-
The correct answer is maybe (science just doesn't know for sure When looking at the past its mostly guesswork. So the science certainly is not settled. As can be seen from wildly inaccurate future predictions).
The sun and only the sun warms the surface. This whole back radiation warming the planet as shown in the chart below is just a (crazy) theory. How can CO2 and water vapor generate TWICE the heat from the sun. NB There is back radiation but the warming from this is so low it almost has no impact. As radiation from a colder object (the freezing atmosphere) can't warm a warmer one (earths surface). Whereas radiation from the sun ...
At times there is less cloud cover (or its higher up) and at other times more (or its lower). So less or more radiation from the sun reaches the surface (and that's the key. The suns radiation that doesn't reach the surface is of no relevance. It either just slightly warms the freezing cold atmosphere or disappears into outer space). So why is there more or less cloud cover that leads to ice age or warm periods. I have read explanations for this but is this correct. Because based on this explanation (quiet or active sun due to pole changes) it will get much colder over the next 20-50 years
-
Clear as mud? Not sure that I explained it very well.
No one can. Because the back radiation theory makes nil sense. So its best to have a long complex explanation including impossible to understand mathematical calculations that's so complex that no one can understand it (and better still refuse to release the data and calculations so those that can are a bit stumped). And then just say trust the science. Or follow Greta's approach.
-
My issue is if there's 100 units in and 100 units out then we should have equilibrium. If there is more energy being absorbed by the atmosphere then there should be less than 100 units out, yes?
Or am I back in the same territory of disputing the base line of those graphs from a week or two back?
We know the greenhouse effect does warm atmospheres. It's how we can survive here and how we wouldn't on Venus.
Would appreciate if you could find that explanation. I would like to know how the experts explain it, because as experts they are quite likely to know what they're talking about.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Hi Snowy...
... quick question, confirming my position as a believer in anthropogenic climate change before I do, if we have 100 units coming in and 100 units leaving how come we're getting warmer?
Simple answer - because the atmosphere is absorbing more.
The diagram is actually a balanced earth. 100 units coming in from the sun at upper level. We end up with 145 as Winger correctly stated due to the absorption of energy at ground and atmospheric level. The sun's shortwave radiation is 47 at ground level with another 23 absorbed by cloud and atmosphere on the way in, then converted into long wave at earth's surface (depending on the albedo of the surface) and reradiated where more is then absorbed (greenhouse gasses) ending up with a net increase (store really) in energy. Some other factors like latent heat, convection, etc, come into it too. The energy not ending up back in space from whence it came, but even at 145 it is balanced.
The problem comes as the atmosphere changes, say that 104 that is absorbed from surface heating becomes 150 though? Not good.Clear as mud? Not sure that I explained it very well.
I read somewhere that it was like a battery, the Earth and atmosphere are storing it and it is getting warmer. If you know anything about batteries (and thermal runaway) then the tipping point theories become more relevant.
I'll see if I can find the original explanation from NOAA. IIRC it is quite long, but an easy read.
Maybe I misunderstood:
Diagram shows what should be happening in equilibrium, rather than in a warm long scenario? Is that right?
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
> My issue is if there's 100 units in and 100 units out then we should have equilibrium. If there is more energy being absorbed by the atmosphere then there should be less than 100 units out, yes?
Or am I back in the same territory of disputing the base line of those graphs from a week or two back?
We know the greenhouse effect does warm atmospheres. It's how we can survive here and how we wouldn't on Venus.
Would appreciate if you could find that explanation. I would like to know how the experts explain it, because as experts they are quite likely to know what they're talking about.
Careful. You're very close to becoming a climate denier.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
> My issue is if there's 100 units in and 100 units out then we should have equilibrium. If there is more energy being absorbed by the atmosphere then there should be less than 100 units out, yes?
Or am I back in the same territory of disputing the base line of those graphs from a week or two back?
We know the greenhouse effect does warm atmospheres. It's how we can survive here and how we wouldn't on Venus.
Would appreciate if you could find that explanation. I would like to know how the experts explain it, because as experts they are quite likely to know what they're talking about.
Careful. You're very close to becoming a climate denier.
Read my posts.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Maybe I misunderstood:
Diagram shows what should be happening in equilibrium, rather than in a warm long scenario? Is that right?Yes. It is changes in atmospheric composition that trap more energy.
-
That uppity little girl had a pop at Roger. That's going too far.
See, if we were at war with climate change, hard core climate activists are actually climate change's greatest allies.
-
@mariner4life said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
hard core climate activists are actually climate change's greatest allies.
Yep, radicals and extremists often do more harm to their cause than good. Suicide bombers haven't won over too many converts to Islam I wouldn't think, nor communists to a slightly more leftist viewpoint.
Roger's response (probably his PR person) was pretty good I thought, and he is doing this too:
"Federer, along with multiple other tennis stars, will take part in an exhibition charity match on Wednesday, January 15th to raise funds for the Australian bushfire appeal." -
Christ I feel for kids growing up in this madness.
At the gym this morning and all the TVs on various channels showing scenes of absolute Armageddon. Chaos! Inferno! Hail! Floods! Death!
Finish my workout, walk outside, nice morning, little wet underfoot and overcast, birds chirping.
I hope people are learning to switch this stuff off, its got to mess with young minds.
I remember being absolutely terrified of the ozone layer hole as a youngster but back then I'm sure the coverage was nothing like the wall-to-wall stuff we are seeing today.Those with kids, how do you deal with it? Or are they just desensitised to it now?
-
This Summer has been a bit of a tipping point here in Australia, though.
I think people are realising that we are going to cop the brunt of climate change, and the new reality is setting in - more intense droughts, fires, rains, storms, hot days etc.
It's moved from a fringe environmental issue firmly into the mainstream, from theory to reality. It's going to be interesting to see if the Morrison Government is forced to act on this issue, and what it is they choose to do to placate the growing angst in the wider public.
-
@barbarian sure, but first how about a comprehensive national marketing campaign identifying and stigmatizing the act of arson?
Place arson in the minds of people similar to drink driving.
Let's have a hierarchy of measures starting at the source of the fires - people lighting them!
-
Pretty sure arson is fairly well stigmatized as it is. Not sure the problem is that people are accepting of it, as they once were with drink driving.
I'm sure there will be a few enquiries that look at this subject in the aftermath of the fires, and the best way to address it. Not sure there is a silver bullet to prevent it from happening.
-
@barbarian said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
This Summer has been a bit of a tipping point here in Australia, though.
I think people are realising that we are going to cop the brunt of climate change, and the new reality is setting in - more intense droughts, fires, rains, storms, hot days etc.
It's moved from a fringe environmental issue firmly into the mainstream, from theory to reality. It's going to be interesting to see if the Morrison Government is forced to act on this issue, and what it is they choose to do to placate the growing angst in the wider public.
Are the recent fires a direct result of human induced climate change? My limited understanding is the concern is around what may happen in the future rather than the now. I remember reading about Cyclones and scientists saying it was impossible to draw a direct link between them and climate change.
It seems to me there's a multitude of factors at play, but not a lot of nuance in the public conversation about it (which is typical of any public conversation really).
-
@No-Quarter They aren't a direct result of climate change, in the sense that we have bushfires every year.
But the strength of the fires are exacerbated by the drought (so the country is very dry), and the more intense summer conditions we are experiencing. A delayed northern wet season has also contributed, pushing hot westerly winds across the south-east.
So it is related to climate change. There is nothing new about fires, or loss of property/life, but the extent of these fires is unprecedented.
-
@barbarian great. No imagination for a campaign that visits all schools then. No upping the general awareness of what to do when suspecting an arsonist? No cameras in areas of population? No hot lines to call? No increased taskforce to tackle arson? No establishing a national database? No addressing the issue like Australia has done for paedophilia, or terrorism or hate speech?
No?
Just throw billions at a problem no one understands and "placate" the masses , and just sit through 10 years more of arson while we tackle climate change?
Sounds great.
-
@No-Quarter said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Are the recent fires a direct result of human induced climate change?
There's not much you can directly attribute to climate change. The best analogy I've seen is - say you increase gravity by 2%. Not much right, but you know the slipping/tripping/injuries will all be a bit worse. For each individual event you can say 'well, I should have lifted my foot further, or not dropped that thing, etc', but as a collective it changes the way people injure themselves. Climate change is a bit like that... individual weather events happen, but they just tend to be slightly more extreme, slightly more intense, etc.
Edit: found teh link
-
@Siam said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@barbarian great. No imagination for a campaign that visits all schools then. No upping the general awareness of what to do when suspecting an arsonist? No cameras in areas of population? No hot lines to call? No increased taskforce to tackle arson? No establishing a national database? No addressing the issue like Australia has done for paedophilia, or terrorism or hate speech?
No?
Just throw billions at a problem no one understands and "placate" the masses , and just sit through 10 years more of arson while we tackle climate change?
Sounds great.
Why all that effort for such a statistically small incident?
The problem remains the drought.
People can call 000 if they want to report arson.
-
@Siam You couch the issue like it's one that can be easily solved. I'm no expert but I'm sure there are plenty of initiatives that the police use to catch arsonists - I know there is definitely a database that already exists, for example.
I'm all for doing everything we can to decrease incidents of arson, and I'm sure a few ideas will be aired in the inevitable enquiry/royal commission.
But we can do two things at once. We can tackle arson AND take action on climate change.
Climate Change