own research here.

This is Jim Hansen's 1984 research paper (from University of Chicago because NASA's copy is nearly unreadable in some sections):
Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of Feedback Mechanisms, J Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, 1984

This is Pat Frank's 2019 research paper showing how any single error in climate sensitivity magnifies over time:
Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projection, Patrick Frank, 2019

I kinda sorta understood why this was included, for purposes of explaining how input error magnifies over time, but I don't think it's directly relevant. The form of error expressed in Frank's paper would be quite serious if that's what the climate models were actually doing, but they don't appear to function in a way that would make Frank's work relevant to their outputs.

The reliability of general circulation climate model (GCM) global air temperature projections is evaluated for the first time, by way of propagation of model calibration error. An extensive series of demonstrations show that GCM air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of fractional greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing. Linear projections are subject to linear propagation of error. A directly relevant GCM calibration metric is the annual average ±12.1% error in global annual average cloud fraction produced within CMIP5 climate models. This error is strongly pair-wise correlated across models, implying a source in deficient theory. The resulting long-wave cloud forcing (LWCF) error introduces an annual average ±4 Wm−2 uncertainty into the simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux. This annual ±4 Wm−2 simulation uncertainty is ±114 × larger than the annual average ∼0.035 Wm−2 change in tropospheric thermal energy flux produced by increasing GHG forcing since 1979. Tropospheric thermal energy flux is the determinant of global air temperature. Uncertainty in simulated tropospheric thermal energy flux imposes uncertainty on projected air temperature. Propagation of LWCF thermal energy flux error through the historically relevant 1988 projections of GISS Model II scenarios A, B, and C, the IPCC SRES scenarios CCC, B1, A1B, and A2, and the RCP scenarios of the 2013 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, uncovers a ±15 C uncertainty in air temperature at the end of a centennial-scale projection. Analogously large but previously unrecognized uncertainties must therefore exist in all the past and present air temperature projections and hindcasts of even advanced climate models. The unavoidable conclusion is that an anthropogenic air temperature signal cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

The math that Pat Frank produced accurately portrays the magnification of errors over time. He choose to look at the albedo change associated with cloud cover, and propagated the cumulative error over the number of time steps the climate models simulate, with the end result that the temperature error from cloud cover alone results in a temperature uncertainty range of -8C to +16C.

That sort of "baked-in" energy imbalance would become very noticeable, and thakfully is not what the climate models are doing, because they're forced to maintain energy balance at the beginning and end of the simulation runs, but not at every time step, which would produce a wild uncertainty range over enough time steps.

Please read this rebuttal to Frank's work from Roy Spencer:
Additional Comments on the Frank (2019) “Propagation of Error” Paper

Yesterday I posted an extended and critical analysis of Dr. Pat Frank’s recent publication entitled Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections. Dr. Frank graciously provided rebuttals to my points, none of which have changed my mind on the matter. I have made it clear that I don’t trust climate models’ long-term forecasts, but that is for different reasons than Pat provides in his paper.
What follows is the crux of my main problem with the paper, which I have distilled to its essence, below. I have avoided my previous mistake of paraphrasing Pat, and instead I will quote his conclusions verbatim.
In his Conclusions section, Pat states “As noted above, a GCM simulation can be in perfect external energy balance at the TOA while still expressing an incorrect internal climate energy-state.”
This I agree with, and I believe climate modelers have admitted to this as well.
But, he then further states, “LWCF [longwave cloud forcing] calibration error is +/- 144 x larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.”
While I agree with the first sentence, I thoroughly disagree with the second. Together, they represent a non sequitur. All of the models show the effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, despite known errors in components of their energy fluxes (such as clouds)!
Why?
If a model has been forced to be in global energy balance, then energy flux component biases have been cancelled out, as evidenced by the control runs of the various climate models in their LW (longwave infrared) behavior:

Figure 1. Yearly- and global-average longwave infrared energy flux variations at top-of-atmosphere from 10 CMIP5 climate models in the first 100 years of their pre-industrial “control runs”. Data available from https://climexp.knmi.nl/
Importantly, this forced-balancing of the global energy budget is not done at every model time step, or every year, or every 10 years. If that was the case, I would agree with Dr. Frank that the models are useless, and for the reason he gives. Instead, it is done once, for the average behavior of the model over multi-century pre-industrial control runs, like those in Fig. 1.
The ~20 different models from around the world cover a WIDE variety of errors in the component energy fluxes, as Dr. Frank shows in his paper, yet they all basically behave the same in their temperature projections for the same (1) climate sensitivity and (2) rate of ocean heat uptake in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Thus, the models themselves demonstrate that their global warming forecasts do not depend upon those bias errors in the components of the energy fluxes (such as global cloud cover) as claimed by Dr. Frank (above).
That’s partly why different modeling groups around the world build their own climate models: so they can test the impact of different assumptions on the models’ temperature forecasts.
Statistical modelling assumptions and error analysis do not change this fact. A climate model (like a weather forecast model) has time-dependent differential equations covering dynamics, thermodynamics, radiation, and energy conversion processes. There are physical constraints in these models that lead to internally compensating behaviors. There is no way to represent this behavior with a simple statistical analysis.
Again, I am not defending current climate models’ projections of future temperatures. I’m saying that errors in those projections are not due to what Dr. Frank has presented. They are primarily due to the processes controlling climate sensitivity (and the rate of ocean heat uptake). And climate sensitivity, in turn, is a function of (for example) how clouds change with warming, and apparently not a function of errors in a particular model’s average cloud amount, as Dr. Frank claims.
The similar behavior of the wide variety of different models with differing errors is proof of that. They all respond to increasing greenhouse gases, contrary to the claims of the paper.
The above represents the crux of my main objection to Dr. Frank’s paper. I have quoted his conclusions, and explained why I disagree. If he wishes to dispute my reasoning, I would request that he, in turn, quote what I have said above and why he disagrees with me.

The rest of the "good to know" info detracts from Monckton's main point about correction application of the operations and units associated with a closed-loop dynamic control system algorithm, which if you look at the paper Jim Hansen published in 1984 (and he directly references Bode's 1945 publication, so it's pretty clear how the feedbacks are being treated, and he explicitly states how he's using that work to represent the temperature feedback mechanism in his paper), which does appear to be missing something. The diagram from Schlessinger's supporting paper in 1988 is definitely wrong.

The control system loop diagrams and equations from the various papers mentioned, from the 1980s to the present day, do appear to muck up either the units or do something weird with the control algorithm itself. That's easy to do, though. I had trouble understanding op-amp feedback circuits when I first learned about them as a child while reading about and then building radios. My father bought a series of books for me about basic electronics and radio theory. I then spent the next several years struggling to learn the collegiate level math presented in them. My mother was able to help, because she was a computer scientist who completed course work with a very heavy emphasis on math, which she actually had to use professionally.

My own conclusion about this is that both sides are trying way too hard to "debunk" the other, and both are failing to address real methodological issues. I would hope that climate scientists with billions of dollars on tap would have access to electrical engineering and mathematics experts who could easily spot such errors and correct them.

Monckton showed his math and it doesn't appear to mangle the units or operations, which is great, but not the experimental results from the electronic control system analog he had built, that our climate models are supposedly based upon, so what I would like to see to settle this matter is to play the climate models forward for a thousand years to see if all of them veer off towards a thermodynamic impossibility. If they do, then regardless of Spencer's point about energy balance being enforced at the start and end of the simulations, the models are still wrong, and the algorithm representing the feedback mechanisms need to be corrected.

I've asked my father to contact his brother about this to ask some pointed questions about what Monckton is pointing out. My uncle teaches stats at University of Texas, and has done so for longer than I've been alive. This is his last year, and then he's retiring. He has expertise in development of mathematical models for dynamic control systems.

I want to get my hands on a copy of the paper Monckton's group published on their electronic temperature feedback apparatus.

It's going to take some time to go through the rest of the papers he referenced.

I have a hard time believing that nobody else found such errors, but stranger things have happened when ideology is involved.

Void · 2025-04-06 04:54:13

Your work and interest in this is appreciated by me kdb512.

In the meantime, I like to try to find ways to do idiot or sanity checks.

My objective here is not get into a fight with the Pope of the Doom Goblins, rather to seek truth. In some ways at this time, it seems to appear that it does not matter so much what we discover, because the means to modify the outcome are limited. So, then knowing may provide better hopes of adaptation to future circumstances.

From the video with Christopher Monckton I have extracted the idea that a doubling of the present CO2 would raise the Earth's temperature 1.8 degrees Kelvin.

I searched and found an article about CO2 saturation, and it seems to produce a number of 1% rise in temperature for a doubling of CO2. So, that might be about 3 degrees Kelvin. So, not too far off.

Interestingly just before finding the article which I will provide, a search claimed, that CO2 effects are proportional to temperature rise. 10 parts per million would raise the temperature a set amount for each increase of 10 parts per million. I did not like that claim, because it does not make sense to me. But then I found this: https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog … warming-74 Quote:

f it [a scientific hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG." – Physics Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman
How Near-Saturation of CO2 Limits Future Global Warming
April 05, 2021

Quote:

For CO2, doubling its concentration from its 2015 level of 400 ppm (parts per million) to 800 ppm will increase its radiative forcing by just 1%. This increase in forcing will decrease the cooling radiation emitted to space by about 3 watts per square meter, out of a total of about 300 watts per square meter currently radiated to space.

I think it is very possible that the 1.8 degrees Kelvin and the 1% of the two methods, are apples to organges, so care needs to be added to the idea of certainty.

But now, as a sanity check, it should be possible to put a satellite into orbit to measure what is radiating off of the Earth in the wavelengths that CO2 and water vapor block. The greatest blockage should be over the Caspian Sea, perhaps, and then the Oceans, and then as the atmosphere thins over continents an uplands, a greater amount of radiation of those wavelengths should get through.

So, it seems to me that that measurement would be very valuable to tell, if blockage is near maximum.

Ending Pending

Looking forward to any light you can cast on the topic.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-04-06 05:10:01)

Void · 2025-04-11 11:54:49

OK, so I have some mischief in mind today.

I have been in association with Metrology, in my working life, not actually a Metrologist, but I encountered it enough to understand a fair amount of it. So, measurements matter.

So far as far as climate goes temperatures are measured, CO2 PPM are measured, and projections are made on the basis of obscure formulas. I suspect that the more complex the formulas are the more magic they contain.

We have to deal with potential Magicians, and also mobs, incited by Doom Goblins. While some of this could be response to truth, some may be hysteria, and some may have deception rolled into the process for political or economic or power gain.

As a low-level associate of Metrology, I would prefer to have measurements with hard data. I have realized that satellites, orbiting the Earth should be able to monitor the Electromagnetic Emissions of the Earth.

I will try to use the word Emissivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity
(The following materials are to be attributed to the authors in the above article)
Image Quote:
Quote:

A typical spectrum of infrared radiation transmittance through Earth's atmosphere. A 'window' can be seen between 8 and 14 μm that enables direct transmission of the most intense thermal emissions from Earth's surface. The remaining portion of the upwelling energy, as well as downwelling radiation back to the surface, undergoes absorption and emission by the various atmospheric components as indicated.

So, if I understand the above, CO2 has many potential windows, that it can block. And it appears that many of the windows are at saturation. Correct me if I am wrong.

If that is how it is then it is correct to say that CO2 is saturated in several cases but not all cases.

Well, that helps me to find peace quite a bit.

But by monitoring the Earth from space, then multiple factors can be included such as clouds of various kinds and water vapor and I suppose Methane, two other greenhouse gasses.

So, this should be the way to determine how well the Earth is shedding or accumulating heat.

Can there be a thing like "Edge Leakage"? That would be as you heat up a location like a hot spot in a city, while the CO2 may be holding heat in, the longer wavelengths increase in amount and so may leak at a faster rate through the existing windows?

Obviously I am struggling to understand, so forgive me or teach me, whatever suits you.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-04-11 12:20:57)

kbd512 · 2025-04-11 16:43:51

Void,

Apart from the fact that more CO2 absolutely will increase warming, the extent to which further increases in atmospheric CO2 levels will increase temperature appears to be greatly exaggerated for ideological reasons. If there's no "global crisis", then there's no funding for the people studying it. The political left of the western world created an entire industry built around terrifying their religious faithful over the weather. They ran out of real issues to fight against. Our stocks of true racists and dictators have largely been depleted. The number will never be actual zero, but virtually all of the racism was a product of leftism, assuming you accept that radical leftists want dictatorship (maximal government control over individuals) and radical rightists want anarchy (maximal individual freedom). All the traditional humanity-centric issues the left historically championed have been accepted as normative by the majority of society, with the possible exception of transgenderism, simply because it forces people to play a game of pretend which is obviously false. I suppose the climate change religion a kind of genius, but not the kind that will ever unite people in common cause. There is no such thing as a large over-arching problem that leads to broad consensus and cooperation.

The people peddling thermodynamic runaway are doomsday cultists, plain and simple. Their mindset is no different at all from the people who build bunkers, collect dozens of guns, and buy buckets of freeze dried food. Whereas the "guns and butter" doomsday preppers only spend their own money on such things, our doomsday scientologists spend everybody else's money pursuing their wildly contorted interpretation of reality. I'm okay with people spending as much of their own money on their apocalypse fantasies as they can afford, but if they want to spend my money, I draw that line at thermodynamic impossibility. We can spend money on nukes so that nuking us means whomever launches also gets nuked. Whether that's totally nuts or not, it's worked for 75+ years. Everyone who has nukes seems to understand why you have them but never willingly use them. We can maintain a conventional military to deter foreign invasion of America and our allies, although I think our military spending is already beyond what is reasonable and necessary. We've accumulated too many techno-gadgets, but training and raw numbers have been neglected in absurd ways. We've spent far too much on capabilities that we don't require. Wars between roughly equal peers are won or lost on the basis of local numerical superiority and firepower, and they always have been. We should maintain basic social safety net programs to ensure that our people don't starve in the streets when they get old or injured. We shall not use public money to meddle in the internal politics of other nations, nor to spread any kind of ideology, regardless of intent or tenets. We shall not use public money for political purposes. We shall not use public money to make rich people richer.

For starters, a thermal runaway is a thermodynamic impossibility. If such a thing were ever possible, then it would've happened long ago, and there would be no life on Earth as a result. Since that clearly never happened, even when atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 8,000ppm, these cultists have no argument with a scientific basis. More to the point, the universe as it exists today would never have existed. Any thermodynamic forcing function that don't have an associated negative feedback loop is destined to result in a thermal runaway, and since no part of the observable universe operates that way, we can safely conclude that such a runaway process is impossible in a far less extreme environments found on Earth. Venus is so hot because it's 50% closer to the Sun and its sea level atmospheric pressure is 93X greater than Earth. If the entire Venusian atmosphere was Nitrogen vs CO2, but surface atmospheric pressure was still 93X greater than it is here on Earth, then the surface temperatures would be almost as hot as they are with nearly pure CO2.

How do I know for a fact that a thermal runaway is impossible?:
Temperature-Pressure Profiles for Solar System Planets with Thick Atmospheres

The Venusian atmosphere is nearly pure CO2. At the same atmospheric pressure of 1bar (Earth sea level), temperature rise on Venus is 50K, or 90F. That's the temperature rise on Venus at 1bar of atmospheric pressure and a nearly-pure CO2 atmosphere, given an average TSI value of 2,601.3W/m^2 for Venus at Top-of-Atmosphere (ToA) vs 1,361W/m^2 for Earth at ToA. If you notice, the temperature-pressure profiles for all planets look remarkably similar, despite having very different atmospheric compositions. Proximity to the Sun is the greatest determining factor of temperature at 1bar of pressure. If Earth's atmospheric composition was the same as it is for Venus, in which case no Oxygen-breathing animals would survive, then we would expect a maximum surface temperature rise of 47F purely attributable to a CO2 atmosphere. We also have liquid water oceans that change the surface albedo. Earth utterly lacks enough Carbon to produce that much CO2, so I won't lose any sleep over this.

If Earth were at Venus's distance from the sun, its average surface temperature would be significantly higher, around 440°F (227°C), according to Astronomy Magazine. This is because Earth would receive nearly twice as much solar energy as it currently does.
...
The Earth's average surface temperature is roughly 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit). This temperature is a global average, taking into account the wide range of temperatures across different regions and seasons.

What actually "controls" Earth's cimate?

Earth's distance from the Sun, quite obviously. 1.9X great solar insolation increases average surface temperature from 57F to 440F.

The politicians and activists are opportunists of the worst variety- people who prey upon the ignorance of the average person to coerce them into buying pointless things to "solve" a problem they have no hope of solving, first because they have no way of even measuring the results of the purported solutions, second because their solutions never actually replace what we presently use for energy. This is downright silly to anyone who is not a member of the death cult. That behavior is what lead people such as myself to initially discount that the effect was even real. Josh changed my thinking on this after pointing me in the right direction. The warming effect of CO2 is quite real, but so small that the warming which has already taken place represents the lion's share of all the warming that will take place without radical changes in atmospheric composition and pressure. Any solution which does not remove nearly all of the atmospheric CO2 produced since the Industrial Revolution is rather pointless.

In actual practice, climate change's most significant effect on human life today, and over the foreseeable future, is to serve as a political identity issue to unite leftists who would otherwise have nothing in common with each other, and would otherwise start fighting each other for power, just as they already are. It's an issue intended to put a bunch of misfits on the same team, in order to "fight the right". If you take away their climate change issue, there's really no other issue most of them agree on.

Right now we see them burning down EVs and EV dealerships here in America. That astronaut fella from Arizona, Mark Whatshisname (sorry, genuinely can't remember, because he's not very important, but he or his brother spent a year in space aboard ISS), sold his Tesla and bought a giant diesel powered truck. He made a big deal about it by posting it to anti-social media. He doesn't give a crap about climate change and never did. Like the vast majority of leftists, Mark is a rapacious liar who will never tell you what he actually thinks, because he mostly doesn't. That's a sad thing to say about someone who holds a PhD, but it would seem that neither intellectual accomplishment nor experience equates to honesty, because honesty requires morality, and leftism has no values it actually adheres to, beyond "follow the other lemmings". His group-think is handed down to him from on-high and he doesn't question it, because independent thought signals the death knell of group-think. They're going to mandate that everyone buys an EV, but it's not going to come from the world's largest and only economically successful EV company. Every other traditional car company has lost many billions on EVs, to the point that all the major car makers are pushing for more affordable alternatives to pure EVs, which they cannot make at scale for anything approaching the price of a gasoline powered car.

The political left in this country used to be dominated by free thinkers who questioned everything, which is the only reason why we discovered that climate change could be a potential problem to begin with. Their boundless creativity was how our nation grew to become what it is today. Unfortunately, after political power was consolidated they quit trying to win intellectual arguments using logic and facts, which was previously the metric that demonstrated to the world which ideas were "closest to being correct". They descended into "might makes right" (the garden variety bullying the political left is so famous for) as their power base became dominant across academia, media, culture, and politics. The political right only wants to be left to their own devices, which now represents a serious threat to the orthodox group think of the radical elements of the left. Anyone who questions the agenda is treated the exact same way the Catholic Church treated blasphemers. The people who used to question everything now question very little. The political right is forced to think through their positions to a far greater degree than the political left, if only for self-preservation from the violence that the left is equally famous for. The left now believes things on the basis of political association. It's an inversion of historical norms. Group association is a terrible reason to think or believe anything.

If you're wondering why this issue animates me so much, it's because I don't really belong to the political right or left, but I'm just as much of a misfit as the people on the left. The only reason I'm not on the left is my abject refusal to imbibe in group-think. I grew up admiring the intellectuals on the left, but they abandoned intellectualism. I can't be a classical liberal / independent because I think their beliefs about most contentious issues are every bit as childish as what the left has become. For the most part, these independents are leftists who are irked by the lack of thought coming from the political left. Much like the atheist left, they cannot agree to adhere to a moral code. I would be fine with something as simple as, "It's never okay to screw people over who merely disagree with you, so treat others the way you wish to be treated". As an atheist myself, I don't feel the need to incessantly attack religion or religious people because I have accepted their reasoning, even when I disagree with it. That's always bothered me. I can't fathom how you can be a true atheist yet imbibe in the same behavior as the religious do.

As best I can tell, that is how and why our political establishment has perverted science to serve a political cause.

Void · 2025-04-11 17:43:55

Well said kdb512, I closely agree now.

It has occurred to me that the whole left right thing is a deception.

We can say democracy, but that leads to patronage systems to buy votes.

We can say Constitutional Republic, if done right then you have the taxation proper, and the representation disserved.

But redistribution of wealth either Fascist Socialist, or Anarchist Socialist, both require authority. And Authority is the opposite of distributed power.

So, I feel that America really has gotten it half right, by distributing power, and the others have seldom gotten it right at all. Perfection is not obtainable in this world, I expect. You just have to be happy when it works out as often as it can work out in America, when America is as it should be.

Ending Pending

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#701 2024-03-17 11:58:25

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#702 2024-03-17 16:55:39

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#703 2024-07-04 13:33:59

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#704 2024-07-06 07:52:14

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#705 2024-08-18 11:38:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#706 2024-08-18 15:44:46

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#707 2025-02-03 13:27:55

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#708 2025-02-06 09:22:34

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#709 2025-03-18 08:31:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#710 2025-03-18 18:08:19

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#711 2025-03-18 18:36:59

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#712 2025-03-21 10:33:43

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#713 2025-04-04 20:44:10

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#714 2025-04-04 21:45:11

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#715 2025-04-05 10:33:17

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#716 2025-04-06 02:37:39

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#717 2025-04-06 04:54:13

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#718 2025-04-11 11:54:49

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#719 2025-04-11 16:43:51

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

#720 2025-04-11 17:43:55

Re: When Science climate change becomes perverted by Politics.

Board footer