"Whether we like it or not" - Page 38 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201459
All 75,560 pages of this thread... prove that the universe is, in fact, a huge mystery that humanity will never understand.

Which is why changing it with technologyTM is ultimately suicidal.

It is impossible to prove the premise of this thread using human knowledge, and it always will be. The vanity of "trying to understand it and control it" has wasted countless lives (and hours).
#15201476
QatzelOk wrote:All 75,560 pages of this thread... prove that the universe is, in fact, a huge mystery that humanity will never understand.

Which is why changing it with technologyTM is ultimately suicidal.

No, because that's how we roll. The only way weak, puny creatures like us can survive is by changing the world with technology.
It is impossible to prove the premise of this thread using human knowledge, and it always will be. The vanity of "trying to understand it and control it" has wasted countless lives (and hours).

But not as many as failing to understand and control it....
#15201491
Truth To Power wrote:Yes.

No, you do (or misrepresent).

Please quote the parts that "misled" you, and I will tell you what they really say.

No, because unlike yours, my opinion is a reasoned, informed, and impartial one.


Since you cannot quote the parts of the studies that support your claim, your claims are now dismissed.
#15201492
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you cannot quote the parts of the studies that support your claim, your claims are now dismissed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: My "claim" is merely that your claim is not supported by the studies you cited in support of it. The burden of proof is therefore on you to show -- not just claim -- that it is.
#15201497
@Truth To Power

Since I read the studies, I already know how they show a significant reduction in brightness temperature in those wavelengths that are signatures for GHGs.
#15201500
QatzelOk wrote:

Which is why changing it with technology is ultimately suicidal.




You're centuries late, and if there's one thing I know inside out it's being late.

The reality is we're going to have to do extreme shit. You know it, I know it, and it's going to suck. But letting climate change make us extinct is worse.
#15201555
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

Since I read the studies, I already know how they show a significant reduction in brightness temperature in those wavelengths that are signatures for GHGs.

And I know why it doesn't mean what you claim it means.
#15201559
Truth To Power wrote:And I know why it doesn't mean what you claim it means.


My claim is that CO2 and other GHGs have a significant effect on the overall heat budget of the Earth and its atmosphere. This is effect is a greenhouse effect reducing the speed at which heat leaves the system into space, and that this can be seen by measuring the effect GHGs have on heat emissions to space.

Please explain how I am wrong.
#15201581
Truth To Power wrote:I know that responding to both of you is useless, except for the potential instruction of other readers who may have some rudimentary competence in and respect for science, fact, and logic.

I've provided the evidence.

No.

It indisputably does. Just not significantly. You and PoD seem unable to absorb the latter word into your passive, let alone your active, vocabularies.

Yes I have. Re-read the explanation of the blanket analogy. A blanket blocks IR heat loss from your body in much the same way GHGs block it from the earth's surface.

Because they are irrelevant. It also ignored the isotopic composition of air, the latent heat of vaporization of water, and countless other irrelevant factors, all for the same reason.

All of which are irrelevant to the fraction of IR making it through the tube.

No, he showed that adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air did not appreciably change the amount of IR getting through the tube, and no one has ever offered any credible empirical evidence to the contrary. Angstrom's result has never been refuted, and it never will be. The claims of refutation are just bald falsehoods.

Sure I have. It's irrelevant, as Angstrom proved CO2 cannot have such an effect, and it would be false in any case, as I showed by the explanation of negative temperature feedback: if temperature rises, heat just radiates away faster.


Of course if the temp increases there is more radiation. But, where has TtP shown that this effect means the temp can't increase more? If we have a pan of water over 3 candles, the candles will heat the water. And this will continue until a new equilibrium temp is reached.
. . . What TtP implied there is that as soon as the temp rises the increased evaporation will keep the temp from increasing more. We know this is not so with candles and pans of water. He needs to prove with actual numbers that it is so for air being heated by IR radiation.
. . . Do any of you accept that, just because TtP says it does? I don't accept that on his say so.

To show that something does not significantly effect the thing being discussed, TtP needs to provide some actual numbers.
I have provided some back of an envelope numbers and calculations. I don't remember him doing this even once. He just makes assertions.

TtP does not know that analogies just illustrate something. They prove nothing.

late, I know he is not going to stop replying with his nonsense.
.
#15201634
Steve_American wrote:Of course if the temp increases there is more radiation. But, where has TtP shown that this effect means the temp can't increase more?

It can, as long as the forcing increases at least as the fourth power of the temperature. How likely is that?
If we have a pan of water over 3 candles, the candles will heat the water. And this will continue until a new equilibrium temp is reached.

GHGs are added insulation, not added heat input.
. . . What TtP implied there is that as soon as the temp rises the increased evaporation will keep the temp from increasing more.

Radiation, not evaporation.
We know this is not so with candles and pans of water. He needs to prove with actual numbers that it is so for air being heated by IR radiation.

The air temperature is only relevant to the extent that it affects climate: the earth's surface temperature.
To show that something does not significantly effect the thing being discussed, TtP needs to provide some actual numbers.

Angstrom already did, and I quoted them at least once.
I have provided some back of an envelope numbers and calculations. I don't remember him doing this even once. He just makes assertions.

Your calculations were based on meaningless, made-up numbers. I'm not interested in going down that road.
TtP does not know that analogies just illustrate something. They prove nothing.

I didn't say they proved anything, just that mine might help you understand the relevant physical processes. So much for that hope.
#15201637
Pants-of-dog wrote:My claim is that CO2 and other GHGs have a significant effect on the overall heat budget of the Earth and its atmosphere. This is effect is a greenhouse effect reducing the speed at which heat leaves the system into space, and that this can be seen by measuring the effect GHGs have on heat emissions to space.

An effect on the spectral distribution of the emissions is not an effect on their quantity.
Please explain how I am wrong.

See above. The fact that the pre-industrial level of CO2 has an effect on climate does not mean that more will have a proportionately greater effect. Angstrom's experiment showed that even most of the pre-industrial CO2 had little effect, and CO2 would have to drop to a modest fraction of that level -- far below any actual level at any time in the earth's history -- before changes in the amount could have much effect on climate.
#15201638
The 'Greenhouse Effect'

Image

Of course, the atmosphere is not as efficient, but the principle is the same.


:)
#15201640
Truth To Power wrote:An effect on the spectral distribution of the emissions is not an effect on their quantity.


In this case, an effect on the spectral distribution of the emissions is an effect on their quantity, to use your words.

To put it simply, the Earth emits energy at different wavelengths.

The change created by GHGs (or as you put it, the effect on spectral distribution of the emissions) is a reduction in energy emitted.

See above. The fact that the pre-industrial level of CO2 has an effect on climate does not mean that more will have a proportionately greater effect. Angstrom's experiment showed that even most of the pre-industrial CO2 had little effect, and CO2 would have to drop to a modest fraction of that level -- far below any actual level at any time in the earth's history -- before changes in the amount could have much effect on climate.


We have direct evidence that CO2 and other GHGs have a measurable effect.

And again, this effect is an effect on their quantity, as you put it.
#15201651
Pants-of-dog wrote:In this case, an effect on the spectral distribution of the emissions is an effect on their quantity, to use your words.

No it isn't.
To put it simply, the Earth emits energy at different wavelengths.

That's putting it a little too simply. The IR wavelengths the earth emits from its surface -- water, land and ice -- are not the same ones it emits from its atmosphere to outer space, which satellites measure. Without GHGs, the IR emissions from the surface would escape directly to outer space without heating the atmosphere, and the earth would be a frozen ball of ice. With GHGs, the earth's surface is much warmer, and the temperature and spectrum of the final emission are those of GHGs at the emission altitude. That is a crucial difference which you self-evidently do not understand.
The change created by GHGs (or as you put it, the effect on spectral distribution of the emissions) is a reduction in energy emitted.

No it isn't. It's just an increased difference between surface temperature and the temperature of final emission to outer space, a delay between the daytime and nighttime temperature equilibria, a higher equilibrium altitude and commensurately lower temperature of final emission, and a shift in its spectral distribution. The equilibrium energy emitted is exactly the same with and without GHGs: the same amount of energy that is received from the sun.

To put it simply, you have no knowledge or understanding of atmospheric physics or radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere, and you refuse to learn anything from someone who does.
We have direct evidence that CO2 and other GHGs have a measurable effect.

Yes, as described above: not on the amount of energy emitted, only on the difference between surface and emission temperature, the delay in reaching diurnal equilibria, and the altitude, characteristic temperature, and spectral distribution of the final IR emission to outer space, as I explained to you so very patiently, above.
And again, this effect is an effect on their quantity, as you put it.

No it is not. You are just wrong. The quantity of energy emitted is exactly the same with or without GHGs. The only differences are as I described above. The controversy over CO2's effect on climate -- AGW -- concerns only how additional CO2's effect on the altitude, temperature and spectral distribution of the final emission to outer space propagates back down to affect temperature at the surface. Angstrom's experiment showed it has almost no effect because the IR absorption of standard surface air is already massively oversaturated by water vapor and the pre-industrial level of CO2.
#15201654
ingliz wrote:The 'Greenhouse Effect'

Image

Of course, the atmosphere is not as efficient, but the principle is the same.

No, you merely proved that you do not know anything about the matter, and neither does the source of your diagram. A greenhouse works by blocking convection, not radiation; "greenhouse" gases work by being transparent to visible-spectrum electromagnetic radiation but opaque to (i.e., blocking) infra-red radiation. Completely different principles.

GHGs work more like blankets on a bed than glass on a greenhouse. If you add another layer of glass to a greenhouse, or make the glass thicker, it has no effect on temperature in the greenhouse, while adding another blanket to a bed or using a thicker blanket does have a considerable effect on how warm the guy in the bed feels. The reason CO2 can't significantly affect the earth's surface temperature is that there is already so much water vapor (wool blankets) and CO2 (cotton blankets) in standard surface atmospheric air that adding more CO2 doesn't make any difference. Doubling CO2 is like adding a cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets on a bed. It makes the temperature at the top of the stack a little different, but the effect on how warm the guy in the bed feels is microscopic.
#15201662
late wrote:But letting climate change make us extinct is worse.

There is zero (0) probability that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use could have a net negative impact on humanity, let alone make us extinct. Our remote ancestors survived Ice Ages and interglacials with paleolithic technology. The notion that we couldn't survive a comparable change with modern technology is absurd.
#15201681
Truth To Power wrote:
There is zero (0) probability that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use could have a net negative impact on humanity



So how much do they pay you to shovel that crap?
#15201687
Truth To Power wrote:There is zero (0) probability that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use could have a net negative impact on humanity, let alone make us extinct. Our remote ancestors survived Ice Ages and interglacials with paleolithic technology. The notion that we couldn't survive a comparable change with modern technology is absurd.


Doesn't the fact that we have to survive something speak of a 'net negative impact on humanity'? :lol:

It is true that humanity will keep plugging along even if we lost a billion people tomorrow. We see more extreme weather conditions each passing year, more severe floods and worse droughts. Mother nature trying to rid itself of these pesky humans who destroy as much as they create.
#15201699
MadMonk wrote:Doesn't the fact that we have to survive something speak of a 'net negative impact on humanity'? :lol:

It is true that humanity will keep plugging along even if we lost a billion people tomorrow. We see more extreme weather conditions each passing year, more severe floods and worse droughts. Mother nature trying to rid itself of these pesky humans who destroy as much as they create.

Even if we all die tomorrow, some people find satisfaction in the idea that video games could continue going on for millennia after with AI players and perfect renewable energy.

As long as video games are being played, who really cares what species are left on the planet.

And most of the "argument" on this page (especially Pants of Dog) is really more video-game than science.
#15201725
MadMonk wrote:Doesn't the fact that we have to survive something speak of a 'net negative impact on humanity'? :lol:

No.
It is true that humanity will keep plugging along even if we lost a billion people tomorrow.

Which is guaranteed not to happen because of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.
We see more extreme weather conditions each passing year, more severe floods and worse droughts.

No we don't.
Mother nature trying to rid itself of these pesky humans who destroy as much as they create.

Anti-human silliness.
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 43

@JohnRawls You're correct of course. Putin alw[…]

News Apps

What apps do people use and recommend? I use BBC b[…]

Doesn't a cop need evidence that you've rolled a […]

Why should we go to Mars?

I'm with @Godstud . Better they spend their money[…]