• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Headlines that are misleading

This from the irony department, A Michael Mann article a having a worthy debate about sea level rise.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/391548-lets-have-a-worthy-debate-about-sea-level-rise
The opening sentence says all that needs to be said about how worthy a debate he is willing to have.
While there is a worthy debate to be had about what we do to address the threat to our
coastlines posed by global sea level rise, there is no longer a worthy debate about whether that threat exists, or what is causing it.
 
Here is a fun one,
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/20...threat-than-warming-study-says/1991528807303/

So no CO2 is not going to cause much warming, but,

So it is not going to be the warmer temperatures but the bad weather caused from the added CO2.

To me they are seeing the temperature horse getting tired, and are attempting to switch horses.

Heh. You might be right. There are always the hard core Believers though.

CO2 is not capable of changing the weather or warming the Earth.

To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed beyond what is already being absorbed from the Sun. CO2 is not an energy source. While is does absorb surface infrared light, this is nothing more than the usual surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere. Heat can be by conductivity or radiance. CO2 helps to cool the surface, not warm it. After all, it takes energy to emit infrared light.

All of it gets radiated to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface itself.
 
Last edited:
Heh. You might be right. There are always the hard core Believers though.

CO2 is not capable of changing the weather or warming the Earth.

To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed beyond what is already being absorbed from the Sun. CO2 is not an energy source. While is does absorb surface infrared light, this is nothing more than the usual surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere. Heat can be by conductivity or radiance. CO2 helps to cool the surface, not warm it. After all, it takes energy to emit infrared light.

All of it gets radiated to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface itself.

While I will agree that the current model does not fit the observations,
it does appear that CO2 causes an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
The Earth is heated by the visible and UV light from the sun, and re emits infrared.
A tiny portion of that IR is capable of being absorbed and re emitted by CO2.
While the re emission has a greater chance of being re emitted towards the sky, some
will head back towards the surface. (Spontaneous emission are random)
I think where the current version gets it wrong is that CO2 cannot absorb the 15 um photons
if it is already in an excited state, and without helium around CO2 spends about 90% of it's time in an excited state.
I further think that CO2 has a higher percentage of "busy" time during the sunlight hours,
this would account for the diurnal asymmetry in the observed warming.
Also the only quantum energy requirement, is that the total energy of the re emission must equal the energy received in the photon,
this does not mean the energy has to be in a single photon, it can be spread over many lower frequencies.
 
While I will agree that the current model does not fit the observations,
it does appear that CO2 causes an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
CO2 is incapable of causing an 'energy imbalance'. This is an attempt to decrease entropy. It is not possible decrease entropy in any system. It must increase or stay the same.
The Earth is heated by the visible and UV light from the sun, and re emits infrared.
UV and visible light do not heat the Earth. Such frequencies largely cause chemical reactions when absorbed. Absorption of them does not result in thermal energy. You need infrared light for that. Fortunately, most of the Sun's energy is in infrared light.
A tiny portion of that IR is capable of being absorbed and re emitted by CO2.
No problem here.
While the re emission has a greater chance of being re emitted towards the sky, some
will head back towards the surface. (Spontaneous emission are random)
This is an attempt to make heat flow backwards. Heat never flows from cold to hot. You are trying to use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. The surface will reflect any photons emitted by the CO2.
I think where the current version gets it wrong is that CO2 cannot absorb the 15 um photons
if it is already in an excited state,
This is not wrong. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. This is why heat always flows from hot to cold, never the reverse. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't do it by conduction, convection, or radiance. You can't do it.
and without helium around CO2 spends about 90% of it's time in an excited state.
No diff. CO2 may not emit a photon at all as a result of its excited state. It will simply heat near molecules of oxygen or nitrogen by conduction, thus dispersing the energy it absorbed.
I further think that CO2 has a higher percentage of "busy" time during the sunlight hours,
It takes no breaks, so there is no ' busy time'.
this would account for the diurnal asymmetry in the observed warming.
Warming isn't observed. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. The resulting margin of error is far too high.
Also the only quantum energy requirement, is that the total energy of the re emission must equal the energy received in the photon,
This is not true. Energy may be conducted away. It may be dispersed by the action of convection. It may also emit photons of any frequency at or below the energy of the molecule.
this does not mean the energy has to be in a single photon, it can be spread over many lower frequencies.
Correct, with the understanding that the rate of photon emission is also important to consider. This ties in to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, a good law to become familiar with when discussing the effects of any gas or vapor on the Earth.
 
Heh. You might be right. There are always the hard core Believers though.

CO2 is not capable of changing the weather or warming the Earth.

To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed beyond what is already being absorbed from the Sun. CO2 is not an energy source. While is does absorb surface infrared light, this is nothing more than the usual surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere. Heat can be by conductivity or radiance. CO2 helps to cool the surface, not warm it. After all, it takes energy to emit infrared light.

All of it gets radiated to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface itself.

You do need to revisit your ideas. More CO2 does increase the earths temperature if all other factors remain equal. Consider this:

CO2_H2O_absorption_atmospheric_gases_unique_pattern_energy_wavelengths_of_energy_transparent_to_others.png


What is called the "water vapor window" is the area that surface heat escaped the earth. It is also seen here:

Atmospheric_Transmission.png


These damn alarmists drawing are hard to explain, because they are not to scale. However, where you see three curves on the spectral intensity graph, these represent 210, 260, and 310 kelvin from right to left, which are not even good numbers to use. If we use spectral calcs black body calculator, we see that 210k emits only 21% the heat that 310k emits.

Anyway, as more CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere, the window for the heat to escape narrows. If that window narrows by 1%, then the earth's heat must accumulate about 1% greater to balance the incoming and outgoing heat. Until this balance is achieved, the surface temperature will increase. This 1% increase would be similar at the surface, and cause an approximate 1.6 degree increase. 1% is approximately the change from 1750 to 2011, and in line with the AR5 for assumed forcing change. However, IAW the AR5, temperature only increased about 0.85 degrees. Things in the alarmists world don't match the known sciences. Their 3.71 W/m^2 change at the TOS for a doubling of CO2 would be an approximate 2.2% increase at the surface and an approximate 6.4 degree increase at equalization, which is short for surface IR.

But then... That is also with all other factors remaining stable. Still, their 3.71 W/m^2 at equilibrium is in no way realistic, and continues to change. It was the TOS... No, it's the tropopause... No... It's the troposphere... They cant even make up their mind where the change is at! They keep fiddling with the numbers to make sense of CO2 having a high sensitivity, but CO2 simply has a low sensitivity.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just not as potent as they claim.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 76
You do need to revisit your ideas. More CO2 does increase the earths temperature if all other factors remain equal. Consider this:

...deleted usual absorption graphs of CO2 and water...

What is called the "water vapor window" is the area that surface heat escaped the earth. It is also seen here:

...deleted redundant graph...
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the planet.

Absorption does not cause warming. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere. ALL of it radiates into space.

These damn alarmists drawing are hard to explain, because they are not to scale. However, where you see three curves on the spectral intensity graph, these represent 210, 260, and 310 kelvin from right to left, which are not even good numbers to use.
Yes, I understand the graphs. Absorption does not cause warming.
If we use spectral calcs black body calculator, we see that 210k emits only 21% the heat that 310k emits.
This is a denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That law applies to ALL bodies, not just ideal black bodies. The ideal black body is a reference point, not a calculation. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Anyway, as more CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere, the window for the heat to escape narrows.
You cannot slow or trap heat. You are attempting here to reduce radiance, then using that to increase temperature.This violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you just tried to use (incorrectly).

This law states:
radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
Where:
radiance is in W/sq meter, emissivity is a measured constant between 0 and 100%, and temperature is in Kelvins (The SBconstant basically converts everything to our system of measurment).

In other words, radiance is proportional to temperature, never inversely proportional. If temperature goes up, radiance is increased, not decreased. If radiance decreases, temperature is lower[/i], not higher.

If that window narrows by 1%, then the earth's heat must accumulate about 1% greater to balance the incoming and outgoing heat.
Until this balance is achieved, the surface temperature will increase.
There is no sequence. You cannot reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time. Neither can you decrease entropy, which you are also trying to do.
This 1% increase would be similar at the surface, and cause an approximate 1.6 degree increase. 1% is approximately the change from 1750 to 2011, and in line with the AR5 for assumed forcing change. However, IAW the AR5, temperature only increased about 0.85 degrees.
It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have enough instrumentation to do it.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just not as potent as they claim.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

Consider this little paradox:
1) The daylit side of the outer skin of the International Space Station reaches 250 deg F. There is no atmosphere, no CO2, no water vapor, nothing.
2) The daytime temperature on the surface of Earth never reaches anywhere near that temperature. It has an atmosphere including CO2, water vapor, everything. If CO2 warms the Earth, why is the surface of Earth so much colder?
 
Here is another fun one.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2a1517...732299f/ss_report:-rising-sea-will-flood.html
Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of property along the New Hampshire seacoast is likely to face damage
from frequent flooding caused by rising sea levels within the next three decades
Here is what is interesting, one would expect more frequent flooding if the sea levels were raising,
yet in that area, sea levels have been falling since 2010.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8418150
Now graphs are somewhat subjective, so I ran 12 month averages from march on the .csv file.
2010 0.111
2011 0.108
2012 0.076
2013 0.105
2014 0.05
2015 0.045
2016 0.019
2017 0.045
2018 0.075
So the statement that the New Hampshire seacoast is likely to face damage from frequent flooding caused by rising sea levels within the next three decades
seems a bit misleading since not only would the direction of the sea level have to start raising, it would now need to do so at a much more accelerated rate.
 
Another day another alarming headline.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/06/19/american-cities-that-will-soon-be-under-water/
American Cities That Will Soon Be Under Water
According to a 2017 study, if rising carbon emissions and ice sheet loss continue at their current rate,
global sea levels could rise by an estimated 8 feet by the year 2100.
Wow, 8 feet in 82 years, that is 29.7 mm per year on average.
Way down on page 8 they also say,
We reviewed the number of properties and total value of properties that are exposed to
flood risk based on a “high” scenario calculated by the Union for Concerned scientists,
which entails a 6.5 foot rise in sea level by the end of the century.
Which makes me question the earlier 8 foot number if the 6.5 foot number was the "high" scenario.
Perhaps if was editorial liberty, to make the article more dramatic?
Looking through the list of cities soon to be under water, I see some I am familiar with,
like La Marque, Texas, I wonder if they know that La Marque is behind the Texas
city levee system?
https://www.chron.com/news/hurricanes/article/Levee-system-kept-Texas-City-from-flooding-1622095.php
A 19 to 23 feet high levee, that was not breached during a Major Hurricane, likely buys a little time.
It also makes me wonder about the accuracy of other cites in the report.
 
Here is one that is alarming,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b4cec9...6c45cc19/ss_heat-waves-bother-you?-under.html
Heat waves bother you? Under Trump climate policies, add another add 12°F
I was wondering where such an outlandish number came from and so dug in a bit.
The article was citing the national climate assessment,
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#graphic-20998
who indeed says,
The highest pathway, RCP 8.5, roughly similar to a continuation of the current path of global emissions increases,
is projected to lead to more than 8°F warming by 2100, with a high-end possibility of more than 11°F.
The problem with that number is they are basing it on RCP8.5, and that 8.5 °F, and then using the
highest edge of the uncertainty range, as 11 °F
NCA.jpg
First off RCP8.5 is representing a radiative forcing value of +8.5 W/m2, not degrees F.
The IPCC uses a ratio of .3 °C per W/m2, so 8.5 W/m2 would equate out to 2.55 °C or 4.59 °F.
The highest limit which they say is 11 on the RCP graph, if 11 W/m2 would be 3.3 °C or 5.94 °F.
Mistakes as simple as this lead me to think that at the very least the National Climate Assessment is not well vetted.
 
Here is one that is alarming,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b4cec9...6c45cc19/ss_heat-waves-bother-you?-under.html

I was wondering where such an outlandish number came from and so dug in a bit.
The article was citing the national climate assessment,
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/future-climate#graphic-20998
who indeed says,

The problem with that number is they are basing it on RCP8.5, and that 8.5 °F, and then using the
highest edge of the uncertainty range, as 11 °F
View attachment 67235968
First off RCP8.5 is representing a radiative forcing value of +8.5 W/m2, not degrees F.
The IPCC uses a ratio of .3 °C per W/m2, so 8.5 W/m2 would equate out to 2.55 °C or 4.59 °F.
The highest limit which they say is 11 on the RCP graph, if 11 W/m2 would be 3.3 °C or 5.94 °F.
Mistakes as simple as this lead me to think that at the very least the National Climate Assessment is not well vetted.

I look forward to some mainstream climate scientist debunking this publicly.
 
Since you only read denier blogs, I guess that’s an appeal to the non-deniers to tell you what’s going on.

Same point I made earlier, if you don't want to take responsibility for stupid propaganda you should not let it stand.
 

[h=1]Alarmists Claim ‘Global Heat Wave’ Is Melting Polar Bear Sea Ice – Facts Say Otherwise[/h]According to The Guardian, there is a “global heat wave” going on right now. In Siberia, the heat is supposedly “completely unprecedented” and will surely (we are told) impact Arctic sea ice — the habitat of the iconic polar bear. Yet a comparison of previous years shows little to no impact on sea ice: there is more…
Continue reading →

I wonder what the changes in aerosol emissions are near that region?
 
Since you only read denier blogs, I guess that’s an appeal to the non-deniers to tell you what’s going on.

When you look at the RCP to temperature graph published in the National Climate Assessment,
are you prepared to say they got the graph correct?
that RCP8.5 was speaking about 8.5 °F?
 
When you look at the RCP to temperature graph published in the National Climate Assessment,
are you prepared to say they got the graph correct?
that RCP8.5 was speaking about 8.5 °F?

Why do you bother with him?
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Ooops: “lid blown off” the trustworthiness of scientific peer review[/h][FONT=&quot]Global warming alarmists suffered a big hit this week in their effort to deify shoddy “peer-reviewed” climate papers. Stanford University medical professor John Ioannidis, in an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP), blew the lid off the trustworthiness of the peer-review process. When the alarmist community seeks to push a new argument or messaging strategy…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Because there really is no defense for the National climate Assessment saying the 8.5 in RCP8.5 was referring to 8.5 °F.

I agree. It shows everyone just how stupid, arrogant, ignorant, or what ever choice word you want to use, that these people really are. Still, they don't care. They have that XXXtra-holy faith that they are absof'n lutlely correct. No matter what facts bite them where the sun doesn't shine.
 
One way that the mass media gets around being accused of fake journalism is that they pose their headlines as a question.

"This politician is a liar and a cheat" becomes "Is this politician a liar and a cheat?"

Good journalism is supposed to answer questions and take a stand based on the ascertained facts, not ask open ended questions. It's not our job to answer questions for them; it's their job to help us be an informed democracy.

Asking a question instead of providing a fact keeps them unaccountable.
 
One way that the mass media gets around being accused of fake journalism is that they pose their headlines as a question.

"This politician is a liar and a cheat" becomes "Is this politician a liar and a cheat?"

Good journalism is supposed to answer questions and take a stand based on the ascertained facts, not ask open ended questions. It's not our job to answer questions for them; it's their job to help us be an informed democracy.

Asking a question instead of providing a fact keeps them unaccountable.

The headline was not written as a question, about the fact, but if high temperatures bother you, with a follow on statement.
Heat waves bother you? Under Trump climate policies, add another 12°F
America faces monster 131°F heat waves in the coming decades.
Since no one else is throwing out numbers this high, I wanted to see their source.
It turns out that whoever edited the national climate assessment mistook the numbers in RCP8.5 to be
8.5°F rather than the IPCC's version which is 8.5 Wm-2.
 
The headline was not written as a question, about the fact, but if high temperatures bother you, with a follow on statement.
Heat waves bother you? Under Trump climate policies, add another 12°F
America faces monster 131°F heat waves in the coming decades.
Since no one else is throwing out numbers this high, I wanted to see their source.
It turns out that whoever edited the national climate assessment mistook the numbers in RCP8.5 to be
8.5°F rather than the IPCC's version which is 8.5 Wm-2.

Stupidity on steroids!

Just like the lefties...
 
Back
Top Bottom