The phyics of the planet's heat balance.

4412 Views 57 Replies 19 Participants Last post by freestoneangler, Aug 14, 2016

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · May 12, 2016 (Edited)

Described in a new textbook. For those interested in learning about this stuff. The science is quite clear about greenhouse gasses and how the carbon based ones impact the climate of the Earth.

A quick intro to a new textbook:
http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/13/...n-fact-textbook-science/#sthash.shlAH6AS.dpbs

The textbook itself for whose interested in reading...for many hours!
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate - Murry Salby.pdf

NASA Admits Substantial Climate Uncertainties!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/13/nasa-admits-substantial-climate-uncertainties/

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

Gard Nale

· #2 · May 12, 2016

Short attention span theatre version:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/729753441459945474

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · #3 · May 12, 2016

Yard Sale said:
Short attention span theatre version:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/729753441459945474

Too much missing from that one to comment.

speyfisher

· #4 · May 14, 2016

Let me see if I got this right.

the sun is a couple of million or billion miles (way far) away & until the last couple hundred years, was considered the primary heat source on planet earth.
even so, someone turned off the switch & planet earth had a couple ice ages that lasted quite a long time.
Mt Vesuvius wipes out Pompeii Italy a couple hundred years ago, and various other volcanic eruptions wreak havoc around the world & continue to do so to this day and no one seems to give a $hit.
catastrophic droughts, floods, & earthquakes worldwide have come & gone over millinea, yet it is the fault of modern man's (specifically the U.S.) evil carbon foot print.
After Al Gore invented the internet, he became the first to discover scientific studies showing the average temperature worldwide to be 0.2°F higher than it was 100 years ago, and unless we adapt drastic measures, the ocean will rise six feet by the year 2100 & flood NY city, S.F. and a whole lot of other places.

Yeah, right And when California breaks off & slides into the sea, Arizona & Nevada will have beach front property. Give me a frickin' break! How about instead we blame it on the Chinese. None of this started happening until they started driving cars.

Or, maybe if we quit replacing trees with concrete, naw there's no money in that.

See less See more

Reactions: 4

Golden Trout

· #5 · May 15, 2016

No trick zone, No spin zone, hmmmmmmm!

jeff bandy

· #6 · May 15, 2016

speyfisher said:
Let me see if I got this right.

the sun is a couple of million or billion miles (way far) away & until the last couple hundred years, was considered the primary heat source on planet earth.

even so, someone turned off the switch & planet earth had a couple ice ages that lasted quite a long time.

Mt Vesuvius wipes out Pompeii Italy a couple hundred years ago, and various other volcanic eruptions wreak havoc around the world & continue to do so to this day and no one seems to give a $hit.

catastrophic droughts, floods, & earthquakes worldwide have come & gone over millinea, yet it is the fault of modern man's (specifically the U.S.) evil carbon foot print.

After Al Gore invented the internet, he became the first to discover scientific studies showing the average temperature worldwide to be 0.2°F higher than it was 100 years ago, and unless we adapt drastic measures, the ocean will rise six feet by the year 2100 & flood NY city, S.F. and a whole lot of other places.

Yeah, right And when California breaks off & slides into the sea, Arizona & Nevada will have beach front property. Give me a frickin' break! How about instead we blame it on the Chinese. None of this started happening until they started driving cars.

Or, maybe if we quit replacing trees with concrete, naw there's no money in that.

Same attitude that loggers and fishermen had a hundred years ago.

Reactions: 5

dogsnfish

· #7 · May 15, 2016

speyfisher said:
Let me see if I got this right.

the sun is a couple of million or billion miles (way far) away & until the last couple hundred years, was considered the primary heat source on planet earth.

even so, someone turned off the switch & planet earth had a couple ice ages that lasted quite a long time.

Mt Vesuvius wipes out Pompeii Italy a couple hundred years ago, and various other volcanic eruptions wreak havoc around the world & continue to do so to this day and no one seems to give a $hit.

catastrophic droughts, floods, & earthquakes worldwide have come & gone over millinea, yet it is the fault of modern man's (specifically the U.S.) evil carbon foot print.

After Al Gore invented the internet, he became the first to discover scientific studies showing the average temperature worldwide to be 0.2°F higher than it was 100 years ago, and unless we adapt drastic measures, the ocean will rise six feet by the year 2100 & flood NY city, S.F. and a whole lot of other places.

Yeah, right And when California breaks off & slides into the sea, Arizona & Nevada will have beach front property. Give me a frickin' break! How about instead we blame it on the Chinese. None of this started happening until they started driving cars.

Or, maybe if we quit replacing trees with concrete, naw there's no money in that.

Sounds like the same kind of denial that happened in the 1950's and 60's when scientists said cigarettes caused cancer.

Reactions: 5

Gard Nale

· #8 · May 15, 2016

speyfisher said:
Let me see if I got this right.

the sun is a couple of million or billion miles (way far) away & until the last couple hundred years, was considered the primary heat source on planet earth.

even so, someone turned off the switch & planet earth had a couple ice ages that lasted quite a long time.

Mt Vesuvius wipes out Pompeii Italy a couple hundred years ago, and various other volcanic eruptions wreak havoc around the world & continue to do so to this day and no one seems to give a $hit.

catastrophic droughts, floods, & earthquakes worldwide have come & gone over millinea, yet it is the fault of modern man's (specifically the U.S.) evil carbon foot print.

After Al Gore invented the internet, he became the first to discover scientific studies showing the average temperature worldwide to be 0.2°F higher than it was 100 years ago, and unless we adapt drastic measures, the ocean will rise six feet by the year 2100 & flood NY city, S.F. and a whole lot of other places.

Yeah, right And when California breaks off & slides into the sea, Arizona & Nevada will have beach front property. Give me a frickin' break! How about instead we blame it on the Chinese. None of this started happening until they started driving cars.

Or, maybe if we quit replacing trees with concrete, naw there's no money in that.

I think the piece you are missing is the rate. That's what my link showed, how quickly it is spiraling out of control.

All the things you mention took hundreds of thousands of years. There is a very clear link to the industrial revolution and a huge increase in the rate at which our climate is warming. That's scary.

Reactions: 4

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · #9 · May 15, 2016

Temps have not spiraled out of control. This shows NASA's adjustment of their temp data from 1999 to 2015. Average US temps haven't actually risen in the past 18+ years. There is no increase in the rate of warming.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

speyfisher

· #10 · May 15, 2016

Even on the outside chance that Al Gore might be right on this, what makes anyone think we can turn it around? And why is that "we" only includes US when China, N. Korea & the whole middle east is out of control? BTW, what ever happened to Carl Sagan's nuclear winters?

dogsnfish

· #11 · May 15, 2016

It is widely recognized that China is the leader in global emissions; India is also right up there. Actions in the US and Europe have led to decreases in emissions since 2005 so we are turning it around. China is also slowing their emissions. http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/15/infographics.htm

Watch what happens when further technological growth drives down prices of alternative energy sources such as solar or wind. The big turnaround will happen when they become cheaper than fossil fuels. Gas has always been more expensive in Europe and now wind and solar provide more than half their energy. The same thing needs to happen in China and India.

Reactions: 3

Preston

· #12 · May 15, 2016

Well, fortunately, we haven't yet had a nuclear war.

Lugan

· #13 · May 15, 2016

Also fortunately, no WFF member is in charge of anything substantively affecting mankind or planet Earth.

Reactions: 5

GAT

· #14 · May 15, 2016

I can't really see the downside of not polluting our atmosphere. Of course I don't get a huge bonus from the companies who are responsible for a sizable amount of the polluting so maybe I'm wrong.

Reactions: 5

speyfisher

· #15 · May 15, 2016

My big problem with all of this political blindsiding is the effect it is having of not being able to see the forest for all the trees. Example, after the price of gasoline reaches $10/gal & we are all driving electric cars. Excuse me, but what are batteries made of? Lead ,zinc, copper, lithium, ores dug out of the ground, mined. Bad, bad mines, mine tailings, bad. And the battery cases? And just how are we to dispose of all these dead batteries once they can no longer hold a charge? And what fuel do we burn to create the electricity to charge them with in the first place. How many BTUs will be expended to move a battery operated vehicle one mile vs a fossil fuel vehicle? Oh, 'scuse me I forgot, we will use solar power. Right, and the interstate highways will be littered with battery powered cars waiting for the sun to shine. This will go over great in the PNW, an area known for not seeing the sun for weeks at a time. And those evil plastic grocery bags? You know, the ones that have been replaced with paper bags, made from trees that used to eat carbon dioxide, that is before their lives were cut short to make paper grocery bags.

There are pro's & con's to everything. Look around. Plastic, a by product of the oil industry, is here to stay. And before anyone brings up mass transit, there are places it works, and places it does not. And always, always, it has to be subsidized to survive. So what are we all to do for transportation? While skateboards may be a clean way to travel, as well as offering a certain amount of exercise, somehow I just can't see Grandma on a skateboard.

See less See more

Reactions: 3

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · #16 · May 15, 2016 (Edited)

Lots of people don't understand this. I'm not saying I understand it either but there are things that demand I be extremely skeptical regarding the climate impact of CO2. Commonly accepted computer models suggest a "forcing" of 3 to 4C increase in a hundred years, more recent published research indicates its more like 1C in a hundred years. Forcing or not, CO2 levels in our atmosphere have historically been as high as 7000 ppm and during that time the planet produced much more than today. Yes, the planet produces regardless of human activity. Reducing particulates from our burning is a good idea but reducing CO2 release is a BAD idea.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, CO2 is the base food source of the planet, it is a gas and gas has no particulates. Particulates come from burning organics, not from CO2. Most CO2 emissions are not caused by humans, they are caused by decay of organic matter and the decay rate increases as the planet temps increase. CO2 does not cause the increase, it's increase is the result of warmer temps, organic matter decays more quickly during warmer weather. Lets get the horse in front of the cart so we can go somewhere. Historically increasing CO2 levels always follow warming temps, never preceded warming temps. Humans do increase the CO2 levels, not by much though.

This whole thing is a ruse designed to intercept our income. CO2 increases carrying capacity, makes the earth more productive and has little to no effect on the climate. That's the science I believe to be true.
Tough for me to believe reducing CO2 would help the planet we live on. Reducing pollution is a good cause but CO2 is not pollution, it is natural fertilizer! It greens the earth! The more CO2 we remove the browner the planet will become. Simple but true!

See less See more

Reactions: 1

weiliwen

· #17 · May 15, 2016

"...I believe to be true." There is your problem right there. If you believe it, it isn't science.

Science is NOT about believing. It's about making a hypothesis of the causes for what we see in the natural world and creating experiments to test the hypothesis. You believe that man is not responsible, or at least has very little responsibility, for global climate change. And yet, no reputable scientist has a supportable hypothesis for that, only belief. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence, based on experiments, that man does influence the climate. No belief needed. Saying CO2 is not a pollutant is like saying water is good for you - it is, in moderation, but enough will kill you. The sudden uptick in global temperatures exactly fits with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and hypotheses have been tested to determine if the parallel paths are coincidental, or if one is related to the other. The results, to those who don't believe, but know, are obvious.

Reactions: 4

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · #18 · May 15, 2016 (Edited)

"exactly fits"? How, where, and when?

I'm reading the science and coming to a conclusion based on what I read. I'm believing what makes the most sense to me. Since I'm not doing the science that is my only option. How about you?

There have been decades, since industrialization, of drops in temp while CO2 rises, how does that work? It certainly doesn't work if you choose to change the historical temp records and replace them with temps that fit your prediction better. Oops, it does work if your career is based on proving AGW is factual.

No none KNOWS, it's all predictions based on computer models...it isn't science because zero predictions have actually occurred. If your hypothesis fails then your theory is wrong.

You are correct about something, if CO2 were all we had we would die from a lack of oxygen before we'd die from a lack of food, wait, CO2 causes plants to make O2? Same as I need water but too much would drown me but I don't have gills to absorb O2 from water.

Reactions: 1

weiliwen

· #19 · May 16, 2016

So many mistakes an inaccuracies in your post above, and yet you never deny that your opinion is based on belief instead of science. You are obviously invested in those beliefs to the point that you ignore the science, so I'm done with you.

Reactions: 3

Klickrolf

Discussion Starter · #20 · May 16, 2016 (Edited)

ID a couple of the "so many", I'm only interested in the science.

Enjoy your life, i suspect it'll be cooler than you expect.

Granpa pissed his pants again, he don't give a damn.

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.