Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1205
    MEMBERS
  • 62541
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 175190 views.
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/24/18

It's not about profit, it's about responsibility.

And given that a lot of the debris is fishing nets, then the fishing industry should at least make a start.

RRBud

From: RRBud

3/24/18

You get no opposition from me on this.  I just wish someone would take it on and manage to turn a profit, because then there'd be a commercial incentive, not merely a commonsense, practical, ethical, moral incentive.

Yes, I am very cynical where it comes to my fellow humans.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/24/18

You might be able to get oil from the plastic, but I doubt it would be a very good grade.

The profit comes from not killing all the fish in the Pacific.

Then we can kill and eat them.

RRBud

From: RRBud

3/25/18

Most likely, the primary product we could make from recovered plastics would be more plastics.  Not all of them are bad for our world, but we have to start being careful what we do with the stuff.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

3/30/18

So sad . . .

Game over

Skeptics 1, Fanatics 0. That’s the final score.

The corrected mid-range estimate of Charney sensitivity, which is equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 in the air, is less than half of the official mid-range estimates that have prevailed in the past four decades. Transient sensitivity of 1.25 K and Charney sensitivity of 1.45 K are nothing like enough to worry about.

This third article answers some objections raised as a result of the first two pieces. Before I give some definitions, equations and values to provide clarity, let me make it plain that my approach is to accept – for the sake of argument only – that everything in official climatology is true except where we have discovered errors. By this acceptance solum ad argumentum, we minimize the scope for futile objections that avoid the main point, and we focus the discussion on the grave errors we have found.

Definitions

All definitions except that of temperature feedback are mainstream. I am including them in the hope of forestalling comments to the effect that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, or that temperatures (whether entire or delta) cannot induce feedbacks. If you are already well versed in climatology, as most readers here are, skip this section except for the definition of feedback, where climatology is at odds with mainstream feedback theory.

Greenhouse gases possess at least three atoms in their molecules and are thus capable of possessing or, under appropriate conditions, acquiring a dipole moment that causes them to oscillate in one of their vibrational modes and thus to emit heat.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), being symmetrical, does not possess a dipole moment, but acquires one in its bending vibrational mode on interacting with a near-infrared photon. To use Professor Essex’s excellent analogy, when a greenhouse gas meets a photon of the right wavelength it is turned on like a radiator, whereupon some warming must by definition occur.

The non-condensing greenhouse gases exclude water vapor.

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas by quantity, is a condensing gas. All relevant changes in its atmospheric burden are treated as temperature feedbacks. Its atmospheric burden is thought to increase by 7% per Kelvin of warming in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (Wentz 2007).

Emission temperature would obtain at the Earth’s surface if there were no non-condensing greenhouse gases or feedbacks present. Emission temperature is a function of insolation, albedo and emissivity (assumed to be unity), and of nothing else. As non-condensing greenhouse gases and feedbacks warm the atmosphere, the altitude at which the emission temperature obtains rises.

Radiative forcing (in W m–2) is an exogenous perturbation in the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. Forcings become warmings via –

The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

3/30/18

SO much of that went completely over my head!

Can you summarise the science for me?

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

4/1/18

Image result for science gif

Related image

. . . sez . . .

 

Game over

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/1/18

In other words you didn't understand it either.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

4/2/18

You wish. I understand it only too well. Time for you to face the truth. Go ahead, you can do it.

Perhaps putting it in layman's term will help you make the infinitesimally tiny leap of logic . . .

Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind

They likened a courtroom ‘tutorial’ to the Scopes Monkey Trial. But their side got schooled.

Related image

Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v.Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.

No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup —a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.

In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plaintiffs—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.

“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.

Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.

 

Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”

The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.

Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

4/2/18

Wonderful!  Could you explain this to me..

Radiative forcing (in W m–2) is an exogenous perturbation in the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. Forcings become warmings via –

The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m2: Roe 2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to yield the reference sensitivity. To a first approximation, it is the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature and emission flux density. Its value is thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit change in flux density, i.e., at today’s values 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. However, owing to altitudinal variation, the modeled value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.).

Then we can move onto the next paragraph...

TOP