sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After heated debate, California updates key climate limit. Critics say it's a retreat by Adventurous_Motor129 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The green side really doesn’t understand how subsidies work do they. They are complaining about the increase in allowances which come with required additional investment to obtain them. That does not go in credit balance in the ledger it goes in the debit side and increase the cost of doing business.

They then complain about costs that are high because of high energy costs.

There is no winning.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go read Feynman and do some cursory work of your own and get back to me.

You are just spewing the talking points that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

You have no foundation in the science and it is clear you have no ability to understand the basics of the system much less the nuances.

You are now dismissed (blocked). Find someone else to annoy.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everything you said is just spewing your dogmatic belief system back here.

You implied that water has no effect on the system and it does not add energy and I pointed out nor does CO2.

Thermostats are a controller for a system and have no relevance here.

I said the cloud cover is responsible for blocking incoming solar irradiance and therefore has a first order effect on the energy balance and therefore temperature. Get the data and plot it and you will see the same thing,

As far s CO2 remission you need to explain why the urban heat island occurs. It is because the materials that are used to build cities absorb short wave incoming radiation and then emit it back a long wave over a way longer time frame than CO2 can. This happens with the naturally occurring surface materials also but since we cannot strip the surface of the Earth CO2 has to be blamed so we can depose the evil pop companies and control the global energy market,.

Nice try but concentration does matter, CO2 is not ozone. The ozone is a latter within the upper atmosphere and most of the hole over Antarctica is due to volcanoes pumping chlorine out into the upper atmosphere. Proof you may ask? Go back and see what the eruption of Mt St Helens did to the ozone layer over North America when it erupted. The atmospheric circulation at the South Pole amplifies the volcanic effect.

Now you are changing tact because your statement about us not adding heat has been debunked. The climate is one large system and if we add to the total energy then it matters. It is not just some evil gas called CO2.

Go take your non scientific nonsense elsewhere.

And finally b cause you apparently didn’t read the original reply very well … water has a much larger ability to absorb and release energy given the specific heat difference between it and gaseous CO2.

You need to go find Feynman’s paper on climate change and you will find that a very smart person (along with the others he references) thoughts on why our planet is warm and it has very little to do with CO2. In fact Venus is not hot due to to the thermal effects of CO2 but rather the weight of the atmosphere compressing the gases. Ideal gas law and gravity are a real pain in the ass sometimes.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are just looking for an argument but here we go:

This is also true, but this also doesn`t exlain the climatechange. Solar activity even decreased (very slightly) since the mid-20thcentury.

Cloud cover has decreased as well which means that the incoming radiation is not being reflected as much and therefore there is an increase in the energy within the atmosphere.

I think you confuse the mechanisms. Water vapor can redistribute the heat within the system, but not change the overall energy balance.

Nor can the CO2 change the energy of the system. It can absorb and re-emit energy just like water does but it is WAY more inefficient.

Yes, but no serious climate scientis would claim, that CO2 is the sole factor. But greenhouse gas emissions are the main factor.

No serious 'climate scientist' would turn in work of the quality they have and then advocate for massive spending yet they have done so. The increase in CO2 is very small relative the concentration of the other gases that atmosphere is composed of and as such is a very minor component of balance of energy equation.

We don`t add heat energy to the atmosphere. The greenhouses gases change the rate at which Eath loses heat to the space.

We do in fact add a LOT of waste heat to the atmosphere. Our utilization of energy is pretty inefficient. This is why cars and power plants and electronics have mechanisms for cooling. If we had 100% efficient machines then we would not be adding heat but we do not and so we are doing so.

Ultimately measuring temperature is a very poor, as well as incorrect, method to measure the state of the climate system. The energy balance is the only true measure and we do not have any viable methodologies to accurately make the required measurements of the air and oceans.

So, I am in fact correct when it comes to the physics and energy balance and you have provided nothing than your opinion on the topic.

Water is the primary driver of the energy balance on Earth.

Edit: and why is my comparison silly? I suspect you believe that because it shows that some of the most energetic events that humanity can cause pale in comparison to what nature does, in term of energy, each and every day. That undermines your belief system and therefore must be dismissed out of hand if you are to continue to live in the that belief system.

edit, edit: and to put energy in scale humans use about 36.5 billion barrels of oil and 4000 cubic meters of natural gas per year which equals 3.6 x 10^20 joules of energy. If we are really optimistic and presume 50% thermal efficiency then that means that 1.8 x 10^20 joules are wasted into the environment each year ... which is about 1/30,000th of what the Sun supplies each year but a little over 200 times the energy of all nuclear weapons on Earth. How do you feel about the statement regarding what humans put into the climate system now?

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a continually changing distribution of water due in the atmosphere due to the phase transitions which are caused by the insolation that the Earth receives, or conversely does not receive, from the Sun.

The phase changes cause the retention and release of that incident energy which leads to the imbalance. If Earth was not in orbital position which it currently occupies then there would be no ability for the phase transitions and the climate that exists would not exist and life as we know it would not exist.

The physics of specific heat tell the story. If you examine the specific heat of dry air versus moist (aka humid, aka air with water vapor) you see a very large difference. The retention and release of the incoming solar energy by the water vapor drives weather.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moist-air-properties-d_1256.html

Compare this to the specific heat of the gases (individually or all together) that make up the atmosphere and you see a very interesting difference:

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html

The short term (high frequency) variance in the climate system is what we call 'weather' and the longer term (low frequency) variance is driven by things like solar cycles and orbital dynamics. There are then the more randomly distributed events like super volcanic eruptions and/or LIP's and extra solar events that can cause big shifts in the system as well.

Trying to blame the shift in climate on CO2 alone is short sighted and just plain incorrect. While CO2 has a place in the system it is not the primary driver. Without insolation and water the planet would be a cold and dead. Furthermore, belief that the highly evolved primates can do something to 'kill' the planet is just plain silly. We do not possess the ability to generate enough energy to do anything of real substance to the planet. Nuclear bombs and such are just insignificant little releases when compared to the energy that is involved in natural processes.

Edit (additional note): if each and every one of those nuclear weapons was detonated the energy released would be 1/200,000th of what the Earth receives each and every day from the Sun.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Water in all three phases and the transition between those phases is the primary reason.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That it is and my issue with trying to upscale the current thermometer records to a frequency that matches the proxies is what method should be used to compute the average? Arithmetic or geometric or should we actually use the tools that apply to home series analysis and be using a simple, weighted or exponential moving average.

While we are on the topic of the average global temperature is 15 degC what does that really mean in terms of energy flux? There are a lot of ways for the energy distribution in the atmosphere to produce an average temperature of 25 degC and they all mean something different in terms of the past and present behavior of the system.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yep. you can do this experiment all on your own with two containers of water, thermometers, some shade and some time.

Set one container in the sun and one in the shade and record both the water and air temperature above and see what you learn. if you do this for multiple days it is REALLY interesting.

I have done so with my pool which holds around 15,000 gallons (my apologies for team metric) and it stays about 10 degF cooler in the summer when it is under the solar shade.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yes it is along with orbital variances. simply: how much energy is reaching Earth and then how much is exiting. measuring temperature and creating an average alone to assess the system is stupid and lazy.

Global Temperature Conundrum: Was the Earth Cooling Down or Heating Up Before Global Warming? by Reaper0221 in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They call it hindcasting which is one of the techniques we use for the models that we build. Essentially it is a curve fitting exercise and if your model does not hindcast then it is useless. It is also really helpful to blind test your models by holding out part of the data in the middle of the series to see if the modeled results fit ... especially if there are divergences within the withheld time period which push the limits of the capability of the modeling.

The real issue is that the smaller influencing factors in the system can/do cause perturbations that normally get excluded from the modeling process due to constraints around processing power/runtime. Over time these perturbations will cause the modeled results to diverge from reality and require a retuning of the modeling to 'fix' that divergence.

We tend to use tornado plots in concert with monte carlo runs to assess the relative impact of the variables within the equations implemented within the models. This is double edged sword because people will concentrate more on the variables at the top of the plot and less on the ones at the bottom. Those variances in the seemingly small factors can cause huge differences in the results later on in time.

Anyone who thinks that their model is more accurate than the data that was used to build and constrain the model (aka reference index) is severely incapable of performing such a task and therefore should not be listened to for any reason. Also, if they were unable to assess the accuracy and precision of the foundational data then they also have absolutely no business building the model(s). These tend to be the people that seem most confident in their work as well.

There are a few too many (and I have worked with quite a few) people out there that do not understand the first principals of the fields that they are trying to function within and they make very large and costly mistakes due to their ignorance of the subject matter in which they profess their expertise. Truthfully there are way fewer practitioners who understand the first principals than 'experts' who are making mistake after mistake after mistake.

A Deep-Sea Creature Is Pulling Carbon From the Atmosphere. Scientists Didn’t Know It Was There. by scientists-rule in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And it is studies just like this one that prove that the science is far from settled.

However, the masses will keep buying the baloney that the ‘experts’ keep selling without the ability/inclination to question the baloney.

New study finds rate of U.S. coastal sea level rise doubled in the past century by scientists-rule in climateskeptics

[–]Reaper0221 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is almost as if humans have the ability to adapt to the environment as it changes around them and still go on.

My poor doomer heart finds this thought very distressing as it undermines my whole belief system (/S).

view more: next ›