-
The chart is nonsense (yet its supposedly proven "science")
47 is absorbed from the sun yet 116 leaves the surface. Apparently this extra energy created by back radiation. Somehow up there in the freezing cold atmosphere. Water and CO2 (magically) creating twice the energy of the sun
edit. Actually its even worse. Leaving is 116+24+5=145
-
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
The chart is nonsense (yet its supposedly proven "science")
47 is absorbed from the sun yet 116 leaves the surface. Apparently this extra energy created by back radiation. Somehow up there in the freezing cold atmosphere. Water and CO2 (magically) creating twice the energy of the sun
edit. Actually its even worse. Leaving is 116+24+5=145
I suspect that you might not understand it rather than it being nonsense.
It does balance. 3 metrics:
At the top of the atmosphere - Incoming energy from the sun balanced with outgoing energy from the earth. 100 units in and out.
The atmosphere itself - Energy into the atmosphere is balanced with outgoing energy from atmosphere. 156 units in and out.
At the earth's surface - Energy absorbed is balanced with the energy released. 145 units in and out.
You got the 145 out right, balanced by +47 absorbed shortwave radiation from the sun and
+98 absorbed longwave radiation from gases in atmosphere.Anyway, NOAA do employ a few scientists that have done this stuff for a while.
-
Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020
*The signs at Glacier National Park (Montana USA) warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed.
The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN.
In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the signs.*
Everyone at US Geo ..., as would happen in Australia, kept their jobs despite the demonstrable incompetence.
"changes in the forecast model" is a euphemism for "we cooked the stats until they revealed the result that suited us best."
East Anglia University did precisely that a decade ago in return for more research funding into the myth of man made galaxial hottening/coldening leading inexorably to the fact that, if we pay the UN 10% of everyone's annual income, average temperature would drop 1° by 2080 or something.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger It's not leaving as it should. That is the point. Just the same as the blanket effect of clouds at night keep things warmer as terrestrial is kept in. Some might say like a greenhouse.
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
So you can feel the suns radiation warming the body. Returning radiation has almost no warming impact.
Oh, and this is how the sun warms us:
It is infrared radiation that produce the warm feeling on our bodies. Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy.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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's the original guys, explains it better than I have.
-
@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.
Climate Change