Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to CNN we should remember global warming also causes global cooling, and that any confusion is the fault of the Republicans.
Is it climate change or global warming? How science and a secret memo shaped the answer
By Jen Christensen, CNN
Updated 1423 GMT (2223 HKT) March 2, 2019
…
It’s complicated
“The term ‘global warming’ confuses people because it triggers thoughts about warmth, and it sort of lends itself to misinterpretation when it also impacts the cold,” said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge whose work focuses on the way climate change is discussed in public and political conversations.
…
“You could think of global warming as the large macroperspective phenomenon,” said Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University who focuses on climate change. “Climate is more complicated.”The term ‘global warming’ also doesn’t get at how it impacts weather locally and regionally.”
…In 2002, GOP strategist Frank Luntz sent a memo to Republican candidates to create an environmental strategy. He argued that the environment is “probably the single issue on which Republicans in general — and President George W. Bush in particular — are most vulnerable.”
The memo suggests that candidates express their “sincerity and concern” about the environment, but he also wanted them to downplay concerns.…
So, which is it?
When people ask Yale’s Leiserowitz whether it’s climate change or global warming, he tells them he uses both.
“The key thing about terms like this is, they are plastic. Or, well, maybe since we are talking about the environment, we should say words are renewable organic latex or something,” Leiserowitz joked. “Essentially, meaning changes.”…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/world/global-warming-climate-change-language-scn/index.html
The CNN article left out another interesting memo from Climategate, in which the climate scientists themselves discussed the marketing advantages of switching from using “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”;
date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: “Bo Kjellen” [redacted]
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
to: “‘Asher Minns'” [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]
Dear Asher, and all,
I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That is why the IGBP in a recent publication “Global Change and the Earth System” underline that we now live in the anthropocene period. Climate change is one of the central elements of this process, but not the only one: loss of biological diversity, water stress, land degradation with loss of topsoil, etc etc all form part of this – and they are all linked in some way or another. Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know relatively little: we are in a totally new situation for the human species, and our impact added to all the natural variations that exist risks to unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems which might also lead to “flip-over” effects with short-term consequences that might be very dangerous.…
Climategate Email 4141.txt
It is possible that when climate scientists wrote the 2004 Climategate email they were worried that the abrupt drop in temperatures since 1998 would continue.
“”The term ‘global warming’ also doesn’t get at how it impacts weather locally and regionally.”
Anybody who does not think that this mean “generally warmer” is functionally an idiot.
“functional idiot”
That would cover the vast majority of alarmists.
functional idiot Prof Mike Hulme
Well if the warmth is not the problem, we can dismiss both the 2 degree and 1.5 degree targets, strop trying to destroy our way of life and attend to the REAL problem of society. Thanks for pointing that out.
… that exist risks to unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems …
Thank you, Prof. Plum … for reminding us that prior to human industrialization, the earth was in perfect balance … tension-free … and superbly balanced. Good to know.
Your PhD is in WHAT, again ?
One of the ‘real’ problems of society IS the people that are trying to destroy our way of life by exploiting this fraud.
Or: “Dysfunctional dude”?
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. link
Calling it climate change means they can claim that literally anything is caused by CO2.
Being fed shit from a small clique of climate scientists has nothing to do with the intelligence of the American people.
I’m also pretty sure intelligence is not related in any way to the way they vote either.
Very true, nw. Intelligence isn’t the determining factor in voting.
Gullibility is. The more gullible a voter is, the more likely to believe the nonsense, scare tactics, and outright lies of the Leftists.
~¿~
…. or the Rightists ?
“or the Rightists ?”
Examples?
Tom – weapons of mass destruction.
Greg March 3, 2019 at 1:40 am
…. or the Rightists ?
Tom Abbott March 3, 2019 at 3:55 am
“or the Rightists ?”
Examples?
Jay March 3, 2019 at 6:37 am
Tom – weapons of mass destruction.
____________________________________
Jay, Greg obviously ain’t qualified as “weapon of mass destruction.”
Weapons of mass destruction were found. As were mothballed programs ready to be activated again as soon as the leftists could get the restrictions removed.
The problem with the entire ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ argument is that not only was it shown that the Iraq government was actually willing and able to produce and use chemical weapons, but that the extension of the ‘Weapons Not Found’ argument implies that a nation actually needs some sort of permission to goto war and hence the Iraq War was somehow ‘illegal’.
Sorry kids but home truth time. You do not need ‘permission’ to start a war, you just need the political will to see it through internally and a strong belief that you can survive the geo-political consequences.
For example there is literally nothing to stop Australia deciding to invade New Zealand. We don’t need to walk up to the UN like Oliver Twist with his swill bowl and beg for the time of day, we just need to turn up with HMAS Canberra and Adelaide, fly over a few times mocking their complete lack of an actually air FORCE and we are proud new owners of several million sheep and a hobbit theme park by Friday lunch time.
The problems we would face is the Australian public would be a bit upset, not because we actually like New Zealanders, but more that we need to maintain a decent number of Test playing nations that our cricket team can actually beat. No more independent NZ = One spot closer to the bottom of the international rankings.
We would also need to consider how the rest of the world would see this act. Some of them might be a tad upset, especially the LotR fans. We might have to deal with an international ban on all Australian movies, but considering the state of the Australian movie industry that is a bit of an idle threat.
A bigger threat would be if there was a ban on exporting to Australia. Having destroyed our own car industry a blockade on new cars would go down extremely poorly with the public, but a more critical issue would be a blockade on fuel. Lacking the industry to refine fuel in useful quantities ourselves a diesel embargo would bring Australia to its knees in about 2 months.
These are the points. Legal or illegal are moot points because you do not technically need permission. Practically you need to know if your country can handle the protests on the international stage and need to understand just how your export/import markets work. If you feel your export power gives you more leverage than another nations sales to you then you may feel that you can just bully your way past all that guff – “Embargo on oil you say? Well no more boomerangs for YOU!”
The point? There are no illegal or even legal wars because there is no planet wide law. There are international treaties and international repercussions you must be prepared to deal with as well as the internal opinions of your own population, but the legality of a war only exists in the minds of people willing to support or oppose it.
That small clique of climate fantasists plus the main stream media bear blame for so many people around the world being mislead–and thereby ignorant–about climate.
this is exactly the case. considering the vast array of institutions pushing this garbage it is amazing there are any skeptics at all. If we can keep ourselves from being lynched before the mercury turns, it will be imperative that we separate the gullible from those who knew the truth, but pushed the lie anyway.
A very important distinction and well put. During the separation process we should put capital Punishment back on the table for those who benefited financially for knowingly pushing the lies.
It also shows the ginormous(Huge Enormous) egos these twerps have. These folks have to remember that being above the mean in intelligence, and most of them are, does not mean you are a more functional, more astute, more ethical, more helpful, more honest, or more anything. It simply means that orderly, logical, linear thinking is more comfortable and makes them more prone to make mistakes about their overall value to the world, in the big scheme of things.
Fly-over country is not fooled that much. I come from farmer stock. Being a retired aerospace engineer with a physics degree, my friends and relatives from that area keep checking to see if I’ve been taken in by AGW. Farmers live by the weather. When I was a kid, we were all going to die because of global cooling. When my parents and their siblings were young, we were all going to die because of global warming. When my grandparents were young, we were all going to die of global cooling.
They never fell for it. Neither can I.
Oreskes made me a fan in her Ted talk in which she trashed the scientific method. Since that talk I have really enjoyed reading her carefully crafted comments. She has an ability to analyze and explain the science that is truly unparalleled.
Did you, perhaps, forget the tag?
sarc tag. HTML disappears things that look like they should be HTML.
Absolutely correct. It’s not a compliment.
I thought the part about trashing the scientific method was a dead give away.
I wonder how much the sea level will rise as we experience global warming cooling?
Cheers
Roger
That will bring up a new danger.
“Ice bergs are getting taller!!”
global warming also causes global cooling.
And they wonder why there are so many skeptics.
Aren’t words being redefined continuously? Examples: “marriage”, “free speech”, “gender”, “equal opportunity”.
“War is Peace”
“Freedom is Slavery”
“Ignorance is Strength”
The last is the overt purpose of modern Progressive education.
+10
“I’ll build the wall… and make Mexico pay for it!”
“I’m the world’s greatest dealmaker”
“Kim is a great leader of his people”
“Vladimir Putin told me he had nothing to do with the 2016 elections, so I believe him.”
“Kim, my great friend, told me he had nothing to do with Otto Warmbier’s maltreatment in his prisons, and I believe him.”
“My inauguration crowd was the biggest in history!”
“I never had any knowledge of payoffs to the women I screwed while being married to Melania”
“I have NO business dealings in Russia!”
And on and on and on, about 9,000 times and counting since January 20, 2017.
On the scale of 1 through 10 on gullibility, I’d put the entire Republican Party at about 100.
Can you point to any of those (or the other “9,000”) that impacted the life of average Americans as much as “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.”
Yes – he is a bit full of himself, tends to exaggerate and does like to boast.
But which of his 9000+ “false claims” fall into the “he has a 10′ wall surrounding his home” (when it was only 8′) category? Which have been outright lies to pass policy comparable to “If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance”? Which have wasted anywhere near the multiple billions channeled into the AGW gravy train?
When viewed in terms of policy and spending implications, Trump’s boasts mostly lack any serious downside other than keeping the media spinning in circles documenting them and reporting them all. Which isn’t a downside at all.
How about:
I will bring manufacturing jobs back to America! (done)
What do blacks have to lose in voting for me! (lowest unemployment ever)
I will bring our troops home from the Middle East! (in process)
I will destroy ISIS! (almost complete)
I will renegotiate NAFTA and bring jobs back! (done)
I will renegotiate tariffs with China! (almost done)
I will cut taxes and regulations! (done)
I will bring back growth again! (done)
I will get rid of the individual mandate! (done)
Not a single Democrat believed Trump would get any of this done. They were blind. That’s worse than being gullible!
When the wall is built, Mexico will, in effect, virtually pay for it when the flow of money sent to Mexico by illegals in the US is greatly diminished; instead, the money will stay in the US.
Fascinating how leftists only consider broken campaign promises a sin when the other side breaks them. Nor do they consider their own role in making some campaign promises impossible to keep.
It’s almost as if they actually believe the president is a dictator, able to do anything he wants.
You guys dodged a bullet. Here in the UK we have Hilarity’s best bud running things … Orange man not perfect but least worst option.
It also covers both flood and drought. Both more storms and fewer storms.
Pretty much whatever happens, global warming covers it.
According to the Guardian, Climate Change will simultaneously cause a plague of peste such as mosquitoes AND the extinction of a quarter of the insect species of the Earth.
The Atlantic has gone off the rails on this one:
Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change’s Hotter Weather
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/its-getting-warmer-but-americans-may-never-notice-climate-change/583570/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20190301&silverid=MzIyMzc0ODY5NDY3S0
And in 2030: Why Temperature Sensors Don’t Capture Climate Change’s Hotter Weather.
DoubleTalk and DoubleThink overcome the problem.
My take on climate alarmism promoters.
If you cannot predict anything accurately, it is same to presume you don’t know what is going on. Since you don’t know what is going on, I am not listening to you.
We have the right to judge the value of climate prognostications based on past success. And since there is no past success, it would seem that only a stupid person would likest to those prognosticators. Sort of like how you think a ball player will do at bat given hist past five year record.
The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ. That is the only defined mechanism, and it is called the Greenhouse Gas Effect. CO2 can only warm. There is no mechanism by which “trapping” heat could lead to cooling. There has also never been a time in history when the climate wasn’t changing. Change is the normal state for the Climate.
Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Can’t Cause Temperature Dog-Legs
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/
“The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.”
…
WRONG
…
The absorption and re-emission of LWIR towards the surface has the net effect of retarding the rate at which LWIR escapes to space.
…
Please learn about radiative physics before making a fool of yourself.
“The absorption and re-emission of LWIR towards the surface has the net effect of retarding the rate at which LWIR escapes to space.”
Newsflash, LWIR has 0.00°K Temperature. That is why it can travel through the very cold outer space. The only way temperature is impacted is through the conversion of very very cold EM radiation into thermal radiation. Visible radiation passes through CO2 without causing any warming, yet it will warm the surface of the earth. Delaying the loss of LWIR doesn’t do anything until that LWIR is changed in form to thermal energy which BTW is what happens 99.9999999% of the time a photon is absorbed. You can’t absorb and thermalize more than 100% of the energy, so once again, the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through warming.
CO2isLife does not understand the meaning of the term “net.”
…
Lets assume the surface emits 10 watts/sq meter of LWIR.
…
The atmosphere absorbs 2 watts/sq meter of this LWIR.
..
When the CO2 molecule re-emits this LWIR, half of it goes to space, and half of it goes back to the surface.
…
The NET amount exiting to space is 9 watts/sq meter, with 1 watt/sq meter being sent back to the surface.
…
Simple arithmetic.
…
MarkW: 10-1=9, thermalization is not involved.
Does it not emit in all directions? With reabsorption of LWIR into neighboring CO2 molecules, etc? This half up, half down seems overly simplified.
“CO2isLife does not understand the meaning of the term “net.”
David,
‘ NET’
is a collection of holes losely tied together with string
Just like AGW theory
“The atmosphere absorbs 2 watts/sq meter of this LWIR.”
Which is done through thermalization.
Please learn about radiative physics before making a fool of yourself.
Thanks for clarifying that for me David.
1) CO2 doesn’t absorb and reabsorb LWIR to any significant amount. That is explained here. Filling in the Missing Pieces https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/02/12/filling-in-the-missing-pieces/
2) H2O and CO2 absorb the same LWIR wavelengths, and H2O saturates the effect in the troposphere. 400 ppm is irrelevant to the NET output because H2O which can be as high as 4 parts per 100 easily captures 100% of those wavelengths. Simply use MODTRAN with the settings set to looking up into the 0.1 km of surface atmosphere.
3) Where CO2 does become important is the stratosphere where radiation does dominate, and the effect of CO2 is to COOL the stratosphere by speeding the transfer of LWIR OUT OF the Atmosphere for a NET (-) effect of temperature. https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
4) Conduction and convection dominate the heat transfer in the troposphere, not radiation. Radiation travels at the speed of light, so even slowing it down a fraction doesn’t materially change anything.
5) Thermalized CO2 doesn’t re-emit LWIR, it transfers that energy as kinetic energy to another molecule most likely other than CO2, i.e. N2 or O2 or H2O.
“5) Thermalized CO2 doesn’t re-emit LWIR, it transfers that energy as kinetic energy to another molecule most likely other than CO2, i.e. N2 or O2 or H2O.”
While we’re on the subject, does anyone know the IR fluxes of N2, O2 and CO2 (as pure gases)? The values I have are 0.001, 0.018 and 0.134 (W/m^2), but don’t know if they’re right.
What happens to that 1 watt/sq meter when it hits the surface? Does it warm the surface?
What then happens at the surface? Does that warmth get conducted into the atmosphere where it can then be radiated to space? How then does it actually warm the Earth over the long term? It would seem it would just increase the thermal flow rate back toward space.
Does some of that 1 watt/sq meter the surface of the Earth receives warm the surface of the Earth. Doesn’t the Stefan-Boltzmann equation then tell us that it will increase the rate of energy radiation from the surface?
Seems to me the net should be Zero.
David: “When the CO2 molecule re-emits this LWIR, half of it goes to space, and half of it goes back to the surface.”
Net downward only if the atmosphere is warmer than the surface. There is no population inversion in the atmospheric CO2…
Right Pamela particularly when the down surface is also curved.
David D, that isn’t correct. The CO2 in the atmosphere is at the same temperature as the Nitrogen and oxygen by “thermalization”. CO2, H2O, and O3 emit IR, giving the sky a temperature when viewed by an infrared thermometer, while O2 and N2 are transparent and would only show the temperature of outer space on your infrared thermometer. Thermalization has everything to do with it.
“…has the net effect of retarding…”
Yes you do.
Apparently David doesn’t know what thermalization is.
Intersting question, they are much lower than H2O & CO2, so as they thermalise via Convection and Conduction from collisions with excited molecules, but radiate so little, aren’t they the actual Greenhouse Gases slowing the race to space?
David, David, David.
There you go making a fool of yourself again.
Please look up what thermalization means. Then apologize to the class.
David Dirkse
I dunno, David:
CO2 absorbs & re-emits LWIR photons pretty quickly as they enter the atmosphere (essentially none go from the top of the atmosphere to ground-level without several absorption/reemissions). Each of the many absorption/re-reemissions have an equal probability of being re-emitted in any direction (including “up”; ie: no propensity for “down”).
I don’t know CO2’s latency, but LWIR photons don’t travel very far in (especially denser) atmosphere before being absorbed.
Probably ought to be a little more specific (and lass ad hominem) before you run around calling people fools. It just looks bad.
Are you saying emission happens faster than thermalization?
And is he saying that CO2 emissions are only at 13 and 18µ, which is (basically) only what other CO2 can absorb?
Really I think CO2’s effective absorption band is much narrower (than 13-18 microns) at 15 microns.
There you go again, David. Here’s a paper for your consideration:
https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/physicsfacpub/1/?utm_source=digitalcommons.conncoll.edu%2Fphysicsfacpub%2F1&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Titled: The Greenhouse Effect at the Molecular Level, by Michael Monce.
Please try and educate yourself. It’s not too late.
WBWilson, that is a novel way to go about the calaculation of the Greenhouse effect.
However I am shocked to find that the Author Micheal Monce made a really bad error in his calculations.
In the calculation for Earth to Atmosphere Radiation affect he uses the Surface as 289K and the Atmosphere at 287K used by Petty in the Boltzman calculation, however where CO2 is dominant in the 15 Micron Band the Atmospheric temp is 223K not 287K.
“The absorption and re-emission of LWIR towards the surface has the net effect of retarding the rate at which LWIR escapes to space.“.
OK. So LWIR is absorbed (by CO2), and then LWIR is emitted. In the interim (possibly extremely short) period, there must be a change to the CO2. That’s because, if there’s no change, then its rate of LWIR emission wouldn’t change. So what is the nature of the change to the CO2 … thermalisation perhaps?
Jonas, if the photon emitted from the surface strikes a CO2 molecule and is thermalized, then the photon did NOT escape into space.
…
This thermalized photon contributes to the warming of the planet. Had that photon escaped, and not have been thermalized, then it would not have contributed to the warming.
….
Any outbound photon that doesn’t make it out into space contributes to the warming of our planet.
So that’s how co2 causes global warming which causes the cooling. Got it, thanks.
Shucks, what would we do without you climate clergy to set us straight?
There is one thing I’ve never understood about all this. Can’t CO2 also gain thermal energy by colliding with other molecules that are warmer then it? And wouldn’t that warmed CO2 molecule have an equal probability to radiate a photon, half the time up and out to space?
We know large amounts of thermal energy are carried up by convection. We call some of this ‘weather’. More CO2 in the atmosphere should provide more chances for this thermal energy to be converted into photons that can escape into space, cooling the Earth.
Right? ~¿~
What actually happens is that more CO2 means that slightly more LWIR is thermalized in the lower atmosphere. Instead of radiating directly into space this extra heat is convected to a higher altitude before radiating away. With more CO2 it has to be convected to a slightly higher altitude first. The extra energy needed for this is the net warming caused by the CO2. Note that convection is the main mechanism for transporting heat away from the surface, considerably more important than radiation.
This is never ever emphasized since climate models can’t model convection. It is “parameterized” instead.
Mr Dirkse, as the font of all knowledge perhaps you can explain some things to us plebs.
1. How long does the CO2 thermalised Photon contribute to the warming before it gets re-emitted?
2. At what height does this CO2 “thermalising” in the 15-18 micron band take place?
3. At what temperature does it take place?
4. How much power (Electron Volts) does a CO2 photon at that height have?
5. How long does it take for the CO2 molecule to re-emit the photon?
6. How long does it take for the Thermalised CO2 molecule to loose it’s energy from a collision with another gas Molecule?
7. What is the Mean Path Length of an IR Photon?
8. What is the percentage of LWIR that actually gets intercepted by a CO2 molecule in the 15-18 micron band?
9 What is the percentage of of the total gases are 15-18 micron CO2 molecules at the altitude where the thermalisation takes place?
David Dirkse – March 2, 2019 at 8:12 pm
David D, a photon cannot be “thermalized” and photons cannot be prevented from “escaping”.
It is the gas molecules that are resident in a specific quantity of atmospheric gasses that are “thermalized”. To wit:
In physics, thermalization is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction.
“DUH”, the aforesaid “mutual interaction” refers to thermal energy transfers back n’ forth between gas molecules.
tty, “With more CO2 it has to be convected to a slightly higher altitude first.”.
But with more CO2 in the upper atmosphere also it radiates the energy away quicker.
As shown by the Satellite data.
A C Osborn, the Satellite data does not and CANNOT prove that there is more CO2 in the upper atmosphere BECAUSE sensors on the satellite CAN’T “see” CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
The satellite sensors can only “see” (detect) the IR radiation and the direction from which it is being radiated, …… and the sensors can’t determine how far away the source was or whether or not the earth’s surface was doing said radiating of said IR.
“But with more CO2 in the upper atmosphere also it radiates the energy away quicker.
As shown by the Satellite data.”
True, but this only partially counters the GHG effect. It is only in the center of the absorption band that the LWIR is radiated away above the tropopause:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg
The “peak” in the middle of the CO2 absorption band around 15 mym is due to radiation from the stratosphere and this will grow with increasing CO2, but it will only partially offset the lowered radiation temperature in the “shoulders”.
Mr Cogan, I did not say the Satellites measure the CO2, just the Radiation form the Earth’s Thermosphere as measured by the SABER Instruments.
I will let you argue with the guy from NASA about how, see the AGU 13 presentation starting at about 14 minutes here
Mr Ozburn, what next are you going to tell me, ….. that it wasn’t really you that submitted this post.
Do you have reading difficulties?
it radiates the energy away quicker.
As shown by the Satellite data.
ie More Co2 in the Atmospere means in the WHOLE Atmosphere, you do not need Satellites to tell you that, but you do to measure the Radiation.
blockquote>“ it (CO2) radiates the energy away quicker.
As shown by the Satellite data. ”
OH MY, MY, ….. Osborn, …. you are the 1st one that I know of that thinks that …. “increases in atmospheric CO2 causes global cooling” …….. instead of global warming.
And ps, ACO, …… you still haven’t told me how that satellite “knows” that it is CO2 that is doing the “quicker” emitting of the IR.
Give it up, AOC.
Because their are no other LWIR emitters in that area of the Atmosphere.
I showed you the NASA presentation, so why are you arguing with me?
Go and argue with the Guy from NASA who obviously lied to the AGU back in 2013.
Learn some civility Dirkse !
Thanks for the pointless, pedantic argument. You have really helped “the cause”.
I didn’t see any incivility, compared to the way people address him.
Likewise, all the models show global warming.
Anybody with a global cooling model was defunded a long time ago.
more to the point.
An interesting item buried in the text is the loss of topsoil. It has be well established what the nutrient requirements of plants are. The concept that the rich black humus-rich topsoil is needed to grow vibrant plants is long gone.
It should also be pointed out that we were taught that it took something like 10,000 years to form each inch of topsoil, but my lawn exceeds its boundaries in depth by that much in ten years. Clearly, there was no topsoil in Canada at the end of the most recent glacial period, yet they can grow amazing crops and huge crop yields from time-limited nonexistent topsoils. Amazing.
The fun and interesting observation can be made that one can do what ever they want in Canada, as its clock will be totally cleaned during the next glacial period. How much fun to start with a clean slate every 100K years.
I think most peat also formed within the past 12,000 years.
All of it in formerly glaciated areas. It is rare to find peat from earlier interglacials there, it was essentally all bulldozed away.
And actually areas with old soils are usually infertile since nutrients have long been weathered away. The best agricultural areas have young nutrient-rich soils, like windblown loess from the last ice age (e. g. the Midwest, Central Europe, Ukraine, Northern China), freshly eroded sediment from mountains upriver (Mississipi Valley, northern India, Mekong Valley, Yangtse Valley) or recently erupted and weathered volcanic rocks (e. g. Indonesia, Japan, New Guinea)
I recently learned of peat deposits in Southern New Mexico. I believe these may be older than most peats today as they are covered by non-glacial sediments. Nevertheless, some deposits are being mined commercially there surprisingly.
There are extensive tropical peat deposits in e. g. Borneo, and peat deposits south of the glaciated areas can indeed be older than the last glaciation. The deposits at Tenaghi Philippon in Greece for example go back to the Pliocene.
There is really no sharp border between peat and brown coal. Brown Coal is just more compacted. The youngest coal deposits are younger than the oldest peat deposits.
For the flip side of your point, can you point me to old, less fertile soils whose low fertility isn’t due to low moisture or monoculture farming practices having depleted the soil? I can only think of areas that have too much salt or large grained, course sand.
There’d be plenty of ground up rocks, covering Canada. It just needed organic matter to produce soil.
The best of that ground-up soil (the finest materials) was blown south and ended up forming the loessic soils of the Midwest.
The areas actually covered by the ice are usually not that good for farming (rocky, thin soils), but the areas outside the actual ice are among the best in the World (Midwest, Central Europe, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Northern China, Northern Argentina)
As an iconic cartoon rabbit once said, “What a bunch of moroons,”
Change is the new stasis and “flip-over effect” might be better labelling than giving it to you in the rear.
I quote an iconic cartoon bunny who said, “What a bunch of moroons” It fits the warmist crowd perfectly.
I hit a brick wall with the CNN article’s extract second sentence that contains this gem:
“. . . said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge . . . ”
Human geography? Is that anything like butterfly mathematics . . . fish astronomy . . . salamander particle physics . . .?
… Human Geography … you know — curves, valleys, protrusions, pits, mounds, etc.
Human geography:
Ahhh . . . so you do have some skin in this game, I see.
Chris: Now I understand. For a moment I thought Human Geography was something about the study of the effects of humans on geography. Kind of like the islands the Chinese are making in the South China Sea. I couldn’t figure out why the University of Cambridge (which I have actually heard of) was interested enough in such things to hire a professor to actually teach the subject.
It would be fascinating to find out if someone in that department really thinks humans can move whole mountains, or just small hills.
No Canary islands Azores or the biggest of all Antarctic – or has it melted already and swallowed up the islands?
A Mercator man apparently.
It’s like a professional climate explainer.
Architectural Dance…
Geography has as its first meaning: “the study of the physical features of the earth and its atmosphere, and of human activity as it affects and is affected by these, including the distribution of populations and resources, land use, and industries.”
Therefore “Human Geography” is a redundancy. Any one who has to tell you twice who they are is trying too hard. They feel the need to try to impress.
SR
They should rename it ‘Human Geography Science’, So all the students know it’s a grant troughing course and not true research. Wouldn’t want them to steer clear of it thinking it’s one of those courses that might lead into the private sector, where people expect results.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4394VCS7POE
<¿<
Tautology
noun
the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g. they arrived one after the other in succession ).
synonyms:
H L Menckens classic example of a tautology:
“ignorant politician”
It seems there are more and more of such sort of jobs :
Climate cartoonist, data poet, bullshit master chef, physics conjuror, gibberish mathematician …
No, silly. Haven’t you ever studied a broad?
Studying the Norfolk Broads is ordinary Geography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broads
Ddoing the same for the female variety would presumably be Human Geography.
Human geography?
If you have the money to pay for your tuition, ……. they will “sell” you a Degree in whatever you chose to call your “course of study”.
They are government subsidized non-profit “money making” businesses.
In Shakespeare’s time, they had so many executions that the monarchy created the position of “the keeper of the heads.”
and increase in CO2 makes it warmer….
…that’s global warming
…the rest of it is total bullcrap
What’s up with showing a graph of a dataset version that didn’t exist when Global Warming was changed to Climate Change? Meanwhile, WoodForTrees shows one that did, and it’s from Ground Zero of Climategate, the Climate Research Unit of UEA, namely it’s HadCRUT3. It also shows The Pause.
[“According to CNN we should remember global warming also causes global cooling”]
Already been debunked. If this was the case then the variance of observed temperatures should be increasing. In fact just the opposite is happening.
Climate models and observations both show (in the northern hemisphere) colder places warming more than warmer places, and not much of the opposite in the southern hemisphere. This means both models and observations indicating decreased variance, at least in the northern hemisphere. Largely true, this is in the minority of what climate models got right. True scientists successfully predicted this decrease of variance, while climate activists claim with little support that this variance increased.
Extreme weather is part and parcel of climate change. Less variation is post mortem repair when that prediction hit the shitter.
Extreme weather is part and parcel of 24/7 news coverage, and a public carrying video recorders with them everywhere they go. In addition to a larger population covering a broader area of “extreme weather” prone areas.
The weather is no more extreme than, it has been in the past. The data indicates it is less extreme. The reporting of it is an order of magnitude more “extreme”!
Donald L. Klipstein – March 2, 2019 at 8:56 pm
The above is analogous to claiming that …… “The glass of water is half empty.”
Thus, the above quote infers that “global, regional and/or local warming” is occurring, …… when actually it is not.
Measured “low” temps are increasing, whereas the measured ”high” temps are not.
Thus, the literal fact is, …… that “global, regional and/or local cooling” that normally occurs during night time, overcast times and winter season times has abated (become less severe) a wee bit each year, ever since the LIA ended.
But then “the pause” occurred, and the aforesaid “abatement” is now an “iffy” question.
Cheers
+1
The alarmists think that good marketing can overcome reality.
It only needs to make people perceive reality differently. They use marketing terms, but they’re practicing propaganda. Your point is well taken.
Like they say – you can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality…”
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/states-with-low-cost-solar-and-wind-paying-1300-more-at-the-moment/#comment-2112321
Fits more than electricity
And from the above-quoted Climategate email of Bo Kjellen to Asher Minns, et.al., 21 Feb 2004, we have this blatant admission:
“Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know relatively little . . .”
I don’t know why that last prepositional phrase has not been shouted from the rooftops for the truthful admission therein.
Bo obviously hasn’t gotten the “settled science” email/memo.
Global Warming and Climate Change have been used interchangeably for decades. At one point it was much more GW than CC, but as time moved along it has become mostly Climate Change today.
And just to complicate things more, there is more than one definition of Climate Change. There is natural Climate Change, which has taken place since time began on the Earth, and there is Human-Caused Climate Change, of which there is no evidence it has ever taken place on Earth.
Ninety-nine percent of the time today, when you hear “Climate Change” they are talking about human-caused climate change, which is also referred to as CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming).
As with everything associated with climate science, the labels global warming and climate change cause confusion rather than clarity. And I think the promoters of CAGW are just fine with that.
To paraphrase a great statement, to wit:
The proponents of AGW/CAGW have credited the Holocene Interglacial “warming” as being responsible for all increases in average near-surface temperatures up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, …… at which time the aforesaid proponents of AGW/CAGW “highjacked” all further increases in near-surface temperatures and credited said “warming” to human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.
It’s AMAZING …… that so many educated people actually believe that ….. all interglacial warming abruptly terminated at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, …… simply because humans began emitting copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
“The key thing about terms like this is, they are plastic.”
No. That the terms are plastic is the key advantage, especially when your aim is to obfuscate, bamboozle, and stampede people into surrendering their rights and their wallets to totalitarians.
“ The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.”
George Orwell
The rebranding to “climate change” is a cynical, but insightful ploy. It subsumes that the majority of people are terribly easily fooled. The surprise to me, however, is that what otherwise seem to be smart enough people (college degrees, professionals) that don’t appear to be dishonest id*ologues are, well, stupid or blind when it comes to global warming.
It’s not that the promoters of the meme have been slick and clever. They’ve shot themselves in the foot countless times and been caught at cloak and dagger dirty tricks. They’ve been moving the goal posts, constantly adjusting data to preserve a clearly falsified hypothesis, made dire predictions (now called projections) that never pan out. Heck, in midstroke they switched from a brutal 35 year “ice age cometh”
and its all man’s fault, to the end of days planetary heat prostration, and IT is all man’s fault! Any single one of these ‘tells’ would put an end to all other charlatan enterprises, but not this one. They are busy rewriting history to deny such things as the cold scare and the “Dreaded Pause” never happened. WUWT?
Gary as you noted, picking a phrase with a dual meaning is clever. Climate scientists can publish their “human driven climate change” studies of how CO2 impacts temperatures, with “proof” measured in 10ths of a degree (hottest year evah!) that no human could actually sense. From that minute evidence of change they go ahead and project future doom. Their scientific hands remain clean.
Then with or without prodding MSM and political alarmists can slide easily into the general definition of “natural climate change” without skipping a beat, and point to the most recent flood or wild fire as undeniable proof of the doom scientists are warning us about. (Knowingly or ignorantly conflating “natural” with “human caused” climate change.)
As an example, in one of 29 year old AOC’s recent rants about an “existential threat”, she observes that “we can all see that temperatures are much warmer and much colder than they used to be”. (This is the person fronting the GND!)
One would think that an honest scientist would jump on such comments and clarify that the changes they’ve identified in their studies are nowhere near that magnitude; and that, by the way. California always has had wildfires and Texas has flooded well before 1850. However……
So far in between simulator drills, check rides, proficiency, all kind of directives and updates, there was not a single training on the effects of global warming on aviation. Other drivers wearing different colors report the same.
Not a single official safety update or training directly related to global warming impact on weather and flight conditions.
From this perspective we can safely deduce that authorities do not really have tangible evidence of whatever scaremongers they feed the public.
Further paradox: -If I import a car, I’ll have to pay a one time CO2 tax. About 500$ for a very small 1.1 liter gasoline cheap drive. And exponentially increasing for bigger displacement engines.
However eventual subscription and other attendance / lodging fees to a climate saving conference, COPxx included, would not qualify as tax deductible for private citizens.
Even more funny. Based on safety concerns, German post would refuse to ship Lithium batteries. Including the same brand and type as those powering their 3-cycles and other “zero emission” delivery vehicles.
It all seems to be a one way only deal. From our pockets to their junkets.
There is a good reason why I no longer have CNN.
10 days in Hawaii confirmed the reasons.
Eric doesn’t know the difference between global warming and climate change. Maybe he could have read up on the subject before writing a post?
Since they are both magical and mystical terms from the mouths of Warmunists, and both have the subtext of “manmade” contained within them, perhaps you would care to climatesplain the difference?
Other than the fact that “climate change” is more useful as an ideology since it can mean anything and everything.
Thought not.
Not magical or mystical. A warmer world is one part of the changing climate.
What are the other parts?
“Eric doesn’t know the difference between global warming and climate change.”
What is the difference between global warming and climate change?
You need to define your terms. That’s assuming you actually want a substantive discussion.
Eric didn’t define the terms? Does he not want a substantive discussion?
The terms don’t need defining. They are both in common usage.
First it was global warming, then when the globe didn’t co-operate, climate change become the phrase of the day.
No, you are mistaken Mark. Climate change has been used for many decades. You are pushing fake news, Mark.
Used, but the primary term was Global Warming until recently.
Nope. You are pushing false news, Mark.
Are you related to David Dirkse?
Is just repeating the same discredited claim really the best you can do?
No matter how it is named, it still is far more about imposing socialism than about mediating any material damage to the climate.
Black is white. People are smart enough to figure out obfuscation when they hear it again and again.
CNN, attempting to sell Climate Change is caused by CO2 induced warming giving rise to global cooling.
Now that, is as fine an example of cant as you will ever come across.
Maybe CNN actually stands for Cant Nonsense Network?
Why is Climate Science different?
============================
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different
Sheldon,
My touque’s off to you, eh, hoser? Now that I think aboot it, gonna go buy me a two-four and get drunk.
Much easier language, Canadian, than Russian!
““The key thing about terms like this is, they are plastic.””
I think “elastic” was the word they were groping for or as Dodgson would put it “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “
Step right up to some climate word salad, folks. Just remember, our words have no meaning at all.
As far as gibberetic word salads are concerned, I liked “macroperspective phenomenon” — 9 syllables in only two words, no meaning. What a masterful display!
The inestimable and lovely Dr Oreskes can always be counted on for such logarrheic verbal outputs.
The IPCC was established by the UN and WMO in 1988; so more than 30 years ago. It has always been called the ‘IPCC’. The ‘CC’ part of its acronym doesn’t stand for ‘Global Warming’.
No, and in their official charter (UNFCC treaty) “Climate Change” is specifically defined as being caused exclusively by human agency.
Another good example. That document was adopted by the UN in 1992. It contains the term ‘climate change’ about 2 dozen times. The term ‘global warming’ isn’t used once (pdf): https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
It was 1989 when the first 12-years-away doomsday prediction was made by the UN. It said we had until the year 2000 to do something or entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth..
See kids, the latest 12-years-away doomsday prediction by the promoters of CAGW from the UN and elsewhere is just another in a long list of failed predictions by these people. This particular prediction has not failed yet, but there is no indication that we are headed in that direction, in fact, we are headed in the opposite direction with global cooling taking place over the last three years. So takes these predictions with a grain of salt, and keep in mind that they haven’t been correct yet.
Doomsday predictions are used as a method of stampeding people into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do. The problem for those promoting CAGW now is they have made so many predictions that have failed that they are now in the position of the boy who cried wolf all the time, when there was no wolf, until the townspeople finally stopped paying attention to his cries..
A single usage proves that everyone was using the phrase.
All the examples of people referring to Global Warming didn’t happen?
There is a problem with their double speak, of warming and cooling.
Their models only predict warming.
Are they now going to tune them so that warming is cooling. I know, just turn the chart upside down.
Regards
“The CNN article left out another interesting memo from Climategate, in which the climate scientists themselves discussed the marketing advantages of switching from using “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”;”
“date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: “Bo Kjellen” [redacted]
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
Mr Worrell FYI….
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess climate change based on the latest science.”
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html
Has anyone else noticed that the IPCC website has changed.
They no longer have their Mission Statement, they no longer talk about assessing Human Caused Global Warming etc.
What happened to their “Principles Governing IPCC Work” where it stated the IPCC will assess:
the risk of human-induced climate change,
its potential impacts, and
possible options for prevention.
Also, it appears they did a stealth edit to the TAR Technical summary: they changed the sentence “The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” to “The climate system is a coupled non-linear
chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
when it also impacts the cold,”
Isn’t that what warmth does ?
In the 1970’s it was “global cooling.” In the 1990’s it was “global warming.” In the 2000’s the alarmists finalized realize they didn’t know if the Earth was cooling or warming, so they called it “climate change.”
The root fact is that without the so called problems with the molecule CO2, the whole of this great big “Problem” would not exist.
Now despite the millions of printed words about CO2, and its so called effects, I for one do not clearly understand jut what actually happens when a Photon of energy from the Sun actually strikes a CO2 molecule.
But what I do know from living in the semi desert climate of South Aust alia is that following a very hot day, like right now, if the humidity is low, a normal situation, then at night something causes the air temperature to drop very quickly.
So minus that other who called greenhouse gas, H2O, is it CO2 which has gone into reverse. As it will respond to the heat energy froth Sun during the day, does it also respond to the heat energy in the air and again in working its “Magic” alter the frequency and re- radiate that energy in all directions, with a large amount going to Space. Hence at night in dry conditions CO2 does appear to cool.
The old newsreels from the desert war in WW2, shows the troops at night with thick greatcoats on as it was very cold.
MJE
” is it CO2 which has gone into reverse”
No, but CO2 only absorbs in a relatively narrow band, in contrast to water vapor, so in a dry atmosphere heat is quickly lost into space. I’m not from Oz myself but I’ve been there quite a lot, so I know how cold the desert nights can be. I’ve even scraped ice off the windscreen up in the Flinders Ranges.
It seems that the CO2 effect would be most obvious in deserts where water vapor is less of a factor. Has anyone shown that deserts are warmer at night now than they were fifty years ago?
If you can control the language, you control everything.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Off topic, but I just “read” (google translation) the german wikipedia on the greenhouse effect :
“Probleme haben manche mit der Energie, die die Treibhausgase in Richtung Erdoberfläche abstrahlen (169 W/m² – wie schon oben genannt), da diese Energie von einem kühleren Körper (etwa −40 °C) zu dem wärmeren Körper (Erdoberfläche etwa +14 °C) strömt und dieses angeblich dem II. Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik widerspreche. Das ist aber eine falsche Interpretation, denn er lässt die Solareinstrahlung (von sogar 6000 K) unberücksichtigt, in der Bilanz ist wieder der II. Hauptsatz erfüllt (siehe auch Strahlungsaustausch).”
Traduction (with google) :
“Some people have problems with the energy that greenhouse gases emit towards the earth’s surface (169 W / m² – as mentioned above), as this energy reaches from a cooler body (about -40 ° C) to the warmer body (earth surface about +14 ° C) and this allegedly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But this is a wrong interpretation, because it allows the solar irradiation (of even 6000 K) disregarded, in the balance is again the II. Main clause met (see also radiation exchange).”
So, the German wiki is saying that the greenhouse effect exists because of the Sun irradiation which permits atmosphere to warm the ground while respecting the second law of thermodynamics.
Have I to conclude that greenhouse effect only exists in daylight ?
The all thing is getting more and more ludicrous.
That is an idiot explanation. There is no mechanism that prevents a photon from a colder object to be emitted and then absorbed by a warmer one. The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law. It says that the net heat flow is always from warmer to colder. IR from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground can’t heat the ground, but it can cause it to cool more slowly than it would have done otherwise.
It is weird how few people actually understand the Greenhouse Effect, even among supposed scientists.
You speak with such authority when you say “The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.”
Yet it does, in 2 ways first it’s vibrational frequency and second it’s Electron Energy.
If vibrational frequency doesn’t matter why do CO2 Molecules ONLY absorb and transmit in the 15-18 Micron band? How do the CO2 molecules know which Radiation to absorb?
If as you suggest all photons making up Radiation are identical that makes all Radiation identical as well.
So are you prepared to “Sunbathe” for 8 hours in UV Rays or X Rays or Gamma Rays or Beta Rays?
The temperature of the molecule doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there is sufficient energy in the relevant electron shell to emit a photon.
The temperature of the receiving doesn’t matter, all that matters is whether there is “room” in one of the electron shells to absorb the energy of the photon.
“So are you prepared to “Sunbathe” for 8 hours in UV Rays or X Rays or Gamma Rays or Beta Rays?”
Beta Rays aren’t even photons, they are electrons.
Let us say that we have a photon with 16 micron wavelength.
How do you tell whether it was:
1. Emitted by a vibrating CO2 molecule
2. Came from the low-temperature shoulder of a hot Black Body radiator
3. Came from the high-temperature shoulder of a coolBlack Body radiator
4. Or from something else
If you have a method of telling this I can virtually guarantee that you will be going to Stockholm to pick up your Physics Nobekl Prize fairly soon.
By the way I am living in a Precambrian shield area with a fairly high uranium content, so in a way i have been sunbathing in gamma rays all my life.
“Beta Rays aren’t even photons, they are electrons.”, OK but Gamma, Xray and UV are photon based, so I ask you the question again, would you sunbathe in Gamma, Xray or UV?
So you two do not believe that Photon’s have a frequency then.
OK, Physics is wrong, as in “The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ): “.
AC, the mis-understanding here is yours. The energy of a photon is independent of the total energy of the atom that emitted it.
When a photon is absorbed, an electron jumps from one shell to a higher one. The amount of energy needed to make each jump determines the amount of energy that can be absorbed. If a photon with a different amount of energy hits the atom, it will have no affect on the atom.
Emission is the same process in reverse. When an electron drops from one shell to a lower one, a photon is given off. The energy of the photon once again depends on the difference in energy between the two shells.
As you can see. There is nothing in the above description that depends on the temperature of the atom.
MarkW, I have mis-understood nothing.
The comment I answered was “The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.”
Whereas I showed that they do indeed have a very distinct calling card.
Just like tty you speak with such authority when in fact you are wrong.
We are discussing CO2 MOLECULES here not individual ATOMS.
If photons are all alike and just photons please explain why CO2 Molecules in the 13-18 Micron band do NOT Absorb and re-emit White Light, UV and Xrays, only LWIR?
Do those photons not actually have more energy than LWIR?
Shouldn’t those CO2 molecules be Blocking the Extra Energetic Photons from the Sun that do all the actual warming?
Why haven’t I read about that?
Come to think of it you say “If a photon with a different amount of energy hits the atom, it will have no affect on the atom.”
So the ENERGY is the calling card.
Thankyou for confirming it for me.
MarkW March 4, 2019 at 7:32 am
” There is nothing in the above description that depends on the temperature of the atom.”
So the photons that make up the Radiation being emitted do not reflect the Temperature of the object it comes from?
OK.
>>
So the ENERGY is the calling card.
Thankyou for confirming it for me.
<<
It’s not for temperature. To determine temperature, you need lots of photons from the same source. Say we have three black bodies: the Sun (which is a reasonably good black body), the CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation (which is an excellent source of black body radiation), and the Earth (which as a black body, is not so much). They all emit a photon at the same energy (say 9 microns). Black bodies emit at all frequencies, so this is possible. Now tell me which source each photon comes from based solely on its energy?
Jim
How can IR radiation to the ground not heat the ground? That’s like saying that the IR part of sunlight doesn’t warm the Earth to begin with.
It doesn’t cause cooling to happen more slowly. According to Stefan-Boltzmann and the Laws of Thermodynamics it increases the IR radiation from the surface of the Earth and increases conductive flow from the surface of the Earth to the cooler atmosphere, which then radiates it into space. Thus the cooling happens at a faster rate, not a slower one.
The *net* flow has to do with the warmer body radiating and conducting at a higher rate than a cooler one. So the net flow is from warmer to colder. But that doesn’t mean the colder body can’t add to the temperature of the warmer body, it just causes more radiation and conduction from the warmer body back the other way!
Tim, have you actually tried it for yourself?
Because I have.
A temperature gauge will cost you about $25, with that you can measure 2 items at the same time and the difference in temp between them.
I have tried it with
2 objects the same temperature, neither of them got warmer when placed near each other and their cooling rate did NOT measurably change.
1 object hotter than the other, the hotter one got cooler and the cooler one cooled much more slowly as you would expect.
1 object hotter than ambient and one cooler than ambient, the same result.
In the first 2 cases the Air between them got warmer if the objects were not subjected to air circulation.
So what is your point?
“neither of them got warmer”
Doesn’t mean they didn’t exchange IR. They just exchanged it at the same rate!
“1 object hotter than the other, the hotter one got cooler and the cooler one cooled much more slowly as you would expect.”
Which is exactly what I said. If the Earth heats up then it *will* get cooler, through radiation and conduction. The “cooler” object, i.e. space, can’t get any cooler. IR sent back to Earth doesn’t warm the Earth without the Earth responding according to S-B and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
No, CO2 in the Troposphere is much colder than the surface even though it is warmer than space, when I placed a colder object (but still warmer than ambient) next to a warmer object the warmer object got colder, it did not get warmer, it did not even slow the warming by any measurable amount.
Like I said I tried this to prove to myself how “Back Radiation” works, what it showed me was that it doesn’t work as advertised.
Which is why I said do it yourself and then come back on here and tell me the radiation from the colder object warmed up or slowed the cooling of the warmer object.
I have tried it many times and it didn’t do it once, perhaps it has to be in a vacuum to do so.
“when I placed a colder object (but still warmer than ambient) next to a warmer object the warmer object got colder, it did not get warmer”
I never said the warmer object got warmer. I said there is no reason why the colder and the warmer object can’t exchange IR.
From “Introduction to Heat Transfer”, Brown & Marco, Page 41, “In 1702 Prevost proposed the “theory of exchanges”, which states that there is a continuous interchange of energy among bodies as a result of the reciprocal processes of radiation and absorption. Thus, if two bodies at different temperatures are within an enclosure, the hotter body receives, from the colder body, less energy than it radiates; consequently its temperature decreases; whereas the colder body receives more energy than it radiates, and its temperature increases. This interchange of energy continues even after thermal equilibrium is reached, except both bodies receive as much energy as they radiate. According to this concept, which agrees well with observations, any body would cease to emit thermal radiation only when its temperature has been reduced to absolute zero.”
“Which is why I said do it yourself and then come back on here and tell me the radiation from the colder object warmed up or slowed the cooling of the warmer object.”
I don’t have to try it. I believe Brown and Marco. Put one of your objects in the vacuum of space isolated from all heat sources except space and it will cool based on its radiation of energy. That radiation will lessen as the object cools (S-B).
Now put a cooler object next to it. What happens?
Tim, that is my point, the CO2 and Earth’s Surface are not in Space, they share the same Atmosphere, just as my 2 objects do.
You say any kind of photon must exchange Energy with whatever it strikes, actally whatever absorbs it.
So how does a 13-18 micron CO2 DWIR photon get to the Surface through the ever denser atmosphere, exchanging Energy all the way down from the Troposphere (Cold) and still make the Warmer Surface warmer when my “as warm object” doesn’t and my “cooler object” doesn’t from less than a 1/2 inch away?
I have been through the “Science” numerous times, most of which does NOT apply to Gases and Atmospheres and non Black Bodies.
Which is why I invited you to do it yourself.
Can you explain why what I did does not work as advertised?
Is 1/10 of a degree C not a sensitive enough Instrument when we are talking about objects at 40-50C, or objects at 40C and OC?
“You say any kind of photon must exchange Energy with whatever it strikes, actally whatever absorbs it.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.
“So how does a 13-18 micron CO2 DWIR photon get to the Surface through the ever denser atmosphere, exchanging Energy all the way down from the Troposphere (Cold) and still make the Warmer Surface warmer when my “as warm object” doesn’t and my “cooler object” doesn’t from less than a 1/2 inch away?”
You are kidding, right? CO2 is *not* an opaque shield in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter where the IR photon originates, whether it is the sun itself or a CO2 molecule radiating in the tropsphere, The phonton can still reach the surface unimpeded. If it is intercepted by a CO2 molecule, that molecule will re-radiate the energy it abosrbed or it will transfer it to another molecule upon a kinetic collision. In either case the energy will get re-radiated, some toward space and some toward the surface. The photon that is re-radiated may or may not be of the absorption wavelength for CO2 and maybe not even for H2O, in which case it won’t intercepted again.
When the Earth absorbs an IR photon it is similar to a CO2 molecule absorbing an IR photon. A CO2 molecule will vibrate faster and move faster as a result of absorbing that photon, i.e. its temperature goes up. Whatever the IR photon hits on the surface will do the same thing.
As the Earth’s temperature goes up it will radiate at a higher rate. This is where so many discriptions of what happens goes awry. Almost all of the descriptions of the energy flows in the Earth’s system assume that “back radiation” to the Earth is absorbed by the Earth which raises its temperature but that the energy is never re-radiated by the Earth. What happens is that the energy “bounces” back and forth between the Earth and space until Earth has reached equilibrium with its incoming radiation and outgoing radiation. It’s why it gets so cold at night in the desert! The Earth is radiating the energy it received from the sun back to space. The S-B equation says that is what happens. It’s the same for “back radiation” as it is for the sun.
“I have been through the “Science” numerous times, most of which does NOT apply to Gases and Atmospheres and non Black Bodies.”
Of course the science applies to gases, atmospheres, and non-black bodies.
From Brown & Marco: “In general, the net radiant-heat interchange between a gas and a solid surface may be found from an equation of the type
q = Ap(S-G) where
A is the area of the solid surface
p is the emmissivity of the solid surface
G is an intensity factor which depends on the product of the partial pressure of the gas and the the shape of the gas mass along with the temperature of the gas. For a space between two parallel plates it is (1.8) x distance between the plates. (That somewhat descriptive of the atmosphere around the Earth.
S is a similar intensity factor as for a gas as well as the temperature of the surface.
“Can you explain why what I did does not work as advertised?”
Because you couldn’t do a proper measurement of what was happening! And no, 0.1C is not a sensitive enough instrument to measure the small differential changes between the two situations over time.
>>
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law.
<<
The problem with thermodynamics is that its four laws can only be applied under the correct conditions. For example, you can’t define “heat” unless you know the extent of the “system” you’re talking about. Heat is defined as the transfer of energy across a system boundary due to a temperature difference. They usually add the phrase: “from a warmer temperature to a cooler temperature.” (Notice that a bucket of hot water does not “contain” heat.)
If you don’t define the system you’re talking about, then you can’t even apply the first law, because both heat and work are boundary phenomena.
There are three basic types of systems: open, closed, and isolated. The second law ONLY applies to isolated systems. The universe is considered to be an isolated system–the second law applies to the universe as a whole.
The Earth’s atmosphere is clearly an open system, therefore the second law need not apply to it. Sometimes they model the atmosphere as a closed system, but again, the second law need not apply to closed systems.
If the second law applied to closed systems, then hot objects could never cool down. A cooling, closed system decreases its entropy, and that would violate the second law–if it applied.
Jim
+1
“—–global warming also causes global cooling—-”
While anybody is claiming this rubbish huge skepticism will always exist because this is simply not true. With this point of view there is nothing to distinguish between either, whether natural or not. Global warming or climate change don’t prevent dips in global temperatures because natural forces are larger. Any sane person knows that global temperatures in the past didn’t warm for a while because the underlying warming was not larger than natural climate change.
Changing the term to Climate change only made matters worse because it doesn’t actually say anything about what it’s suppose to represent. Vague messages that can often be claimed to be nonsense only increase skepticism.
What this comes down to is that climate change and global warming cause everything that natural climate does, therefore nothing to distinguish between religion and science. Hence why global warming become a religion by using only pseudoscience and avoiding scientific method. Soon as future predictions fail they change historic data.
This type of behaviour causes huge scepticism especially those with critical thinking.
There is a distinct difference in the actual meaning of Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change.
Climate change is all changes to the Climate, which have always happened since the Earth had an Atmosphere.
Whereas the inclusion of the words Warming, Anthropogenic and Catastrophic Anthropogenic means that only Warming can be considered, or only Warming by Humans can be considered or only Catastrophic Warming by Humans can be considered.
As they could not prove any of the last two they resorted to the catch all of Climate Change, at no point has the IPCC talked about Anthropogenic Global Cooling or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling.
In fact during the “Pause” there was also no mention of an Anthropogenic Global Pause.
What is CNN? Is that the waiting room network?
Heads you lose tails I win as long been ‘normal ‘ practice in climate science ,one reason they can never offer what would ‘disprove ‘ their theory is by doing that they can claim everything proves it.
It is not how you do science of course, but they the norms of good science have long been a stranger in climate ‘science’
“Global Warming does not always mean Warming”
Still waiting to hear how they know what they claim.
‘According to CNN we should remember global warming also causes global cooling, and that any confusion is the fault of the Republicans.’
“Reality is an invention of the Right to confuse people.” – GC
The principle advantage of ‘climate change’ over ‘global warming’ is it is undefined. As commented above, it can mean anything people want it to mean. And they never define it when they use it. Y’all just sposed to know.
‘Global warming,’ as an increase in Global Mean Temperature, is – theoretically – measurable. The nebulous ‘climate change’ is not. The last thing you want is for people to have metrics on your scare mongering, to be able to see if what you are saying is actually happening. See: The Pause.
Problem is, when this started, the whole scare was warming and “oceans boiling”, “runaway greenhouse like Venus”, etc were the selling points. Sadly, Nature did not read the research and failed these activists severely. Now what to do? Change the name? Sure. Admit that had the scientists actually contradicted the activists and said it might not be GLOBAL , they had no real clue what warming would do, then this “boy do we look stupid now” wouldn’t be happening ? Never. So, now, faced with the reality that this is NOT universal global heating up in any way, it’s CYA time. Make up stories, make up terms and try to salvage the mess. This is what happens when science sells out to politics.
The only problem with the new name is, that these climate changes only happens when the temperature changes. If the temperature was stable there would be no climate change we are told. So we are back to square one again.
Changes in precipitation or winds or cloudiness can happen without temperature changes and counts as climate change.
Dublin is covered with a white blanket of global warming today, 3rd March 2019. Perhaps we should be turning off all our heating so that it can get colder? At least we will feel good about reducing CO2.
A major factor in allowing and promoting this entire specious argument on the climate and whether or not WE are factors in climate changes is the complete lack of curiosity fostered in our schools at all levels, where an accepted viewpoint is to be blindly accepted and never ever questioned. This is true even when real world experience would tell the people more interested in figuring things out for themselves there is something majorly rotten in the whole deal.
It is so frustrating to hear people, friends, who parrot the party lines back to me. The science is settled, the CO2 is terrible, we must (destroy our way of life, really?) DO something!
In the meantime, western philosophy is denigrated because it might make someone decide to do some thinking about things. Thing is discouraged. Parrot=like behavior is encouraged.
What about using the term “Global Greening?”
Just out of curiosity why stop the graph at 2010 it seems a random cutoff date
I don’t suppose any of the ‘confusion’ could be coming from Progressive hacks who change their story day to day, year to year, to accommodate whatever predictions failed and whatever weather actually materializes.
CNN has quite proudly ditched any pretense of objective journalistic ethic.
They might as well be defense lawyers for the Progressive agenda.