The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”
By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]
... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing.... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved.... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history.... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed.... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]
What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]
If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example(backup), example(backup), example(backup).
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example(backup), example(backup), example(backup).
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
If anyone reading this is curious what a troll looks like, find thia dude's "energy conservation" post in that thread. And i'll write your next comment for you to save you from having to consult your one-line script yet again: "y u ask me kill myslef" [Rujiel, 2014-12-14]
Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]
Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?
Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:
.. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting.. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]
... seriously, "rude and insulting"? Here are just a few of Jane's most recent charming statements to me. If Jane was telling the truth about my comments, Jane should be able to produce quotes of similar length which are just as "rude and insulting" as Jane's. Jane can't do that because he's just projecting his own rude, cuss-filled insults onto me.
".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead.. he is either lying.. dishonest.. intellectually dishonest.. intellectually dishonest.. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty.. Pathetic... you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person... cowardice.. odious person.. you look like a fool.. utterly and disgustingly transparent.. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit... spewing bullshit.. You're making yourself look like a fool... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool... a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume).. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do... stream of BS.. idiot.. Your assumptions are pure shit... I'm done babysitting you.."[Jane Q. Public]
I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]
Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).
Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.
Just quote whatever I said that made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times. Start at the beginning of the thread and make sure you're quoting things I actually wrote, rather than quotes from someone else. Then explain why these words I wrote (rather than quotes from someone else) made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.
... Save our collective unconscious from your fevered ego--kill yourself. your net sum contribution to society is at a negative. [Rujiel, 2014-11-26]
Your response is akin to someone who has just spent the last hour rolling in his own shit and flinging it at passers-by, standing up all at once and asking the surrounding crowd what's wrong. You're seriously so bad at this. Even your employer would be better off if you killed yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-30]
Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?
Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:
Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. [Rujiel, 2014-11-20]
What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]
... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing.... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved.... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history.... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed.... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]
What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]
As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong: "'The Greatest Generation' is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."
Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.
I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.
I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.
I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.
I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.
I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.
The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]
Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?
One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.
But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.
You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]
I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe
... if your gas absorbs radiation, and becomes hotter, what happens to it? At the risk of oversimplifying things myself, it expands, and rises in the atmosphere. There, it radiates its heat out to space.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]
Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.
But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.
... Simple radiative heating of an already-warmer surface by cooler gases is a physical impossibility.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-10]
Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.
That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.
Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).
But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.
I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.
Sadly, lgw still hasn't objected to Jane's Slayer misinformation even though I gave lgw a generous two days to show that he's a true skeptic. So let's review the basic physics in this thought experiment. A source is heated by constant electrical power inside a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
For a simple example, blackbody cold walls are at 0F (T_c = 255K) and the heated blackbody source is at 150F (T_h = 339K). Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
See? Applying conservation of energy isn't that complicated. In contrast, Jane's incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
... pick up a textbook on heat transfer, and see what the accepted, textbook, "consensus" science says about it. Hint: they don't agree with you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-05]
Once again, mainstream physics is based on conservation of energy. That means power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.
... I have no obligation -- or reason -- to engage in your game of "No, but you HAVE TO do it this way...". Especially when "mainstream physicists" and textbooks on the subject say I don't. No, I don't have to do it according to your own ill-conceived notions. I already did it, my way... that is to say, the "mainstream physics" way....[Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]
... My textbooks do agree with Latour about his main point, which is that direct warming of a surface via back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere is impossible, just as Spencer's warming of the only heat source by a cooler passive plate is impossible.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
Once again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.
... When I showed him that the mainstream physics, textbook solutions to the temperatures in Spencer's experiment disagreed with his (and Spencer's) conclusions, he hasn't ceased demanding that I solve it a different way of his own devising, which doesn't appear in any textbook on radiative heat transfer, anywhere.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-07]
You simply aren't reading my posts. It's not "CO2 emissions aren't a concern"; it's "CO2 emissions aren't a concern if all you use is high school physics". It's all explained above.
Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)
It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?
At combustion-chamber temperatures, CO2 actually reflects infrared, vs absorbing it, which is a much more dramatic effect.
There are two way in which CO2 interacts with IR radiation:
1) It can absorb IR, becoming warmer, and in turn emit IR as a blackbody.
2) It can reflect IR.
The energy transferred by effect 1 depends on the temp of the CO2. The energy transferred by effect 2 depends instead on the temp of what's being reflected. As these are "4th power of temp" effects, the difference is critical.
If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?
Saying "but what about Venus" gets the physics wrong (and also implies that the Earth could somehow one day become like Venus, when there's no mechanism for that).
"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."
"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."
CO2 plays a role in absorbing a small percentage of the IR that is not reflected (which is itself a small percentage of the heat loss from the surface), and becoming warmer. The increase in blackbody radiation from the warmer CO2 is trivial. Thinking of this as "look, simple physics at work here" gets it wrong.
I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?
Most of the heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth is by convection - radiative heat loss is a small effect by comparison.
I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That estab
You still haven't cited any scientific literature to support your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern. When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."
Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."
You're only making yourself look foolish here, by oversimplifying the issue so much that you're actually wrong.
Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
Put in the simplest terms: if CO2 in Venus's atmosphere acted like it does in Earth's atmosphere, Venus would be quite a bit cooler. If the direct blackbody effect of CO2 being warmed by IR, and in term warming the Earth via IR, was the primary warming concern in Earth's atmosphere it would not be a concern.
What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."
Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."
These High School Physics explanations of why CO2 causes warming of the Earth's surface are wrong, because the simple effect supports the "nothing to worry about" argument. The truth is more complex, vastly harder to model, and the results are not so obvious as you seem to think.
High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).
I've also repeatedlynoted complex factors like pressurebroadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.
"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from
Jane's "conversations" about Earth rely on Sky Dragon Slayer denial that CO2 warms the surface. It's quite relevant that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Sky Dragon Slayers should explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury if CO2 can't warm the surface. They usually respond by fantasizing about gray Oreos or basketball player gloves.
Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus's effective radiating level is far above its surface due to its CO2 atmosphere, while Mercury's effective radiating level is at its surface.
Nobody has proved beyond reasonable doubt -- and I emphasize the word reasonable -- that it has caused ANY harm, at all. Nobody has been able to show, convincingly, that ANY weather pattern, or either singular or collective weather events, have been caused by "CO2-based warming". Lots of stuff has been BLAMED on it, but I'm talking about actual evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]
Jane wouldn't be able to recognize actual evidence because he's a Sky Dragon Slayer who strenuously denies that "CO2-based warming" even exists. A reasonable skeptic who took this position would feel obliged to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
... And I'm sure as hell not willing to pay to clean up some CO2 demon which science says is largely imaginary. Not the CO2. That's real enough. But any "harm" is so far only theory, and that theory is looking shakier every day. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-05]
An imaginary and shaky "demon"? Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
Ironically, Jane probably won't even have to pay when we take action to address climate change. This study calculates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend will save lives and add jobs while increasing Americans' real disposable income. Even though fossil fuel companies pass the cost of the carbon fee onto consumers, that fee is just returned to the consumer anyway.
For a regional analysis, see figure 3.25 on page 38. Out of nine regions, real disposable income per capita only decreases in one (the western north central states). That one regional decrease is much smaller than the increases in other regions like the pacific region which includes Washington.
Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?
Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:
Are they hiring you losers while still in high school these days? The bar for paid oil trolls sure is a low one--any stupid thing to prevent the discussion of the oil cartel's impunity. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.
What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Anyone who doesn't want to listen to Rujiel repeatedly tell me to kill myself should note that Jane keeps spreading Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation here.
No, seriously. Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive. Exactly what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've repeatedly told me to kill myself?
... I was referring to your original "solution" to Spencer's problem, which you posted publicly on your website as a "refutation" of a comment of my own. Your explanation of how you found that solution led directly to a positive feedback loop, which I mentioned to you at the time. That has been a couple of years now.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]
Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.
And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, whichhaslinks to this neverending“conversation”LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
But you have never acknowledged your original error. Ever moving the goalposts, ever finding new "explanations" for how your "solution" somehow didn't ACTUALLY violate conservation of energy. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-27]
Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?
Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye
Slashdot Mirror
You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:
We either disagree about the definition of the word "irrelevant" or the phrase "nobody else".
I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?
Do you mean this post where I explained that Jane Q. Public's climate science denial violates conservation of energy? Again, why did that prompt you to accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Why would a paid oil troll defend mainstream climate science? This is one reason why I think you might be mistaking me for someone else. Why would the oil industry pay me to debunk the same baseless accusations they're helping to spread?
Another reason I think you might be mistaking me for someone else is that in that post I quoted Jane Q. Public to respond to his baseless accusation:
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).
Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.
Just quote whatever I said that made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times. Start at the beginning of the thread and make sure you're quoting things I actually wrote, rather than quotes from someone else. Then explain why these words I wrote (rather than quotes from someone else) made you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times.
Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?
Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:
What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong: "'The Greatest Generation' is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."
Members of the "Greatest Generation" were born from 1901 to 1924, but Tom Brokaw was born in 1940.
So Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong. Again. The "Greatest Generation" isn't a self-designation.
Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.
I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.
I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.
I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.
I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.
I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.
Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?
One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.
But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.
Nonsense. Here's a list of 17 correct prognostications and their confirmations, including full citations.
Without gases which absorb IR, your hot gas would have been able to radiate its heat out to space even without rising in the atmosphere. In that case, even the surface would be able to radiate its heat directly to space.
But in the presence of gases which absorb IR, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation. That's because radiating gases have raised Earth's effective radiating level to ~7 km above sea level.
Nonsense. Without radiating gases, net radiative heat transfer happens directly between the surface and the 2.7K CMBR. Jane seems to understand that net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Conservation of energy means that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing, and a quick calculation yields an equilibrium surface temperature for Earth of -17C.
That's much colder than Earth's actual average surface temperature of +15C because net heat transfer to the frigid 2.7K CMBR is very rapid due to the fact that Tb is a tiny 2.7K. Very rapid net heat transfer means an Earth without radiating gases in the atmosphere could lose heat very rapidly, which would make it very cold.
Adding radiating gases just raises the effective radiating level above the surface. Conservation of energy forces the effective radiating level to have that temperature of -17C, otherwise heat would be building up (or down) below that level, which would cause warming (or cooling).
But in the presence of radiating gases, the surface can't radiate directly to the frigid 2.7K CMBR. Instead, it radiates (and convects) to the effective radiating level. Net radiative heat transfer is proportional to (Ta^4 - Tb^4), where Ta is the surface temperature and Tb is now the -17C effective radiating level. But this means Tb = 256K, which is much larger than 2.7K. Therefore net radiative heat transfer from the surface is much slower than without radiating gases. Reducing radiative heat transfer while keeping sunlight constant results in surface warming.
I've just described the radiative component, but I've also described the convective component, which doesn't alter the basic fact that adding radiating gases to an atmosphere raises the effective radiating level and warms the surface. That's because the Earth can't convect heat to the near-vacuum of space, it can only radiate heat away. That's why radiative heat transfer dominates Earth's top of the atmosphere energy balance.
Perhaps you meant that most solids are "black" to IR and are good absorbers/emitters and poor reflectors.
Sadly, lgw still hasn't objected to Jane's Slayer misinformation even though I gave lgw a generous two days to show that he's a true skeptic. So let's review the basic physics in this thought experiment. A source is heated by constant electrical power inside a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Here's how to use the principle of conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source
For a simple example, blackbody cold walls are at 0F (T_c = 255K) and the heated blackbody source is at 150F (T_h = 339K). Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:
electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)
See? Applying conservation of energy isn't that complicated. In contrast, Jane's incorrect Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy:
Jane got the very first equation wrong, because Jane refuses to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
Once again, mainstream physics is based on conservation of energy. That means power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing.
Once again, I'm trying to point out that you and the other Slayers misunderstood your textbooks. Electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. "Radiant power output" doesn't. Sky Dragon Slayers have confused two completely different fundamental concepts.
Nobody here is only using high school physics. I just showed that my explanations of the greenhouse effect match that of Ray Pierrehumbert, author of Principles of Planetary Climate. (Just in case you've never heard of this textbook, it isn't a high school textbook.)
It's disappointing (but sadly not surprising after meeting Sky Dragon Slayers like Jane) to find that lgw can't or won't cite even a single peer-reviewed study of equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that he actually accepts. And, frankly, ocean acidification is pretty close to being high school chemistry. Does lgw dismiss ocean acidification like Jane and the Sky Dragon Slayers do?
If this is such a critical and dramatic effect, you should easily be able to cite peer-reviewed articles (other than G&T) supporting and quantifying it. Right?
No, I've actually emphasized that:
"I'm not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the 'runaway greenhouse' on Venus is even possible on Earth."
Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert agree:
"The Earth may well succumb to a runaway greenhouse as the Sun continues to brighten over the next billion years or so, but the amount of CO2 we could add to the atmosphere by burning all available fossil fuel reserves would not move us significantly closer to the runaway greenhouse threshold. There are plenty of nightmares lurking in anthropogenic global warming, but the runaway greenhouse is not among them."
I've already explained complex factors like pressure broadening, which don't change the fact that CO2 warms the surface. For instance, how would surface temperatures change if all the CO2 in the atmosphere suddenly vanished? Sky Dragon Slayers have a simple (and wrong) answer: it wouldn't. What's yours?
I've explained that to a first approximation, convection establishes the lapse rate (the rate at which temperature drops with altitude in the troposphere). That estab
You still haven't cited any scientific literature to support your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern. When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."
Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."
Oversimplifying the issue would be claiming there's "nothing to worry about" while over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
What scientific literature supports your opinion that CO2 emissions aren't a concern? When atmospheric CO2 is doubled, what equilibrium temperature rise results? Please cite peer-reviewed papers with equilibrium CO2 climate sensitivities that you actually accept. Otherwise it's not clear what sensitivity study prompted you to claim "it would not be a concern."
Also, please cite peer-reviewed papers showing that CO2 emissions don't result in ocean acidification. That's also necessary before claiming "it would not be a concern."
High school physics explanations? I've explained: greenhouse gases re-emit some of the upwelling long-wave IR, and it bounces around the troposphere until it gets to a height known as the "effective radiating level". Above this height (roughly 7km), there aren’t enough greenhouse gases to keep "most" of the IR from escaping to space altogether. This effective radiating level controls the outflow of heat from the Earth. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that power radiated is proportional to temperature^4, and temperature decreases with height in the troposphere. Adding greenhouse gases raises the height of this effective radiating level, where it is cooler, which therefore decreases the outflow of heat from the Earth. This is the greenhouse effect, and it isn’t saturated because the effective radiating level can just keep getting higher (e.g. Venus).
I've also repeatedly noted complex factors like pressure broadening, which makes the greenhouse effect different on Venus, Earth and Mars.
I've also told the Sky Dragon Slayers that anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch this video. Note that my explanations are similar to those from Rasmus Benestad and Ray Pierrehumbert:
"Despite the fact that Venus has vastly more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth, the same basic principles govern the operation of the greenhouse effect for both planets: the fact that air cools by expansion as it rises means that the upper parts of the atmosphere are colder than the surface, while the opacity of greenhouse gases to infrared means that infrared radiation can only escape from
Jane's "conversations" about Earth rely on Sky Dragon Slayer denial that CO2 warms the surface. It's quite relevant that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Sky Dragon Slayers should explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury if CO2 can't warm the surface. They usually respond by fantasizing about gray Oreos or basketball player gloves.
Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus's effective radiating level is far above its surface due to its CO2 atmosphere, while Mercury's effective radiating level is at its surface.
Jane wouldn't be able to recognize actual evidence because he's a Sky Dragon Slayer who strenuously denies that "CO2-based warming" even exists. A reasonable skeptic who took this position would feel obliged to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?
An imaginary and shaky "demon"? Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
Ironically, Jane probably won't even have to pay when we take action to address climate change. This study calculates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend will save lives and add jobs while increasing Americans' real disposable income. Even though fossil fuel companies pass the cost of the carbon fee onto consumers, that fee is just returned to the consumer anyway.
For a regional analysis, see figure 3.25 on page 38. Out of nine regions, real disposable income per capita only decreases in one (the western north central states). That one regional decrease is much smaller than the increases in other regions like the pacific region which includes Washington.
Again, what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've suggested I kill myself three times?
Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? For instance:
What did I write to make you accuse me of being a paid oil troll?
Oops, 4 months ago. Still not a couple of years.
Anyone who doesn't want to listen to Rujiel repeatedly tell me to kill myself should note that Jane keeps spreading Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation here.
No, seriously. Suggestions that people kill themselves are unproductive. Exactly what did I write to make you hate me so much that you've repeatedly told me to kill myself?
Once again, I explained that the equations I'm using account for an infinite series of reflections. But as MIT explained, this infinite sum converges to a finite temperature. If Jane thinks he's found a mistake in MIT's derivation, please let everyone know exactly where.
And Jane, that wasn't a couple of years ago. I refuted your Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense 3 months ago, not a couple of years ago. It probably just feels like years because you've been cussing and screaming and insisting you're right and I'm wrong for hundreds of pages. Seriously, look at the index at the top of that comment, which has links to this never ending “conversation” LINK, LINK, LINK. BACKUP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Jane, have you ever considered the possibility that I didn't make an error, and that you simply don't understand physics as well as professional physicists do? For instance, you screwed up the very first equation because you don't know how to apply conservation of energy to a boundary around the heated source. I've tried to show you how to derive that equation, but you've repeatedly refused. Why?
Furthermore, you won't even ask a physicist you respect if electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. This would be even easier than writing down a single equation. Just ask Prof. Cox (or any other mainstream physicist) and their answer might finally help you see why your Sky Dragon Slaye