@thr33wisemonks Yes its called Company Tax and we have one of those. And a mining profits Tax, Payroll Tax and they pay royalties on what they mine. Is all of this enough tax? that's another debate, but if society feels they aren't paying enough then the answer is simple - increase existing taxes, don't bring in a brand new tax that will not be paid by big business, rather it will be passed on to those least able to afford it.
@GalileoMovement You said, "the answer is simple - increase existing taxes"
The goal of the exercise is not so much to increase government revenue but to create an incentive opportunity for business to reduce CO2 emissions. So increasing existing taxes would be a waist of time in that respect. The Government is not after a large increase in revenue. That is not to say that the government does not want to bring the budget into surplus; they do. However that's a seperate issue.
@RasPesher That misrepresents my position. I am NOT calling for an increase in taxes. I was simply replying to wisemonk that if SOCIETY believes Governments need more revenue (which BTW I don't) then there is ample taxation options already available. We don't need another big tax on CO2, because we don't need to reduce CO2, because CO2 doesn't do what warmers claim it does.
@GalileoMovement Firstly I did not misrepresent your position; I did not state your position, I quoted you. The context of the quote is given in your comment to thr33wisemonks directly above in the thread; that should not be hard to work out.
However the price on carbon is being misrepresented when it's portrayed as having a prime purpose of raising revenue. Its purpose is to reduce CO2 production.
Whether you accept the physic of global warming or not, is irrelevant to my post.
@1000frolly "... (by 2050), is just so that Gillard can stay on as PM"
• Do you really think that Jullia Gillard will stay on as PM in 2050 ?????
• Given that the Clean Energy Bill does not specify a price on carbon in 2050 are you making the figures up?
• There is supposed to be a reduction of over 80% in the amount of CO2 taxed by 2050. Do you have a crystal ball that tells you the exact amount? Have you taken the reduction into account?
@RasPesher EIGHTY PERCENT REDUCTION - seriously!!! The ABS puts our population at 2050 at around double 2012, so our starting point is a 100% INCREASE in greenhouse gasses. By their own figures the tax will raise $75 billion over the first 5 years, over 38 years it will raise at least half a trillion, assuming we can double our population with no increase in CO2 at all. To do double the pop with an 80% reduction - as you suggest - HTF are you going to pull that off? Cant wait to hear this!
I can tell you how; these frickin greenies will have us living in caves without even a fire to cook on.
(Except for them, of course; they will still be flying by private jet to their IPCC political meetings - THAT will be the 20% of emissions that will be still allowed!)
@GalileoMovement EIGHTY PERCENT REDUCTION - read the clean energy bill:
"take action directed towards meeting Australia’s long‑term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050"
The fixed carbon price is only temporary. After three years it will convert to an auction system. The 80% reduction will be achieved by limiting the total number of carbon units sold or auctioned by the government.
@RasPesher "Taking action directed toward meeting" isnt actually doing, its bureaucrat speak for "pretend to try till its time for morning tea/lunch/afternoon tea/go home time". But putting that aside what you are seriously proposing is this. If we dont voluntarily reduce our emissions 80% while growing our population 100% then you limit teh credits, so that companies that miss out have to shut down? -2
In practice how does that work? The Government will have to force cars with petrol engines off the road because last time I looked trucks dont run on electricty, and 80% doesnt leave room for cars and trucks. All power will have to be solar or wind - what do we use for heating and lighting on an evening without wind? The rich will buy up the credits for the aircon in their investment banks while the poor freeze to death. Your targets are pure evil.
@GalileoMovement "the Government will ... force cars with petrol engines off the road"
"Peak car use per capita was in 2004 & since has shown a slow decline. It marks an end to car dependence"-ABC Science Show
People are already abandoning cars. The government will not need to do a thing.
Some say that peak oil has already been reached. One thing is for sure, all the large oil fields have already been found; new discoveries tend to be small. Prices are set to go sky high.
@GM Cars will probably go electric. They will then solve your other problem, what to do when the wind is not blowing. With millions of cars connected to the grid each night power may be purchased back from the cars to the grid. Cars then act as a temporary power station. Selling to the grid when the price is high. When the wind blows again the batteries are recharged, but at a lower price. All the owner needs to do is let the grid know when he is going to need his car next.
@1000frolly You seem to think that everyone is nieve when you say, "There are no foreign workers; all are Aussies"
Gina Rinehart on behalf of India's GVK group is advocating the setting up of a "Northern Special economic zone from Bowen to Port Hedland." Clive Palmer, the other big player in the Galilee Basin with ChinaFirst, is also behind the push.
The purpose of the proposed "free trade zones" is to allow the mines to employ 100% foreign labour flown in direct from overseas.
@1000frolly Total rubbish when you say, "Gillard and Brown are trying to kill off both mining and manufacturing"
The mining industry has almost doubled the price of the Australian dollar. This is killing off Australian manufacturing. It is the mining industry not the price on carbon that is destroying our manufacturing. Mining product, if effected by the price on carbon, will reduce the dollar and boost manufacturing.
You said, "if you replace Venus's CO2 atmosphere with OURS - (nitrogen and oxygen) (& without GHGs); Venus will get even HOTTER, I can calculate it but it will ADD almost 200c."
FALSE. An atmosphere without GHGs has almost no effect at all. The blackbody temperature of the planet that matches the unreflected radiation from the Sun then determines the temperature. Assuming that the internal radioactive decay is negligible
Swinbourne University says that I am; argue with them if you like.
OK we will replace the CO2 atmos on Venus with an oxygen/Nitrogen one at 90.9 atm.
To assist you, see Sorokhtin et al. (2007) on the physics of the greenhouse effect.
You need to include; the adiabatic process, the partial pressure of the gas, heat transfer mechanisms, I.R. absorbtion, molecular weight and specific heat of the gas.
They calculate an increase in the Venusian temp from 462c to 657c.
There is now no mechanism to further heat the air (no conduction, no convection and no evaporation) so the Venetian atmosphere permanently cools until the air temperature equals the surface temperature.
Equilibrium is reached when OLR equals Incoming shortwave radiation.
The physics of ADIABATIC PROCESSES is usually employed in a situation where a gas is suddenly compressed or expanded. & if that process occurs so fast that we can ignore heat transfer. If I had a ball & I pumped it up quickly, it would get hot. I would not be so much as adding energy to the system but compressing the energy that is already there. However no one is suddenly compressing the Venetian atmosphere. In our scenario there is no other mechanism for heating the air.
@1000frolly Sorokhtin's example differs from yours. When determining the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere he uses the following formula:
ΔT ≈ TαΔP
but he goes wrong when he applies a constant for "α". CO2 is a GHG. Basically he ignores quantum mechanics. "α" is not constant for GHGs. By assuming that CO2 is not a GHG, Sorokhtin et all calculate that CO2 has virually no warming effect. Their calculations reflect their assumptions and are totally erroneous.
You are ignoring the most important points; those of pressure and that the molecular weight of CO2 is 1.5 times that of air, and its specific heat is 1.2 times LESS.
Also I said to replace with "our current atmosphere" - which includes some CO2.
Really, I am an engineer/astronomer, not an atmospheric physisict; also I haven't the time or inclination to argue this in fine details. If you are really interested, you will find Sorokhtin's papers full of information.
The most important point is that it is NOT an adiabatic process.
2) You said to replace with "our current atmosphere - (nitrogen and oxygen)"
You also said, "Oxygen and Nitrogen and Argon are not greenhouse gasses"
You said this to avoid the conclusion that the alleged temperature rise was due to GHGs. But now you want to claim that we consider the greenhouse effect (ie "our current atmosphere which includes some CO2").
Your position seems to be flip-flopping. Which is it?
Note also, that your adiabatic process requires green house heating for the adiabatic process to work. In other words, an additional green house effect.
The whole point of all this is to point out that Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket.
It does not matter a lot which gasses you use when the surface pressure is 91 bar; its going to be very hot; very little surface radiation can escape from Venus.
It is not therefore CO2 that is causing the temperature on Venus, it is the fact of the thick blanket of atmosphere.
@1000frolly "Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket"
WRONG. The planet already has an insulating blanket. It's called outer space, a vacuum; vacuums make good insulators. Air conducts heat. There is really only one way, for a planet to loose heat/energy, and that is from Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
@1000frolly You asked, "then why isn't every planet hot?"
•The OLR (I/R photons) is/(are) what cools a planet, NOT THERMAL CONDUCTION! The OLR is not affected by the thermal insulating properties of space.
You asked, "How does heat get to us from the sun"
•Energy from the Sun is radiated in the form of photons. It is only when these photons are absorbed by atoms and molecules on Earth that this energy is converted into heat. Heat doesn't get to us directly from the Sun, energy does.
@1000frolly You said, "The whole point of all this is to point out that Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket"
How is this relevant? To quote you, "We are talking about the radiative balance of Venus, not how much conduction occurs to space." A thermal "insulating blanket" around Venus is irrelevant! A thick atmosphere per se does not make it act like an insulating blanket.
It's the thickness of GHGs alone that affects the radiative balance.
@1000frolly You said, "You've lost the plot here I think"
I'm not surprised that you think that, since you seem to be having trouble differentiating between PHOTONS AND HEAT. Maybe its not so much that I'm loosing the plot, but that there is a deficiency in your knowledge base.
I quite clearly said "our current atmosphere"; (which is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, as I said).
If you replace a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere with an atmosphere consisting of mainly non- greenhouse gasses, (and the atmosphere then gets warmer), how can you then claim that the warming is because of the greenhouse effect?
@1000frolly You said, "I quite clearly said 'our current atmosphere'; (which is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, as I said)."
Thank you, that validates my original response:
2) As for Venus getting hotter with Earth's Green House Gases, it demonstrates how much more effective GHGs can be when they operate in concert. Positive feedback amplifies the Green House effect. So if CO2 causes more water to evaporates or releases more methane from under the permafrost, beware!
@1000frolly "If you replace a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere with an atmosphere consisting of mainly non- greenhouse gasses, (and the atmosphere then gets warmer), how can you then claim that the warming is because of the greenhouse effect?"
Simple, both atmospheres contain GHGs. The atmosphere with just a 1% composition of GHGs (ignoring H20) has a plethora of different GHGs, making these GHGs more effective than we could expect from a single GHG alone.
@1000frolly If you take our atmosphere and bump it up to 91 atmos of pressure. That means it is 91x the mass. That atmosphere would be equivalent to Earth containing 3.6% (91x0.0391%) of CO2 (The actual effect of a greenhouse gas goes on the quantity, not percentage. That is why we need to adjust the percentage to maintain an equivalence). The same goes for all the other GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere.
If you bump up the quantity of air in the atmosphere you increase the GH effect.
Lets find someone with a PhD in common sense. The climate has been changing for millions of years, if a tax will stop the climate from changing that would be scary.
@1000frolly Actually, the Price on Carbon is already having an effect. People are reacting to the proposed introduction. Solar panels and solar hot water heaters are being installed.
Even a denier in a comment on YouTube was advocating that people install solar panels to avoid paying "Gillard's tax" as he put it. The correct response for the wrong reason.
The price on carbon is brilliant in concept and IT IS AREADY WORKING!
@GalileoMovement "And it is?" refers to the Carbon Tax being brilliant. Conceptually it is a tool that can control the climate. We already know that, because we know the physics.
@RasPesher After a long debate we have actually returned to our starting point - that the warming effect of CO2 is greatly exaggerated, that the most any increase in CO2 can warm is 1 degree, and we have had a lot of that warming already, The percentage of man-made CO2 is only 3% and the percentage produced in Australia is only 0.039%. Therefore the Carbon Tax is impacting on such a tiny amount of warming that it can at best have an impact of a thousandth of a degree. -2
This morning data came out that Germany is unwinding their solar power subsidies because the cost was literally "a risk to the economy" and the reduction in warming from their one million solar installations will be thousandths of one degree. They calculate Solar will postpone warming from human actions over the next 90 years by 20 hours. Why? because CO2 cant produce the warming that alarmists claim it can and so mitigation policy like Carbon Taxes and Solar wont have an effect on temperature.
You are not seeing the Carbon Tax working at all, the reduction in warming will be so small as beyond our capability to measure. What you are seeing is the financial impact of the tax - that may well drive up solar and wind power but already Europe has proven that this is not a good more. What you are seeing is Australia rushing headlong down the same path Europe is abandoning, We should learn from their mistakes but warmers are so driven by ideology they cant see what common sense dictates.
@GalileoMovement let me correct myself, I meant that to sound plural, perhaps several thousandths of a degree, I am not suggesting we can calculate it accurately to 3 decimal places. The discussion has been around that figure.
@GalileoMovement Your "cavalry" alleged that an atmosphere containing 0.039% of CO2 on Venus would produce a temperature of 657°C; a "run away" greenhouse effect of 700°C.
If this warming effect is "greatly exaggerated" then don't blame me. Your side supplied the data and it does not support your conclusion. Blind Freddy would see that 700°C is not 1°C, yet you said, "the most any increase in CO2 can warm is 1 degree."
Tell me, do you write this stuff with a straight face?
@MrPurplefood If you read Houghton's statement carefully you'll notice that it is perfectly compatible with my response. Note that he is talking about what it shows not what it proves. In electronics there are devices known as flip-flops. They are bistable. They stay in one state until triggered by a small signal. +ve feedback then drives the device to saturation in its other state. The climate system is similar where CO2 forms the function of +ve feedback.
@RasPesher John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) "Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature" ... "For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide" ... oh shit. good day :).
1) both drive temperature due to the green house effect, and
2) be released from the ocean by raising the water temperature (provided that the atmospheric level of CO2 is not being raised at the same time so as to counteract this release).
As for ice core samples, they show CO2 driven by temperature and driving temperature.
However I don't get to that conclusion by consideration of the ice core samples alone.
the original thread? 'the climate has changed and will continue to change in all of its existence'?. ah yes, the classic communist notion, if you can't beat the man, then try to denigrate their reputation so much that they are perceived that reputationless - Saal and Linski, a communist agitator in the US, as i believe. Okay, but aren't investment banks, the UN IPCC, governments best interest to push global warming, the money spirals into the trillions.
@MrPurplefood Sorry but I went back to the original movie to look for the original thread. I used the "Find:" function on the web browser and did a search for 'the climate has changed and will continue to change in all of its existence'.
The search result: "No matches found." I repeated the search for the seven pages of comments and had no luck.
Conclusion: You are either telling porky pies or suffering from something like alzheimers.
WHOEVER IS MARKING AS SPAM STOP IT!!! Both the above 2 comments are turned back on, you are achieving nothing!!!. OK now to Ras - I see nothing helpful in your comment. MrP is saying that the basic thrust of our position is that global warming is a natural cycle, and that is inherent in all of our replies. I dont know if any one comment says that but it doesnt matter - natural cycle is the kceptic's position.
Responding to his comment about the unholy alliance between big banks and green groups and the massive amounts of money that the AGW scare is generating for those groups would be nice. You are trying to discredit Galileo for being involved with Gina (which I cannot confirm or deny - I am not on that side of the organisation), however it is the warmers who have access to big money not us. I am doing this for free.
@GalileoMovement said, "warmers ... have access to big money not us"
• Are you sure?
Governments world wide are paying ½ a TRILLION Dollars each year to SUBSIDISE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. That is about 1.4 billion a day of TAXPAYER money!
Hundreds of millions of dollars were payed by energy companies to political parties over the last 10 years in the US alone. Also millions of dollars has flowed to climate denier groups.
Q. Why can't the Galileo Movement tap into any of this?
@RasPesher Warmera are playing games when they say the Government is subsidising the fossil fuel industry. What is actually happening in Australia is that Government owned coal mines are selling coal to Government owned power stations at discounted prices to keep the cost of electricity down. Greens are suggesting this is a subsidy as the taxpayers would get more for that coal on the open market. This is not correct. -2
Every power station worldwide signs long term supply contracts for coal at discounted prices, volume discounts if you like. The price we are getting from the Japanese and Chinese is around the same as our power generators pay - this "massive subsidy" on "foregone profit" is classic MISDIRECTION - don't look at the hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars going into green projects, look at the coal pricing instead. Not buying it Ras.
I was refering to a joint report produced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) & the International Energy Agency (IEA). Subsidies such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g. land) and the transfer or risks to governments (e.g. via concessional loans or guarantees) etc.
@RasPesher Apologies that was a typo, I meant to say WARMERS - ie - you! These are all things that Governments do for power generation in all countries, again to keep the price down and guarantee a supply of what is am essential service. It isnt per se a fossil fuel subsidy, taxpayers are also subsidising solar and wind by even more than fossil fuels when expressed as a cents per kwh. Are you saying its OK to subsidise uneconomic solar and wind, but not fossil?
@GalileoMovement "Are you saying its OK to subsidise ... solar and wind, but not fossil?"
My original comment was about access to money. You claimed that deniers didn't have access to money. So my comment was about access to money by the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry has a track record of pumping funds towards denier groups, regardless of whether the GM benefits from this or not. The GM may receive nothing but it may be that some of your independent advisors do.
Yes my comments were as stated about "governments world wide" and not about Australia per say.
You said, "uneconomic solar and wind, but not fossil."
Just to clarify because the wording is a little ambiguous. Wind power generation of electricity is not always uneconomic, and fossil fuel is not always economic. Traditionally in NSW the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority has been used to take up the load WHEN COAL IS UNECONOMIC.
"Are you saying its OK to subsidise ... solar and wind, but not fossil?"
Careful here, the purpose of the price on CO2 is to factor in, the cost to the environment of adding additional CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. The price on carbon is not so much a subsidy but a recognition of the true price of CO2.
@RasPesher I'm happy to have this discussion framed in your terms - with the cost of the respective CO2/Warming impacts added to the cost of production to get a true picture of how much each energy source costs. Why? Simply because the whole basis of our disagreement is in that environmental cost - you say CO2 is warming the planet by the IPCC's up to 5 degrees ("if we do nothing" scenario), we say bulldust - CO2 can only cause 1 degree and we have already had some of that. -2
The argument then winds up being the same - is CO2 causing catastrophic warming or not? We say no, you say yes and then we turn to the science for an answer. Having come full circle where do we go from here? back over the same ground a second time? -2
Or we could just look at the satellite temperature record over at Anthony Watts temperature page - January's temperature data shows the earth has only warmed .13 of a degree since the satellite went up in 1979. There has been a half a degree COOLING since 2007. You can clutch at ground-based data from shonky weather stations located in front of air-conditioning ducts all you want, warmers cannot deny the satellite data is an accurate measurement of the earth's temperature. And its falling.
@RasPesher In what circumstance is wind power economic? I have never seen wind shown to be economic in a cents per kw/h comparison with coal when you take the whole of life into account - across 20 years of windy days, still days and maintenance down time. I would love to see what you have on this,
@GalileoMovement Since the following is your claim, "MrP is saying that the basic thrust of our position is that global warming is a natural cycle," how are you going prove or demonstrate it? In this particular case it's not natural by default.
@RasPesher Sorry Ras are you saying that you do not agree as to the existence of a natural cycle (several cycles on different time scales) or are you saying you agree there is a cycle but that the recently concluded warming (now cool ng) is not related to the cycle? Clarify that if you wouldn't mind so I know where to go next.
@GalileoMovement We are not in a cooling trend. In 2010 we had the hottest year on instrument record according to an average of the global temperature datasets for land and sea from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office/CRU. 2011 was the hottest La Nina year on record. The hottest decade on record is shared by 2001-2010 and 2002-2011.
If you think that this trend is a natural cycle you need to demonstrate that it is: 1) a cycle and 2) natural.
@RasPesher - All 3 of those institutions use the same instrument dataset so of course they say the same thing. The satellite temperature data does not say that at all, the land-based data does, and that has been helped by 40% of the land based stations being poorly cited. Denying that the earth is cooling is just not a sustainable position.
@GalileoMovement "The satellite temp. data does not say that at all"
Satellite data shows that 2010 was equally the hottest year on record (within the accuracy of the dataset). There are minor variations between the datasets. One dataset has 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, another 2010 is tied with 1998 as the hottest. But whatever way you want to twist the data you're not going to find a cooling trend. You're not going to find a decade hotter than 2001-2010.
@RasPesher "...and that has been helped by 40% of the land based stations being poorly cited"
Mr Muller a climate skeptic funded by the Kosh brothers was supposed to produce a dataset to disprove global warming. Instead when he crunched the data, a total of 1.6 billion temperature measurements, he confirmed the global warming trend.
Furthermore he found that the "poorly cited land stations" rather than exaggerating the warming trend underestimated it.
@RasPesher "How do we demonstrate the natural cycle theory?" Seriously? There is a mountain of science behind the natural cycle theory, based on solar cycles, movement in the earth's orbit of the sun - just Google it. One thing I will say, if you compare the IPCC's hopeless projections that have overstated warming by between 1 and 3 degrees, to the projections of the "natural cycle" people,its all over red rover - natural cycle is winning the accuracy comparison hands down.
@RasPesher How can you possibly ascertain that Venus has had a greenhouse effect and of precisely 513 deg C. As measured from Earth? Please link to the paper that shows that figure thanks.
@GalileoMovement The surface temp of venus is known to be about 743°K. We can calculate the temp of a planet minus its greenhouse effect with the following formulae:
Teq = 280°K[(1-A)/a**2]**1/4
where "A" is the albedo and "a" is the distance to the Sun in AU. (and ** means raised to the power of)
The albedo for venus is 0.72 and its distance to the Sun is 0.723AU
@RasPesher After such a lack of actual science in your previous posts I am pleased to see some now. The equation is not in my area of expertise, so I have referred it to another moderator. Thanks for the contribution.
Many alarmists point to Venus (which has a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere) to claim that the Earth will end up hot like Venus if we do not stop emitting CO2.
This is arrant nonsense.
One thing they do not tell you is that if you replace Venus's CO2 atmosphere with OURS - (nitrogen and oxygen); Venus will get even HOTTER, I can calculate it but it will ADD almost 200c.
Thats right, our current atmosphere would warm Venus even more than CO2 does.
1) Nevertheless the point is that CO2, even with an albedo of 72%, makes a large difference (~500°C). This proves that CO2 is a Green House Gas to be reckoned with.
2) As for Venus getting hotter with Earth's Green House Gases, it demonstrates how much more effective GHGs can be when they operate in concert. Positive feedback amplifies the Green House effect. So if CO2 causes more water to evaporates or releases more methane from under the permafrost, beware!
1) My very point was that CO2 is nothing of the sort, and that even ordinary air enhances temperatures more than CO2. Beyond 20ppm CO2 has a rapidly diminishing grenhouse effect on Earth.
2) Oxygen and Nitrogen and Argon are not greenhouse gasses; these comprise 99.9% of the Earths atmospheric gasses (if you ignore water vapour)
There is no evidence that there is positive feedback from CO2 on Earth; the reverse in fact. All empirical data suggests negative OLR feedback
1)There are 3 main absorption bands for CO2; two in the near-IR and one smack in the middle of the main OLR window. This band has a side lobe in an area of the IR window that is not currently closed by any other GHGs. Increasing the level of CO2 effectively closes down the side lobe window. So when it comes to CO2 working in conjunction with other GHGs, CO2's contribution is enhanced.
The following is an equivalence of CO2 effect: 20ppm, 40ppm, 80ppm, 160ppm, 320ppm etc.
2)If you believe that CO2 is not a GHG then it would be part of "ordinary air." Then you seem to be saying that "ordinary air" works differently to CO2. So "ordinary air" works differently to "ordinary air."
That to me sounds rediculous. You'll have to provide an explanation.
3)RE "All empirical data suggests negative OLR feedback"
The OLR feedback has been measured from Earth. It has also been measured over time and found to increase as CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased. Furthermore the outgoing radiation from space has been measured and found to decrease in the frequency bands occupied by increasing levels of GHGs.
Conclusion: The feedback of OLR has reduced the outgoing radiation in the GH bands of frequency.
You have got everything mixed up. I haven't got the time to really educate you but will try.
The OLR IS the outgoing radiation - (that you're speaking about as though they are different).
OLR reacts to temperature directly via a negative feedback mechanism; - just as you outlined above.
CO2 increases the greenhouse effect-the Earth warms-the negative feedback comes into play via cloud effects-the OLR increases-the earth cools and equilibrium is again achieved.
@1000frolly Let me put this a different way. The only way you can have an increase in the OLR when the Earth is cooling is with a reduction in green house gases, but our scenario is dealing with the situation of increasing the CO2 levels and we are not considering a change in the level of any other greenhouse gas here. It is not a card that is on the table. That is why I say that you can't have OLR increasing with the Earth cooling. In this scenario there is no mechanism.
If you like look at it this way; A warming Earth first causes the OLR to increase, then the increasing OLR will cause the Earth to cool (and so the OLR will be increasing at the same time that the Earth is cooling, - due to the OLR increasing).
It is a dynamic system, but has some inertia, hence the overlap.
I am not inventing this stuff, its NOAA CPC anomoly data, when compared with HadCRUT surface air anomoly data..
@1000frolly You can't use recent data from NOAA/HadCRUT to tell you anything about the equilibrium position and overshoot because the Earth is in a transient response; it hasn't reached equilibrium.
wrt OLR & IR blackbody radiation, its a bit like a person opening all the outlet gates to a dam & then saying that the water downstream is reduced to a trickle so the dam must be filling. It's not going to happen. What happens downstream is related to events upstream-IR & OLR are related.
I've got news for you - the Earth will never reach any equilibrium. This is one of the biggest mistakes of AGW theorists.
First they assume that there is some imaginary stable level that they can measure any CO2 effect from; then they assume that there will be some imaginary equilibrium level, where all the effects of their CO2 forcing will be realised.
These assumptions and imaginary positions are totally the wrong way to think about the variable climate system.
The Earth's eliptical orbit causes solar shortwave irradiance to vary from 1,413 – 1,321 W/m². This equates to a change in OLR of about 23W/m² averaged over a 24hour day. But this average of 23W/m² would be dissapated much more during the day than night. So this parameter alone can explain half of your figure of 75W/m². Add in other cycles such as day & night, summer & winter, El Nino & La Nina and most of your variation is accounted for.
@1000frolly Nevertheless both outgoing longwave radiation and Infrared feedback from CO2 has been empirically measured making your statement false: "There is no evidence that there is positive feedback from CO2 on Earth" -FALSE
Positive feedback has been measured. Overtime as CO2 has increased and OLR has decreased in the 12-18um wavelength range. Correspondingly IR feedback has increased in that range.
@1000frolly "You can't measure OLR in one specific IR wavelength"
The OLR was measured in all wavelengths, First by NASA's IRIS Satelite in 1970 and then in 1996 by Japan's IMG Satelite. The two sets of data were then compared. It was found that the OLR has decreased over than time span. When we look at the spectrum we find that the reduction is specifically in those wavelengths absorbed by GHGs. Measurement of feedback radiation on the ground found the compliment of this change.
The output of the Earth that we are looking at is its surface temp.
From the temp of the Earth, IR radiation is produced as black body radiation. Some of this radiation is absorbed by GHGs and emitted back to Earth. The input to the Earth is radiation. The feedback is the radiation emitted by the greenhouse gases back to the Earth. This feedback is called "+ve" because it adds to itself around the loop; more heat - more radiation - more heat.
@RasPesher "... & then claim that this is positive feedback for the CO2 increase"
Sure I can. We know the absorption spectrum for the various different GHGs. By comparing the measurements from the NASA IRIS satelite and the Japanese IMG satelite we can infer that the increase in feedback in the CO2 band of frequencies is due to the increase in CO2.
@1000frolly I understand that there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem comes from the fact that man's production has been increasing exponencially. Between these two effects the outcome is roughly linear wrt time. Furthermore CO2 has a side lobe on its main IR absorption band. Increasing CO2 in air effectively increases the width in the freq. domain of its main absorption band. I disagree with your statement of hardly any difference.
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."
Currently the Earth is not in equilibrium. Its response to previous increases in CO2 has not been fully expressed. We have another degree of increase in Temperature on the way even if we were to stop the burning fossil fuels today.
4ppb out of 1800 is hardly anything to panic about, and is not a significant change.
So; I have looked at the data from Vestmannaeyjar, (Iceland) and Tasmania, where the Northern and Southern hemisphere's measurements are made respectively.
Over decadal time-scales neither of us is right.
To be generous, the concentration of CH4 has been flat since 1999.
With the currently falling global temperatures, CH4 should fall more over time.
All sides agree that doubling CO2 adds about 1.6W/m2 (without feedbacks)
Considering that this will take at least 50 years to achieve, and as noted before, the Earth's climate system is stabilised by the OLR which can and has changed by 80W/m2 (on much shorter timescales) in response to additional forcings, the I wonder, why are warmists so worried?
@RasPesher Hang on a minute. "Between these two effects the outcome is roughly linear wrt time." NO ITS NOT. Its exponential, I have not seen any science that says its linear. Please provide the source for this assertion.
@RasPesher - hang on another minute " CO2 has a side lobe on its main IR absorption band." Also new to me - citation please. Your conter to MrPurplefoots' science is so far not based on science I am familiar with, please provide citations for your position.
This formula results in the CO2 level doubling every 385 years. If we accept 1000frolly's claim that "doubling CO2 adds about 1.6W/m2"
This means that every 385 years the reduction in OLR is 1.6W/m2
.. which is a LINEAR regression.
This equates to Arrhenius' green house law:
"if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."
@RasPesher "This formula results in the CO2 level doubling every 385 years"
This rate has been actually increasing much faster. In reality it will probably double by the end of the century unless evasive action is taken. So it could double in 100 years.
The year to year variation in CO2 levels is about 6 ppm. Over a 26 year period CO2 levels have in creased by 30 ppm. Over this period the variation is not significant especially since it's mostly cyclical and can be taken into account.
Believe that we will soon see CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere falling as more CO2 is taken up by the cooling oceans; so do not count on CO2 going up even if emissions increase.
I suggest that you read the original comment that inaugurated this thread. Read it carefully and in context before responding. You've attempted to argue from "lag" means a slow release but that was not the context in which the word was being used. If "lag" means slow release then the argument that CO2 can't drive Temp because the cause can't come after the event, falls apart. The slow release scenareo means they both start simultaneously.
So if you want me to google information, I'll google that which is required to support the real claim, not your equivocated version. Your equivocation amount to the porky pie.
@MrPurplefood I have gone through and reset all the "flagged as spams" AGAIN , apologies for being slow to do that. Also I accidentally deleted a comment that was flagged as spam in trying to unflag it, its location was right here. So please dont say "you deleted my post" just retype it against this comment please. Not sure whose it was. GM
The main cause of this dimming is particulates produced by volcanoes and human made pollutants, which exerts a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion and aerosols – have largely been offset in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane.
1) It did not support your claim that CO2 causes global dimming. The reason of course is that your claim was bat excrement crazy.
2) wrt warming due to CH4. CO2 raised the temperature melting some of the northern polar ice. This in turn reduced the reflectivity which further raised the temperature. Thawing Arctic ice released CH4 from under the permafrost. CH4 is a GHG.
conclusion - the warming caused by CH4 was in turn initiated by CO2-GH warming.
With respect to the "lag" claim that CO2 waits 800 years before it starts to evaporate out of a liquid in respond to an increase in temperature, I googled:
Coke bottles, once opened, wait 800 years before starting to go flat¶
I googled your claim, "CO2 causes global dimming"
I did not find anything to support your claim.
Wikipedia said: "Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action."
@RasPesher Wikipedia as usual speaks for the warmers who control that topic. The idea that China's aerosols have caused this current cooling has been easily debunked. See
cato dot org/pub_display dot php question mark pub_id=13510
@GalileoMovement You have misinterpreted MrPurplefoods claim altogether. MrPurplefood thinks that CO2 is like an aerosol and that CO2 causes global dimming. He is very mixed up. MrPurplefoods remarks had nothing to do with China.
As for aerosols. It was found in the 50s-70s that aerosols acted as a counter balance to the GHGs. Short term the aerosols won, however they wash out of the atmosphere quicker than the GHGs and so in the long term the GHGs win.
From the olympics in China we know that they have a problem with sulphates and acid rain. The slowing of warming in the 00s may therefore be due to aerosols from China.
So there should be a carbon tax for these multibillion dollar profit companies. They make millions of dollars in profit each year.
thr33wisemonks 3 weeks ago
@thr33wisemonks Yes its called Company Tax and we have one of those. And a mining profits Tax, Payroll Tax and they pay royalties on what they mine. Is all of this enough tax? that's another debate, but if society feels they aren't paying enough then the answer is simple - increase existing taxes, don't bring in a brand new tax that will not be paid by big business, rather it will be passed on to those least able to afford it.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement You said, "the answer is simple - increase existing taxes"
The goal of the exercise is not so much to increase government revenue but to create an incentive opportunity for business to reduce CO2 emissions. So increasing existing taxes would be a waist of time in that respect. The Government is not after a large increase in revenue. That is not to say that the government does not want to bring the budget into surplus; they do. However that's a seperate issue.
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher That misrepresents my position. I am NOT calling for an increase in taxes. I was simply replying to wisemonk that if SOCIETY believes Governments need more revenue (which BTW I don't) then there is ample taxation options already available. We don't need another big tax on CO2, because we don't need to reduce CO2, because CO2 doesn't do what warmers claim it does.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement Firstly I did not misrepresent your position; I did not state your position, I quoted you. The context of the quote is given in your comment to thr33wisemonks directly above in the thread; that should not be hard to work out.
However the price on carbon is being misrepresented when it's portrayed as having a prime purpose of raising revenue. Its purpose is to reduce CO2 production.
Whether you accept the physic of global warming or not, is irrelevant to my post.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@GM Cont...
And only irrelevant to that specific comment because I was talking about the purpose of putting a price on Carbon, not the reason for that purpose.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
Dream on.
The real reason we will be hit with this $1.35 TRILLION tax (by 2050), is just so that Gillard can stay on as PM.
We are all going to go to the poorhouse because of her pride, ambition and vanity.
There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions in the first place, and even if there was, this tax will not achieve this.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly "... (by 2050), is just so that Gillard can stay on as PM"
• Do you really think that Jullia Gillard will stay on as PM in 2050 ?????
• Given that the Clean Energy Bill does not specify a price on carbon in 2050 are you making the figures up?
• There is supposed to be a reduction of over 80% in the amount of CO2 taxed by 2050. Do you have a crystal ball that tells you the exact amount? Have you taken the reduction into account?
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
She would put us, our kids, and their kids in massive debt just to stay on another MONTH as PM.
If you think the carbon tax will cut emissions, you are dreaming.
I expect that emissions will double or triple by 2050 in Australia, If they just stay the same, the tax will cost us $1.35 trillion.
1000frolly 6 days ago
@1000frolly
During my lifetime prices have doubled approximately every 7 or so years.
Noting that:
1) emmissions are expected to be reduced by 80% in 2050, and
2) approx 80% of the tax is being returned by way of other tax cuts, and
3) 38.5 years ~ 5.5 lots of 7 years.
Then the figure for 2050 in terms of todays 2012 currency is:
Carbon price = (20%)(20%)(1/2**5.5)($1.35 trillion) = $1.2 million
$1.2 million or about 6c each ... and you're worried about that?
RasPesher 6 days ago
@RasPesher EIGHTY PERCENT REDUCTION - seriously!!! The ABS puts our population at 2050 at around double 2012, so our starting point is a 100% INCREASE in greenhouse gasses. By their own figures the tax will raise $75 billion over the first 5 years, over 38 years it will raise at least half a trillion, assuming we can double our population with no increase in CO2 at all. To do double the pop with an 80% reduction - as you suggest - HTF are you going to pull that off? Cant wait to hear this!
GalileoMovement 6 days ago
@GalileoMovement
I can tell you how; these frickin greenies will have us living in caves without even a fire to cook on.
(Except for them, of course; they will still be flying by private jet to their IPCC political meetings - THAT will be the 20% of emissions that will be still allowed!)
1000frolly 5 days ago
@GalileoMovement EIGHTY PERCENT REDUCTION - read the clean energy bill:
"take action directed towards meeting Australia’s long‑term target of reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 2000 levels by 2050"
The fixed carbon price is only temporary. After three years it will convert to an auction system. The 80% reduction will be achieved by limiting the total number of carbon units sold or auctioned by the government.
RasPesher 5 days ago
@RasPesher "Taking action directed toward meeting" isnt actually doing, its bureaucrat speak for "pretend to try till its time for morning tea/lunch/afternoon tea/go home time". But putting that aside what you are seriously proposing is this. If we dont voluntarily reduce our emissions 80% while growing our population 100% then you limit teh credits, so that companies that miss out have to shut down? -2
GalileoMovement 4 days ago
In practice how does that work? The Government will have to force cars with petrol engines off the road because last time I looked trucks dont run on electricty, and 80% doesnt leave room for cars and trucks. All power will have to be solar or wind - what do we use for heating and lighting on an evening without wind? The rich will buy up the credits for the aircon in their investment banks while the poor freeze to death. Your targets are pure evil.
GalileoMovement 4 days ago
@GalileoMovement "the Government will ... force cars with petrol engines off the road"
"Peak car use per capita was in 2004 & since has shown a slow decline. It marks an end to car dependence"-ABC Science Show
People are already abandoning cars. The government will not need to do a thing.
Some say that peak oil has already been reached. One thing is for sure, all the large oil fields have already been found; new discoveries tend to be small. Prices are set to go sky high.
RasPesher 4 days ago
@GM Cars will probably go electric. They will then solve your other problem, what to do when the wind is not blowing. With millions of cars connected to the grid each night power may be purchased back from the cars to the grid. Cars then act as a temporary power station. Selling to the grid when the price is high. When the wind blows again the batteries are recharged, but at a lower price. All the owner needs to do is let the grid know when he is going to need his car next.
RasPesher 4 days ago
@thr33wisemonks
Why do you think they have invested if not to make a profit?
Do you think anyone would invest to make a loss? WOULD YOU?
They are employing Australians and paying huge taxes (which Gillard is wasting) - (but that is not their fault).
Taxing them so much that they close down and move overseas does not seem to me to be a great idea.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly What jobs? What Taxes? Benefit to Australia:- a hole in the ground
A no. of Ozzy coal mines have been sold to the communist Chinese & Indian purchasers. The mine "China 1st" isn't called China 1st for nothing
1) Transfer price deals will allow these companies to dodge Aussie Taxes.
2) They want to automate their mining operations.
3) For those remaining jobs they want to bring in Chinese and Indian workers
4) Royalties mainly go to providing infrastructure for the mines
RasPesher 1 day ago
@RasPesher
You also think that Rudd saved us from the GFC; he does, too.
What saved us and what is keeping this country's head above water now is MINING.
Gillard and Brown are trying to kill off both mining and manufacturing in this country, if they succeed, what will be left?
I work in one of those chinese-owned mines you obviously know nothing at all about.
There are no foreign workers; all are Aussies.
They pay massive taxes, company, payroll, PAYE, royalties.
Youre a big idiot.
1000frolly 1 day ago
@1000frolly You seem to think that everyone is nieve when you say, "There are no foreign workers; all are Aussies"
Gina Rinehart on behalf of India's GVK group is advocating the setting up of a "Northern Special economic zone from Bowen to Port Hedland." Clive Palmer, the other big player in the Galilee Basin with ChinaFirst, is also behind the push.
The purpose of the proposed "free trade zones" is to allow the mines to employ 100% foreign labour flown in direct from overseas.
RasPesher 1 day ago
@RasPesher
If that is true, I would be against it 100%.
1000frolly 23 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1000frolly Total rubbish when you say, "Gillard and Brown are trying to kill off both mining and manufacturing"
The mining industry has almost doubled the price of the Australian dollar. This is killing off Australian manufacturing. It is the mining industry not the price on carbon that is destroying our manufacturing. Mining product, if effected by the price on carbon, will reduce the dollar and boost manufacturing.
RasPesher 1 day ago
@RasPesher
"The mining industry has almost doubled the price of the Australian dollar"
Rubbish.
The main reason for the rise in the dollar has been the policies of our incompetent labor government since 2007.
Since then we have had massive government waste, resulting in high interest rates and a high dollar.
Mining has kept the country strong in spite of the government, not because of it.
Mining and high-energy use manufacturing will be doomed if the carbon tax and mining tax start
1000frolly 23 hours ago
@1000foody You sir are NOT an Astronomer!
You said, "if you replace Venus's CO2 atmosphere with OURS - (nitrogen and oxygen) (& without GHGs); Venus will get even HOTTER, I can calculate it but it will ADD almost 200c."
FALSE. An atmosphere without GHGs has almost no effect at all. The blackbody temperature of the planet that matches the unreflected radiation from the Sun then determines the temperature. Assuming that the internal radioactive decay is negligible
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
Swinbourne University says that I am; argue with them if you like.
OK we will replace the CO2 atmos on Venus with an oxygen/Nitrogen one at 90.9 atm.
To assist you, see Sorokhtin et al. (2007) on the physics of the greenhouse effect.
You need to include; the adiabatic process, the partial pressure of the gas, heat transfer mechanisms, I.R. absorbtion, molecular weight and specific heat of the gas.
They calculate an increase in the Venusian temp from 462c to 657c.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly "You need to include; the adiabatic process, the partial pressure of the gas, heat transfer mechanisms, I.R. absorbtion,..."
•Why do we need to include IR absorbtion since you claim that Nitrogen and Oxygen "are not greenhouse gasses"?
•Why do I need to include heat transfer mechanisms since adiabatic processes are those that DO NOT INVOLVE heat transfer?
•Please note that my previous objection involved heat transfer.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly Heat transfer continued...
Venus with a nitrogen & oxygen atmosphere:
•If the air temperature was warmer than the planet surface, heat would flow from the air to the planet surface (cooling the Venetian atmosphere).
•This would heat the planet surface
•Black body radiation from the planet surface increases (cooling the planet surface).
•The atmosphere does not absorb IR as you said that it does not contain any GHGs.
•OLR increases and energy escapes from the planet.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly Heat transfer II Continued...
There is now no mechanism to further heat the air (no conduction, no convection and no evaporation) so the Venetian atmosphere permanently cools until the air temperature equals the surface temperature.
Equilibrium is reached when OLR equals Incoming shortwave radiation.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly
The physics of ADIABATIC PROCESSES is usually employed in a situation where a gas is suddenly compressed or expanded. & if that process occurs so fast that we can ignore heat transfer. If I had a ball & I pumped it up quickly, it would get hot. I would not be so much as adding energy to the system but compressing the energy that is already there. However no one is suddenly compressing the Venetian atmosphere. In our scenario there is no other mechanism for heating the air.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly Sorokhtin's example differs from yours. When determining the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere he uses the following formula:
ΔT ≈ TαΔP
but he goes wrong when he applies a constant for "α". CO2 is a GHG. Basically he ignores quantum mechanics. "α" is not constant for GHGs. By assuming that CO2 is not a GHG, Sorokhtin et all calculate that CO2 has virually no warming effect. Their calculations reflect their assumptions and are totally erroneous.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
You are ignoring the most important points; those of pressure and that the molecular weight of CO2 is 1.5 times that of air, and its specific heat is 1.2 times LESS.
Also I said to replace with "our current atmosphere" - which includes some CO2.
Really, I am an engineer/astronomer, not an atmospheric physisict; also I haven't the time or inclination to argue this in fine details. If you are really interested, you will find Sorokhtin's papers full of information.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly
1) "You are ignoring the most important points"
The most important point is that it is NOT an adiabatic process.
2) You said to replace with "our current atmosphere - (nitrogen and oxygen)"
You also said, "Oxygen and Nitrogen and Argon are not greenhouse gasses"
You said this to avoid the conclusion that the alleged temperature rise was due to GHGs. But now you want to claim that we consider the greenhouse effect (ie "our current atmosphere which includes some CO2").
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly Continued...
Your position seems to be flip-flopping. Which is it?
Note also, that your adiabatic process requires green house heating for the adiabatic process to work. In other words, an additional green house effect.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
The whole point of all this is to point out that Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket.
It does not matter a lot which gasses you use when the surface pressure is 91 bar; its going to be very hot; very little surface radiation can escape from Venus.
It is not therefore CO2 that is causing the temperature on Venus, it is the fact of the thick blanket of atmosphere.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly "Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket"
WRONG. The planet already has an insulating blanket. It's called outer space, a vacuum; vacuums make good insulators. Air conducts heat. There is really only one way, for a planet to loose heat/energy, and that is from Outgoing Longwave Radiation.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
If you think that space is a good insulator, then why isn't every planet hot?
How does heat get to us from the sun, across 150mil km of "insulating' space?
You've lost the plot here I think.
We are talking about the radiative balance of Venus, not how much conduction occurs to space.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly You asked, "then why isn't every planet hot?"
•The OLR (I/R photons) is/(are) what cools a planet, NOT THERMAL CONDUCTION! The OLR is not affected by the thermal insulating properties of space.
You asked, "How does heat get to us from the sun"
•Energy from the Sun is radiated in the form of photons. It is only when these photons are absorbed by atoms and molecules on Earth that this energy is converted into heat. Heat doesn't get to us directly from the Sun, energy does.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly You said, "The whole point of all this is to point out that Venus has a very thick atmosphere, which acts like an insulating blanket"
How is this relevant? To quote you, "We are talking about the radiative balance of Venus, not how much conduction occurs to space." A thermal "insulating blanket" around Venus is irrelevant! A thick atmosphere per se does not make it act like an insulating blanket.
It's the thickness of GHGs alone that affects the radiative balance.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly You said, "You've lost the plot here I think"
I'm not surprised that you think that, since you seem to be having trouble differentiating between PHOTONS AND HEAT. Maybe its not so much that I'm loosing the plot, but that there is a deficiency in your knowledge base.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
I quite clearly said "our current atmosphere"; (which is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, as I said).
If you replace a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere with an atmosphere consisting of mainly non- greenhouse gasses, (and the atmosphere then gets warmer), how can you then claim that the warming is because of the greenhouse effect?
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly You said, "I quite clearly said 'our current atmosphere'; (which is mainly Oxygen and Nitrogen, as I said)."
Thank you, that validates my original response:
2) As for Venus getting hotter with Earth's Green House Gases, it demonstrates how much more effective GHGs can be when they operate in concert. Positive feedback amplifies the Green House effect. So if CO2 causes more water to evaporates or releases more methane from under the permafrost, beware!
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly "If you replace a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere with an atmosphere consisting of mainly non- greenhouse gasses, (and the atmosphere then gets warmer), how can you then claim that the warming is because of the greenhouse effect?"
Simple, both atmospheres contain GHGs. The atmosphere with just a 1% composition of GHGs (ignoring H20) has a plethora of different GHGs, making these GHGs more effective than we could expect from a single GHG alone.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@1000frolly If you take our atmosphere and bump it up to 91 atmos of pressure. That means it is 91x the mass. That atmosphere would be equivalent to Earth containing 3.6% (91x0.0391%) of CO2 (The actual effect of a greenhouse gas goes on the quantity, not percentage. That is why we need to adjust the percentage to maintain an equivalence). The same goes for all the other GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere.
If you bump up the quantity of air in the atmosphere you increase the GH effect.
RasPesher 1 week ago
Lets find someone with a PhD in common sense. The climate has been changing for millions of years, if a tax will stop the climate from changing that would be scary.
TOMCATALEXANDER 3 weeks ago
@TOMCATALEXANDER No, if a tax can control the climate it would be brilliant!
And it is.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher And it is? The carbon tax hasnt started yet and it is already controlling the climate? WOW.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement
Thats right, its cooling already, with only the threat of a tax!
Shit it's so POWERFUL!
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly Actually, the Price on Carbon is already having an effect. People are reacting to the proposed introduction. Solar panels and solar hot water heaters are being installed.
Even a denier in a comment on YouTube was advocating that people install solar panels to avoid paying "Gillard's tax" as he put it. The correct response for the wrong reason.
The price on carbon is brilliant in concept and IT IS AREADY WORKING!
RasPesher 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement "And it is?" refers to the Carbon Tax being brilliant. Conceptually it is a tool that can control the climate. We already know that, because we know the physics.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher After a long debate we have actually returned to our starting point - that the warming effect of CO2 is greatly exaggerated, that the most any increase in CO2 can warm is 1 degree, and we have had a lot of that warming already, The percentage of man-made CO2 is only 3% and the percentage produced in Australia is only 0.039%. Therefore the Carbon Tax is impacting on such a tiny amount of warming that it can at best have an impact of a thousandth of a degree. -2
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
This morning data came out that Germany is unwinding their solar power subsidies because the cost was literally "a risk to the economy" and the reduction in warming from their one million solar installations will be thousandths of one degree. They calculate Solar will postpone warming from human actions over the next 90 years by 20 hours. Why? because CO2 cant produce the warming that alarmists claim it can and so mitigation policy like Carbon Taxes and Solar wont have an effect on temperature.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
You are not seeing the Carbon Tax working at all, the reduction in warming will be so small as beyond our capability to measure. What you are seeing is the financial impact of the tax - that may well drive up solar and wind power but already Europe has proven that this is not a good more. What you are seeing is Australia rushing headlong down the same path Europe is abandoning, We should learn from their mistakes but warmers are so driven by ideology they cant see what common sense dictates.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement make that noticeable effect please.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement "Germany is reducing their solar power subsidies"
•This is due to the success of the scheme & the fact that solar panels are rapidly coming down in price. Moore's Law comes to mind!
•The price on carbon will provide incentive for home owners to install solar panels without the need for overly generous feed in tariffs.
•Installation of solar panels is a one way for carbon tax alarmists to dodge the tax.
•Going solar in a great way to stick it up the greens! hehe
RasPesher 6 days ago
@GalileoMovement let me correct myself, I meant that to sound plural, perhaps several thousandths of a degree, I am not suggesting we can calculate it accurately to 3 decimal places. The discussion has been around that figure.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GalileoMovement Your "cavalry" alleged that an atmosphere containing 0.039% of CO2 on Venus would produce a temperature of 657°C; a "run away" greenhouse effect of 700°C.
If this warming effect is "greatly exaggerated" then don't blame me. Your side supplied the data and it does not support your conclusion. Blind Freddy would see that 700°C is not 1°C, yet you said, "the most any increase in CO2 can warm is 1 degree."
Tell me, do you write this stuff with a straight face?
RasPesher 6 days ago
@TOMCATALEXANDER
I know where you can see a list of 9,029 of them, (and its not at the IPCC!)
1000frolly 1 week ago
@raspesher
did you just read my last comment....?
MrPurplefood 3 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood If you read Houghton's statement carefully you'll notice that it is perfectly compatible with my response. Note that he is talking about what it shows not what it proves. In electronics there are devices known as flip-flops. They are bistable. They stay in one state until triggered by a small signal. +ve feedback then drives the device to saturation in its other state. The climate system is similar where CO2 forms the function of +ve feedback.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher John T. Houghton (co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988–2002) "Houghton acknowledges that ice core samples show CO2 driven by temperature" ... "For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide" ... oh shit. good day :).
MrPurplefood 3 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood My position is that CO2 can:
1) both drive temperature due to the green house effect, and
2) be released from the ocean by raising the water temperature (provided that the atmospheric level of CO2 is not being raised at the same time so as to counteract this release).
As for ice core samples, they show CO2 driven by temperature and driving temperature.
However I don't get to that conclusion by consideration of the ice core samples alone.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
the original thread? 'the climate has changed and will continue to change in all of its existence'?. ah yes, the classic communist notion, if you can't beat the man, then try to denigrate their reputation so much that they are perceived that reputationless - Saal and Linski, a communist agitator in the US, as i believe. Okay, but aren't investment banks, the UN IPCC, governments best interest to push global warming, the money spirals into the trillions.
MrPurplefood 4 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood Sorry but I went back to the original movie to look for the original thread. I used the "Find:" function on the web browser and did a search for 'the climate has changed and will continue to change in all of its existence'.
The search result: "No matches found." I repeated the search for the seven pages of comments and had no luck.
Conclusion: You are either telling porky pies or suffering from something like alzheimers.
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
WHOEVER IS MARKING AS SPAM STOP IT!!! Both the above 2 comments are turned back on, you are achieving nothing!!!. OK now to Ras - I see nothing helpful in your comment. MrP is saying that the basic thrust of our position is that global warming is a natural cycle, and that is inherent in all of our replies. I dont know if any one comment says that but it doesnt matter - natural cycle is the kceptic's position.
GalileoMovement 4 weeks ago
Responding to his comment about the unholy alliance between big banks and green groups and the massive amounts of money that the AGW scare is generating for those groups would be nice. You are trying to discredit Galileo for being involved with Gina (which I cannot confirm or deny - I am not on that side of the organisation), however it is the warmers who have access to big money not us. I am doing this for free.
GalileoMovement 4 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement said, "warmers ... have access to big money not us"
• Are you sure?
Governments world wide are paying ½ a TRILLION Dollars each year to SUBSIDISE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. That is about 1.4 billion a day of TAXPAYER money!
Hundreds of millions of dollars were payed by energy companies to political parties over the last 10 years in the US alone. Also millions of dollars has flowed to climate denier groups.
Q. Why can't the Galileo Movement tap into any of this?
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher Warmera are playing games when they say the Government is subsidising the fossil fuel industry. What is actually happening in Australia is that Government owned coal mines are selling coal to Government owned power stations at discounted prices to keep the cost of electricity down. Greens are suggesting this is a subsidy as the taxpayers would get more for that coal on the open market. This is not correct. -2
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
Every power station worldwide signs long term supply contracts for coal at discounted prices, volume discounts if you like. The price we are getting from the Japanese and Chinese is around the same as our power generators pay - this "massive subsidy" on "foregone profit" is classic MISDIRECTION - don't look at the hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars going into green projects, look at the coal pricing instead. Not buying it Ras.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement Warmera???? Warm Era???
I was refering to a joint report produced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) & the International Energy Agency (IEA). Subsidies such as tax expenditures, under-priced access to scarce resources under government control (e.g. land) and the transfer or risks to governments (e.g. via concessional loans or guarantees) etc.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher Apologies that was a typo, I meant to say WARMERS - ie - you! These are all things that Governments do for power generation in all countries, again to keep the price down and guarantee a supply of what is am essential service. It isnt per se a fossil fuel subsidy, taxpayers are also subsidising solar and wind by even more than fossil fuels when expressed as a cents per kwh. Are you saying its OK to subsidise uneconomic solar and wind, but not fossil?
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement "Are you saying its OK to subsidise ... solar and wind, but not fossil?"
My original comment was about access to money. You claimed that deniers didn't have access to money. So my comment was about access to money by the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry has a track record of pumping funds towards denier groups, regardless of whether the GM benefits from this or not. The GM may receive nothing but it may be that some of your independent advisors do.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@GM Cont..
You used the words "in all countries".
Yes my comments were as stated about "governments world wide" and not about Australia per say.
You said, "uneconomic solar and wind, but not fossil."
Just to clarify because the wording is a little ambiguous. Wind power generation of electricity is not always uneconomic, and fossil fuel is not always economic. Traditionally in NSW the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority has been used to take up the load WHEN COAL IS UNECONOMIC.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@GM Cont..
"Are you saying its OK to subsidise ... solar and wind, but not fossil?"
Careful here, the purpose of the price on CO2 is to factor in, the cost to the environment of adding additional CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. The price on carbon is not so much a subsidy but a recognition of the true price of CO2.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher I'm happy to have this discussion framed in your terms - with the cost of the respective CO2/Warming impacts added to the cost of production to get a true picture of how much each energy source costs. Why? Simply because the whole basis of our disagreement is in that environmental cost - you say CO2 is warming the planet by the IPCC's up to 5 degrees ("if we do nothing" scenario), we say bulldust - CO2 can only cause 1 degree and we have already had some of that. -2
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
The argument then winds up being the same - is CO2 causing catastrophic warming or not? We say no, you say yes and then we turn to the science for an answer. Having come full circle where do we go from here? back over the same ground a second time? -2
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
Or we could just look at the satellite temperature record over at Anthony Watts temperature page - January's temperature data shows the earth has only warmed .13 of a degree since the satellite went up in 1979. There has been a half a degree COOLING since 2007. You can clutch at ground-based data from shonky weather stations located in front of air-conditioning ducts all you want, warmers cannot deny the satellite data is an accurate measurement of the earth's temperature. And its falling.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@RasPesher In what circumstance is wind power economic? I have never seen wind shown to be economic in a cents per kw/h comparison with coal when you take the whole of life into account - across 20 years of windy days, still days and maintenance down time. I would love to see what you have on this,
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement Since the following is your claim, "MrP is saying that the basic thrust of our position is that global warming is a natural cycle," how are you going prove or demonstrate it? In this particular case it's not natural by default.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher Sorry Ras are you saying that you do not agree as to the existence of a natural cycle (several cycles on different time scales) or are you saying you agree there is a cycle but that the recently concluded warming (now cool ng) is not related to the cycle? Clarify that if you wouldn't mind so I know where to go next.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement We are not in a cooling trend. In 2010 we had the hottest year on instrument record according to an average of the global temperature datasets for land and sea from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office/CRU. 2011 was the hottest La Nina year on record. The hottest decade on record is shared by 2001-2010 and 2002-2011.
If you think that this trend is a natural cycle you need to demonstrate that it is: 1) a cycle and 2) natural.
Good luck!
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher - All 3 of those institutions use the same instrument dataset so of course they say the same thing. The satellite temperature data does not say that at all, the land-based data does, and that has been helped by 40% of the land based stations being poorly cited. Denying that the earth is cooling is just not a sustainable position.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
@GalileoMovement "The satellite temp. data does not say that at all"
Satellite data shows that 2010 was equally the hottest year on record (within the accuracy of the dataset). There are minor variations between the datasets. One dataset has 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, another 2010 is tied with 1998 as the hottest. But whatever way you want to twist the data you're not going to find a cooling trend. You're not going to find a decade hotter than 2001-2010.
RasPesher 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher "...and that has been helped by 40% of the land based stations being poorly cited"
Mr Muller a climate skeptic funded by the Kosh brothers was supposed to produce a dataset to disprove global warming. Instead when he crunched the data, a total of 1.6 billion temperature measurements, he confirmed the global warming trend.
Furthermore he found that the "poorly cited land stations" rather than exaggerating the warming trend underestimated it.
SORRY, NO GLOBAL COOLING HERE !
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher "How do we demonstrate the natural cycle theory?" Seriously? There is a mountain of science behind the natural cycle theory, based on solar cycles, movement in the earth's orbit of the sun - just Google it. One thing I will say, if you compare the IPCC's hopeless projections that have overstated warming by between 1 and 3 degrees, to the projections of the "natural cycle" people,its all over red rover - natural cycle is winning the accuracy comparison hands down.
GalileoMovement 1 week ago
"Venus and Mars each have atmospheres around 97% CO2. Neither has any runaway greenhouse effect." - Galileo Movement website
To say that Venus does not have any runaway greenhouse effect is like saying that the Twin Towers is not falling down.
The Twin Towers have already fallen down.
Venus, with a Surface Temp of about 740 deg K, has already experienced a greenhouse effect of 513 deg C.
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
@RasPesher How can you possibly ascertain that Venus has had a greenhouse effect and of precisely 513 deg C. As measured from Earth? Please link to the paper that shows that figure thanks.
GalileoMovement 4 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement The surface temp of venus is known to be about 743°K. We can calculate the temp of a planet minus its greenhouse effect with the following formulae:
Teq = 280°K[(1-A)/a**2]**1/4
where "A" is the albedo and "a" is the distance to the Sun in AU. (and ** means raised to the power of)
The albedo for venus is 0.72 and its distance to the Sun is 0.723AU
This gives an Temperature equivalent of 240°K
GHTemp = Tactual - Teq(no greenhouse) = 743°K - 240°K = 503°K
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement The 513°C figure came from a web page. 10 °C warmer than my calculation but close enough for the purpose of my argument.
You'll find the web page if you google:
Planet temperature 6 Equilibrium Temperature colorado education bagenal 3720
It should be the first entry to come up.
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
@RasPesher After such a lack of actual science in your previous posts I am pleased to see some now. The equation is not in my area of expertise, so I have referred it to another moderator. Thanks for the contribution.
GalileoMovement 3 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement His reply is the next comment
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher
I am an astromomer and an engineer.
Many alarmists point to Venus (which has a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere) to claim that the Earth will end up hot like Venus if we do not stop emitting CO2.
This is arrant nonsense.
One thing they do not tell you is that if you replace Venus's CO2 atmosphere with OURS - (nitrogen and oxygen); Venus will get even HOTTER, I can calculate it but it will ADD almost 200c.
Thats right, our current atmosphere would warm Venus even more than CO2 does.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly The Cavalry arrives - thanks 1000Frolly
GalileoMovement 3 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement The Cavalry ended up being a dud! The Cavalry was more like MrPurplefood wearing a frock than an astronomer or an engineer.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher You understand the concept of good-natured banter Ras - not meant to be literal - yes?
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@1000frolly
1) Nevertheless the point is that CO2, even with an albedo of 72%, makes a large difference (~500°C). This proves that CO2 is a Green House Gas to be reckoned with.
2) As for Venus getting hotter with Earth's Green House Gases, it demonstrates how much more effective GHGs can be when they operate in concert. Positive feedback amplifies the Green House effect. So if CO2 causes more water to evaporates or releases more methane from under the permafrost, beware!
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
1) My very point was that CO2 is nothing of the sort, and that even ordinary air enhances temperatures more than CO2. Beyond 20ppm CO2 has a rapidly diminishing grenhouse effect on Earth.
2) Oxygen and Nitrogen and Argon are not greenhouse gasses; these comprise 99.9% of the Earths atmospheric gasses (if you ignore water vapour)
There is no evidence that there is positive feedback from CO2 on Earth; the reverse in fact. All empirical data suggests negative OLR feedback
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly
1)There are 3 main absorption bands for CO2; two in the near-IR and one smack in the middle of the main OLR window. This band has a side lobe in an area of the IR window that is not currently closed by any other GHGs. Increasing the level of CO2 effectively closes down the side lobe window. So when it comes to CO2 working in conjunction with other GHGs, CO2's contribution is enhanced.
The following is an equivalence of CO2 effect: 20ppm, 40ppm, 80ppm, 160ppm, 320ppm etc.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly
2)If you believe that CO2 is not a GHG then it would be part of "ordinary air." Then you seem to be saying that "ordinary air" works differently to CO2. So "ordinary air" works differently to "ordinary air."
That to me sounds rediculous. You'll have to provide an explanation.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly
3)RE "All empirical data suggests negative OLR feedback"
The OLR feedback has been measured from Earth. It has also been measured over time and found to increase as CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased. Furthermore the outgoing radiation from space has been measured and found to decrease in the frequency bands occupied by increasing levels of GHGs.
Conclusion: The feedback of OLR has reduced the outgoing radiation in the GH bands of frequency.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
You have got everything mixed up. I haven't got the time to really educate you but will try.
The OLR IS the outgoing radiation - (that you're speaking about as though they are different).
OLR reacts to temperature directly via a negative feedback mechanism; - just as you outlined above.
CO2 increases the greenhouse effect-the Earth warms-the negative feedback comes into play via cloud effects-the OLR increases-the earth cools and equilibrium is again achieved.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly
"the OLR increases-the earth cools"
You can't have OLR increasing simultaneously with the Earth is cooling.
Reason: Power W radiated/unit area by a black body at temperature T is:
W = sigma * T**4
When you say OLR increases you are effectively saying that W increases. For W to increase, T (temperature of the Earth's surface) has to increase too.
The Earth's surface can't be heating and cooling simultaneously in the one spot.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
You certainly can have the OLR increasing with the Earth cooling! In fact it is the OLR increase which causes the Earth to cool.
And vice-versa; the OLR decreases, and this causes the Earth to warm up.
The cause of the Earth cooling is the OLR increase.
The cause of the Earth warming is the OLR decrease.
Also (beyond a certain point) A warming Earth causes the OLR to increase
and (beyond a certain point) A cooling Earth causes the OLR to decrease
It is a self-regulating mechanism
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly Let me put this a different way. The only way you can have an increase in the OLR when the Earth is cooling is with a reduction in green house gases, but our scenario is dealing with the situation of increasing the CO2 levels and we are not considering a change in the level of any other greenhouse gas here. It is not a card that is on the table. That is why I say that you can't have OLR increasing with the Earth cooling. In this scenario there is no mechanism.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
First; don't mix up cause and effect.
If you like look at it this way; A warming Earth first causes the OLR to increase, then the increasing OLR will cause the Earth to cool (and so the OLR will be increasing at the same time that the Earth is cooling, - due to the OLR increasing).
It is a dynamic system, but has some inertia, hence the overlap.
I am not inventing this stuff, its NOAA CPC anomoly data, when compared with HadCRUT surface air anomoly data..
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly You can't use recent data from NOAA/HadCRUT to tell you anything about the equilibrium position and overshoot because the Earth is in a transient response; it hasn't reached equilibrium.
wrt OLR & IR blackbody radiation, its a bit like a person opening all the outlet gates to a dam & then saying that the water downstream is reduced to a trickle so the dam must be filling. It's not going to happen. What happens downstream is related to events upstream-IR & OLR are related.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
I've got news for you - the Earth will never reach any equilibrium. This is one of the biggest mistakes of AGW theorists.
First they assume that there is some imaginary stable level that they can measure any CO2 effect from; then they assume that there will be some imaginary equilibrium level, where all the effects of their CO2 forcing will be realised.
These assumptions and imaginary positions are totally the wrong way to think about the variable climate system.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
The OLR variation with this negative feedback mechanism is large; 2011 saw a 75W/m2 variation.
This feedback loop regulates the Earth's temperature.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly "2011 saw a 75W/m² variation"
The Earth's eliptical orbit causes solar shortwave irradiance to vary from 1,413 – 1,321 W/m². This equates to a change in OLR of about 23W/m² averaged over a 24hour day. But this average of 23W/m² would be dissapated much more during the day than night. So this parameter alone can explain half of your figure of 75W/m². Add in other cycles such as day & night, summer & winter, El Nino & La Nina and most of your variation is accounted for.
RasPesher 1 week ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher
Again, see above. You are assuming we have a static climate system, when it is actually dynamic and chaotic.
Also, when I went to school, 23 was not half of 75.
Bear in mind that what we are arguing over is a CO2 forcing of just 1.6W/m2.
This would be seen just like any other small forcing to the climate system and disappear into the feedback mechanisms.
The idea that we are 'upsetting the natural forcing levels' is nonsense, as there is no natural forcing level.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
"It has also been measured over time and found to increase as CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased."
*This is negative feedback.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly Nevertheless both outgoing longwave radiation and Infrared feedback from CO2 has been empirically measured making your statement false: "There is no evidence that there is positive feedback from CO2 on Earth" -FALSE
Positive feedback has been measured. Overtime as CO2 has increased and OLR has decreased in the 12-18um wavelength range. Correspondingly IR feedback has increased in that range.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
This is not positive feedback!
What you are measuring is the direct greenhouse effect of CO2, which is only to be expected when its concentration in the atmosphere increases.
You can't measure OLR in one specific IR wavelength, and then claim that this is positive feedback for the CO2 increase!
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly "You can't measure OLR in one specific IR wavelength"
The OLR was measured in all wavelengths, First by NASA's IRIS Satelite in 1970 and then in 1996 by Japan's IMG Satelite. The two sets of data were then compared. It was found that the OLR has decreased over than time span. When we look at the spectrum we find that the reduction is specifically in those wavelengths absorbed by GHGs. Measurement of feedback radiation on the ground found the compliment of this change.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher "This is not +ve feedback"???
The output of the Earth that we are looking at is its surface temp.
From the temp of the Earth, IR radiation is produced as black body radiation. Some of this radiation is absorbed by GHGs and emitted back to Earth. The input to the Earth is radiation. The feedback is the radiation emitted by the greenhouse gases back to the Earth. This feedback is called "+ve" because it adds to itself around the loop; more heat - more radiation - more heat.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher "... & then claim that this is positive feedback for the CO2 increase"
Sure I can. We know the absorption spectrum for the various different GHGs. By comparing the measurements from the NASA IRIS satelite and the Japanese IMG satelite we can infer that the increase in feedback in the CO2 band of frequencies is due to the increase in CO2.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
The point is that equilibrium is achieved before positive feedback occurs.
Empirical data shows an f of below zero, and probably f is close to -1.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RasPesher
Please stop misquoting me!
What I said was "You can't measure OLR in one specific IR wavelength, and then claim that this is positive feedback for the CO2 increase!"
Of course it is possible to measure any specific wavelength - but that does not prove positive feedback!
Also;
How can you measure a dynamic system 26 years apart, and then compare them?
A million different things have happened to the climate in this time!
You are simply assuming its positive.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
Sorry, but this does not prove positive feedback (CO2 enhancement).
It shows only what we would expect from the greenhouse gas CO2, and is unsurprising.
Also; OLR moves massively on a daily/monthly basis so comparing instant data sets years apart tells you nothing about any overall output trend.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
Who said CO2 is not a GHG? Certainly not I.
CO2 is a strong GHG - (when there is no CO2 already in the atmosphere, and you then add some)
If you are starting from 391ppm (like we are now) adding CO2 will make hardly any difference to the GHG effect.
It may pay to re-read what I said re;Venus.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly I understand that there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem comes from the fact that man's production has been increasing exponencially. Between these two effects the outcome is roughly linear wrt time. Furthermore CO2 has a side lobe on its main IR absorption band. Increasing CO2 in air effectively increases the width in the freq. domain of its main absorption band. I disagree with your statement of hardly any difference.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@GM/1000frolly
Arrhenius formulated the basic greenhouse gas law, expressed today as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
For CO2 he deduced that every doubling of the CO2 level equates to a 4°C change in temperature (which in the above equation would make α = 5.77).
The current rate of increase of CO2 is 1.9 ppm/yr.
Without any other feedback it would take ~35 years to increase the temp by 1°C. But alas the Earth's climate is balanced precipice....
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
THE PRECIPICE: CH4 release from Arctic:
"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
Currently the Earth is not in equilibrium. Its response to previous increases in CO2 has not been fully expressed. We have another degree of increase in Temperature on the way even if we were to stop the burning fossil fuels today.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher
This is another unsubstantiated assertion for which you have no evidence.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly Sorry to burst your bubble but the fact that the Earth has been warming is evidence that the Earth is not in equilibrium.
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher
When will you get it through that thick head of yours that there is no such thing as climate equilibrium for the Earth?
This fictitious state exists only in the mind of the greens, warmists, and in the minds of some scientists (who should know better)
If the Earth is warming, that is not unexpected, since for 50% of the Earth's history it has either been warming or cooling!
It must be either warming or cooling!
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
The Earth is not now, nor has ever been in 'equilibrium' this is another false assumption.
And the idea that we humans can control the climate by varying our CO2 output, or by any other means is pure fantasy and hubris.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@RasPesher
This is more dramatic rubbish from alarmists.
CH4 is being released from permafrost due to the Earth warming over the last 300 years, - but there is no proven link to CO2.
The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is FALLING - not rising.
The reason is that CH4 converts to CO2 naturally and on short time-scales.
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@1000frolly - You are INCORRECT.
You said, "The concentration of CH4 in the atmosphere is falling - not rising" - WRONG
• It was not the level of CH4 in the atmosphere that was falling but the rate of INCREASE only that was falling.
• However 2007 and 2008 saw a return in the RATE of INCREASE in methane levels.
• In 2008 the METHANE LEVEL in the atmosphere INCREASED by 4.4 parts per billion.
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher
4ppb out of 1800 is hardly anything to panic about, and is not a significant change.
So; I have looked at the data from Vestmannaeyjar, (Iceland) and Tasmania, where the Northern and Southern hemisphere's measurements are made respectively.
Over decadal time-scales neither of us is right.
To be generous, the concentration of CH4 has been flat since 1999.
With the currently falling global temperatures, CH4 should fall more over time.
1000frolly 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher
All sides agree that doubling CO2 adds about 1.6W/m2 (without feedbacks)
Considering that this will take at least 50 years to achieve, and as noted before, the Earth's climate system is stabilised by the OLR which can and has changed by 80W/m2 (on much shorter timescales) in response to additional forcings, the I wonder, why are warmists so worried?
1000frolly 3 weeks ago
@RasPesher Hang on a minute. "Between these two effects the outcome is roughly linear wrt time." NO ITS NOT. Its exponential, I have not seen any science that says its linear. Please provide the source for this assertion.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher - hang on another minute " CO2 has a side lobe on its main IR absorption band." Also new to me - citation please. Your conter to MrPurplefoots' science is so far not based on science I am familiar with, please provide citations for your position.
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
Sorry - that should have been 1000frolly not Mr Purplefoot, but you probably worked that out. :)
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement You'll find the side lobe highlighted on the YouTube video "Axe the Wax NOT the Tax". Enjoy!
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement
The following is an approximation for the CO2 level in the atmosphere:
CL = 280e**0.0018y
where CL is the CO2 level in ppm, and
y is the number of years after 1860
For example the formula gives the CO2 level in 1985 as
y = 1985 - 1860 = 125 years, CL = 280e**[0.0018 x 125] = 350 ppm
The actual measured value is actually 355 ppm. Nevertheless the formula is a reasonable approximation.
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
@GM Cont...
This formula results in the CO2 level doubling every 385 years. If we accept 1000frolly's claim that "doubling CO2 adds about 1.6W/m2"
This means that every 385 years the reduction in OLR is 1.6W/m2
.. which is a LINEAR regression.
This equates to Arrhenius' green house law:
"if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."
RasPesher 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
1000frolly 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher "This formula results in the CO2 level doubling every 385 years"
This rate has been actually increasing much faster. In reality it will probably double by the end of the century unless evasive action is taken. So it could double in 100 years.
The year to year variation in CO2 levels is about 6 ppm. Over a 26 year period CO2 levels have in creased by 30 ppm. Over this period the variation is not significant especially since it's mostly cyclical and can be taken into account.
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
Believe that we will soon see CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere falling as more CO2 is taken up by the cooling oceans; so do not count on CO2 going up even if emissions increase.
1000frolly 1 week ago
@1000frolly "CO2 is taken up by the cooling oceans"
Are you expecting ice caps to melt that fast?
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher However with feedback the OLR is likely to reduce by about 4W/m² not 1.6W/m².
RasPesher 1 week ago
@RasPesher
'coke bottles, once opened, wait 800 years before starting to go flat' - now your just making things up, we all know thats a porky pie.
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood "your just making things up"
I suggest that you read the original comment that inaugurated this thread. Read it carefully and in context before responding. You've attempted to argue from "lag" means a slow release but that was not the context in which the word was being used. If "lag" means slow release then the argument that CO2 can't drive Temp because the cause can't come after the event, falls apart. The slow release scenareo means they both start simultaneously.
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
@MrP cont...
So if you want me to google information, I'll google that which is required to support the real claim, not your equivocated version. Your equivocation amount to the porky pie.
RasPesher 4 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood I have gone through and reset all the "flagged as spams" AGAIN , apologies for being slow to do that. Also I accidentally deleted a comment that was flagged as spam in trying to unflag it, its location was right here. So please dont say "you deleted my post" just retype it against this comment please. Not sure whose it was. GM
GalileoMovement 2 weeks ago
@RasPesher
The main cause of this dimming is particulates produced by volcanoes and human made pollutants, which exerts a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion and aerosols – have largely been offset in recent decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane.
Ah, god old wikipedia
conclusion - C02 causing warming is a myth
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood Good old wikipedia:
1) It did not support your claim that CO2 causes global dimming. The reason of course is that your claim was bat excrement crazy.
2) wrt warming due to CH4. CO2 raised the temperature melting some of the northern polar ice. This in turn reduced the reflectivity which further raised the temperature. Thawing Arctic ice released CH4 from under the permafrost. CH4 is a GHG.
conclusion - the warming caused by CH4 was in turn initiated by CO2-GH warming.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@MrPurplefood "just do a 15 min search in google"
With respect to the "lag" claim that CO2 waits 800 years before it starts to evaporate out of a liquid in respond to an increase in temperature, I googled:
Coke bottles, once opened, wait 800 years before starting to go flat¶
and found nothing.
Conclusion: the "lag" is a myth.
RasPesher 1 month ago
@RasPesher
ahaha please, don't take my word, just do a 15 min search in google.
MrPurplefood 1 month ago
@MrPurplefood "just do a 15 min search in google"
I googled your claim, "CO2 causes global dimming"
I did not find anything to support your claim.
Wikipedia said: "Global dimming is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action."
Conclusion: CO2 is does NOT cause global dimming.
RasPesher 1 month ago
@RasPesher Wikipedia as usual speaks for the warmers who control that topic. The idea that China's aerosols have caused this current cooling has been easily debunked. See
cato dot org/pub_display dot php question mark pub_id=13510
GalileoMovement 4 weeks ago
@GalileoMovement You have misinterpreted MrPurplefoods claim altogether. MrPurplefood thinks that CO2 is like an aerosol and that CO2 causes global dimming. He is very mixed up. MrPurplefoods remarks had nothing to do with China.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@GM Coontinued...
As for aerosols. It was found in the 50s-70s that aerosols acted as a counter balance to the GHGs. Short term the aerosols won, however they wash out of the atmosphere quicker than the GHGs and so in the long term the GHGs win.
From the olympics in China we know that they have a problem with sulphates and acid rain. The slowing of warming in the 00s may therefore be due to aerosols from China.
RasPesher 3 weeks ago
@GM 2 Cont...
As for Mr Michaels research, I DO NOT FIND IT COMPELLING.
He uses two main arguments:
1) Northern hemisphere warms more than Southern.
Response: Aerosols in the upper atmosphere can travel from the North to the South. GW has already changed Arctic albedo.
2) Temp anomaly does not correlate to with China's increased production in the years 2009-10.
Response: The natural variation is enough to explain the diversion in correlation especially since 2010 was an El Nino year.