Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 532052 times)

longhorn320 · « **Reply #7336 on:** April 17, 2023, 06:01:27 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on April 17, 2023, 05:55:55 PM

Yes. MANY experiments have been done. The relationship between CO2 and also methane as greenhouse gases is WELL understood.

In fact, it's so well known and understood that it's an experiment you can do to show school children. https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/the-greenhouse-effect-experiment/

thats a start but Id be more interested in creating a like earth atmosphere and testing from there by varying the % of co2

etc

MrNubbz · « **Reply #7337 on:** April 17, 2023, 06:05:46 PM »

77 yesterday 39 and lite snow right now 🤪

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #7338 on:** April 17, 2023, 06:10:12 PM »

Quote from: longhorn320 on April 17, 2023, 06:01:27 PM

thats a start but Id be more interested in creating a like earth atmosphere and testing from there by varying the % of co2

etc

Sure, glad you asked. Here's some light reading:

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

longhorn320 · « **Reply #7339 on:** April 17, 2023, 08:13:43 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on April 17, 2023, 06:10:12 PM

Sure, glad you asked. Here's some light reading:

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

gee thanks

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #7340 on:** April 17, 2023, 09:34:22 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on April 17, 2023, 05:51:43 PM

Or, let's put it another way. Let's say you weigh 100 kg (220 lbs).

Inhaling 300 NANOgrams of something shouldn't hurt you, right? It's just such a small number of units. It's only 0.0000000003% of your body mass!!!

Of course, on the other hand if it's botulinum toxin, it'll kill you.

Is that the one that caused Cincydawg to projectile vomit from the smell?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7341 on:** April 18, 2023, 09:10:08 AM »

Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry | Climate Etc.

I find this woman's comments of interest, and follow her blog. A lot of the featured items get too technical for me, but I'm used to that. I think she knows her stuff, she's not a kook, doesn't appear to have an agenda beyond trying to calm down the more dramatic and sensational claims from both "sides".

Judith Curry: Well, there is almost certainly a signal of manmade emissions the earth climate. All other things being equal, it’s warmer than it would otherwise be. The real issue is the magnitude of man-made warming relative to the whole host of other things that go on in the natural climate system. And then the bigger issue is really whether this warming is dangerous. You know, a certain amount of warming is generally regarded by people as a good thing. But a whole lot of warming, isn’t especially a good thing, especially if it’s melting ice sheets and causing sea level rise.

Sea level rise operates on very long timescales. And the manmade warming that we’ve seen so far, I don’t think is really contributing much to the sea level rise that we’ve observed so far. I mean, that’s just a much longer term processes. And even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide today, the sea level rise would keep rising. So, the climate system is way more complex than just something that you can tune, with a CO2 control knob. That just isn’t how it works.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7342 on:** April 18, 2023, 09:10:58 AM »

Judith Curry: Okay. The climate models originated from weather forecast models, and then they added an ocean then land surface biosphere, and then chemical processes, and now ice sheets. They keep adding all these modules and increasing complexity of the models, but the basic dynamics are driven by the same kind of models that model the weather. We’ve learned a lot from climate models, by running experiments, turning things off, turning things on adjusting parameters, taking clouds out, taking sea ice out, holding the sea surface temperature constant in the tropical central Pacific and see what happens, you know, we learn how the climate works by using climate models in that way. However, the most consequential applications of climate models are to tell us what caused the 20th century climate change, how much the climate change is going to change in the 21st century and what’s causing extreme weather events.

I mean, those are the more consequential applications and climate models aren’t fit for any of those purposes. And that’s pretty much acknowledged even in the IPCC report. Well, they, they do claim that they can attribute the global warming, but this can’t be easily separated from the natural variability associated with large-scale ocean circulations. And the way they’ve used climate models to do that involves circular reasoning, where they throw out climate simulations that really don’t match what was observed. So you, you end up, even if you’re not explicitly tuning to the climate record, you’re implicitly tuning. And then the thing with extreme events, weather events is beyond silly because these climate models can’t resolve the extreme events and they can’t simulate the ocean circulation patterns that really determine the locations of these extreme events. And then when you start talking about 21st century, the only thing they’re looking at is the manmade human emissions forcing, they’re not predicting solar variability.

They’re not not predicting volcanic eruptions. They can’t even predict the timing of these multidecadal to millennial ocean oscillation. So all they’re looking at is this one little piece. Okay. So, what are you supposed to do with all that? Not sure we know much more than the sign of the change from more CO2 in the atmosphere, which is more warming. And then there’s another thing. The most recent round of global climate model simulations, the so-called CMIP5 for the IPCC 6th assessment report. All of a sudden the sensitivity to CO2 the range has substantially increased in a lot of the models, way outside the bounds on the high side of what we thought was plausible, even five years ago. So what are we to make of that? And how did that happen? Well, it, it’s a, it’s a rather arcane issue related to how clouds cloud particles interact with aerosol particles.
By adding some extra degrees of freedom into the model related to clouds, then it becomes all of a sudden way more sensitive to increases in CO2. What are we supposed to make of that? I mean, we do not have a convergent situation with these climate models. And this is not mention that the 21st century projections from the climate models, don’t include solar variations. They don’t include volcanoes or the ocean circulation, all of these things that they don’t include. So what are we left with? And then there are these precise targets, such as we will exceed our carbon budget in 2038. This is way too much precision that is derived from these very inadequate climate models.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7343 on:** April 18, 2023, 09:16:35 AM »

udith Curry: Well, first off, people are looking for simple problems with simple solutions, and they thought that climate change was a simple problem, sort of like the ozone hole. Stop emitting chloroflourocarbons – stop the ozone hole; stop emitting CO2 – stop the global warming. There’s no way we’re going to make progress on CO2 emissions until we come up with alternatives that are reliable, abundant, secure, economical, et cetera, Wind and solar, aren’t the answer. All other things being equal, everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy. That’s a no brainer, maybe a few coal companies prefer dirty, but everybody would prefer clean, clean energy, but they’re not willing to sacrifice those other things like cost and reliability.

So it just doesn’t make sense. All of these targets and promises about energy are just so much hot air, if you will, sound and fury. We don’t have solutions and nobody’s meeting their targets. I mean, all they do is go to these meetings, make more and more stringent commitments that everyone knows aren’t going to be met. And at the same time, we’re not dealing with the real problems that might be addressed. For example, water is a big issue, we either have too much or too little. Independent of man-made global warming, let let’s sort out our water supply systems and our flood management strategies. How, how do we prepare for droughts? Lets focus on the current problems that we have – food, water, and energy. Those are the three big ones.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7344 on:** April 18, 2023, 09:20:37 AM »

Judith Curry: I regard myself as sort of a centrist. I’m politically independent. I don’t have any allegiance to one side or the other.. I understand the complexity of the problems, and I don’t really advocate for any solutions because I can’t think of any that I would want to advocate for that actually makes sense. You know, other than broadly talking about, we need to adapt no matter what, and if you want clean energy, you need to invest in better technologies. You’re not gonna get very far in preventing climate change by trying to massively deploy 20th century technologies. These are the kind of general statements that I’ve been making. But because I wasn’t actively advocating with the greens and I was critical of the behavior of some of the scientists involved in the climate gate episode. I got booted over to the denier side. And they tried to cancel me. I don’t have any allegiance to the extremes of either side of this, but the alarmists seem to be completely intolerant to disagreement and criticism.

There’s crazy people on both sides of the debate. There’s a range of credible perspectives that I try to consider. it’s a very complex problem and we don’t have the answers yet

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7345 on:** April 18, 2023, 09:33:37 AM »

Judith Curry: There’s one example from today in the U.S, they’re passing the new budget and wanting to get a rider included related to clean energy. And what they agreed on was an R & D program for nuclear, carbon capture and all that kind of stuff. And the people on the left really objected to it because they don’t like nuclear just because they don’t like it. And they don’t like carbon capture and storage because that lets the oil companies off the hook. So, so the hard core green activists don’t like either one of those. Here you have a bipartisan agreement to do something that is fundamentally pretty sensible. Then you’ve got the people on the far left objecting to it over silly biases and things that just make no sense

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #7346 on:** April 18, 2023, 10:04:29 AM »

Quote from: longhorn320 on April 17, 2023, 08:13:43 PM

gee thanks

You said you wanted science.

Okay, want something lighter? Here's an overview of the history of climate science and how we got to the understanding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that's warming the planet.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

It goes all the way back to 1859 (and even earlier) when scientists were trying to understand how glaciers once covered the bulk of northern Europe and they were no longer around, and speculating about the idea that glacial periods coincided with lower CO2 and warm periods coincided with higher CO2. 1859, however, was the start of simple laboratory measurements that showed that CO2 and methane actually trapped heat.

There was a lot of contention in the theories but it seems like it really kicked off in the 1950s due to improved laboratory methods and the power of computers for calculation.

This isn't some new idea dreamed up by the left that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #7347 on:** April 18, 2023, 10:20:32 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on April 18, 2023, 10:04:29 AM

This isn't some new idea dreamed up by the left that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet.

I don't think anyone here has suggested this.

My main problem with the whole thing is it's been weaponized and turned into a political point for both sides.

Go figure.

Some of us can see beyond the sides. Most cannot.

FearlessF · « **Reply #7348 on:** April 18, 2023, 10:36:26 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on April 18, 2023, 10:20:32 AM

I don't think anyone here has suggested this.

My main problem with the whole thing is it's been weaponized and turned into a political point for both sides.

Go figure.

Some of us can see beyond the sides. Most cannot.

EVERY "F"ing thing has been
COVID, Global Warming, Race issues, Education, Employment, immigration, election fraud

When's the last time the two sides agreed on something?
no to term limits, yes to higher taxes, yes to printing money, yes to growing the budget

great!

Cincydawg · « **Reply #7349 on:** April 18, 2023, 10:36:53 AM »

I've seen one poster apparently wanting evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. He suggested a kind of science fair experiment, which someone likely has done, for a science fair.

The Greenhouse Effect Experiment and Lesson for Kids (steampoweredfamily.com)

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

longhorn320

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MrNubbz

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

longhorn320

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy