Information

Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 53
Latest Activity: yesterday

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Cascading Failure Foreshadow

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Loren Miller yesterday. 3 Replies

At the end of May, the media reported 300 fire hydrants were damaged across France, as locals tried to beat record high temperatures there.On June 3rd, in Iran’s Eastern Sistan region, …Continue

Tags: water and power fail during heat wave, cascading failures, electricity, water, Climate Destabilization

Flooding away your house or favorite vacation spot

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Thomas Murray Jun 13. 3 Replies

In 33 years, San Diego and Key West will be getting a 100 year flood every month while places in Hawaii will experience them every 2-3 days. …Continue

Tags: flooding cities

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 9. 68 Replies

Take an amusing quiz to learn about unexpected effects of Climate Change. After each multiple choice question, you see if you were right (and the right answer if you weren't).…Continue

Tags: odd effects of Climate Change

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 11:21pm

Regarding the greenhouse gasses (H20, H2O2, N@O, CH4, CO2, O2, O3)

Briefly I'll state my suppositions and my hypothesis. Atmospheric heat is gained two ways: heat from the earth (99%+ being reflected sunlight) and direct heat from sol. 

When EM radiation changes medium the boundary has an index of refraction lower than the near vacuum it is leaving. The light can be said to be striking the earth totally in parallel but since the earth is an irregular sphere and the atmosphere and even more irregular obloid the local index of refraction changes constantly. But still the change will be between certain hypothetical limits that can be inferred by inter and outer atmospheric measurement. 

I realize this might sound like Greek so this is an example. Have you observed when you put a stick in the water and the stick seems to bend? That is a demonstration of the dielectric index of refraction of water. 

Nearly all of the light striking the atmospheric dielectric will separate into two constituent parts. Some will have an angle of incidence change and exit. Some will enter. 

Greenhouse gasses aren't heated appreciably by incoming radiation by sol (their absorption spectra is far too low, and sol doesn't output much infrared light).

So the light having entered the dielectric medium passes without much further reduction to the surface where the boundary condition is repeated. 

Each time, the light is altered by this process even if it isn't absorbed. 

The leftover energy now reflected begins an exit journey. Greenhouse gasses, having a spectrum of absorption and index of refraction that are conducive to latching on to much of this light don't let it escape. The light of unaffected spectra passes mostly unaffected.

So in following the light through it's many electrical changes as it goes through the atmosphere, into and off of the earth, and then into space which has the greatest energy budget?

The question here is, which light, when interacting with the atmosphere, has the most energy to lose in heating a thing?

Why, the light first entering the dielectric has the most energy. 

Obviously the insulating greenhouse effect works well with the low energy light. But by that time it has already given up nearly all it's energy. 

This is one brief reason why I am not convinced that greenhouse gasses are the primary cause. Their energy budget is nearly 100 times less. Therefore even a small increase in absorption prior to light being able to interact with greenhouse gasses is worth tens of increase in quantity of greenhouse gas.

I had another point about index of refraction but this is long enough for now. 

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 11:20pm

Čenek, you said, "CO2 ... has zero absorption at 11µm." You seemed to argue that it was impossible for CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas because "The earth reradiates primarily at 11µm." Surely, just because CO2 doesn't absorb at the median wavelength of Earth radiation, can't mean it plays no significant role.

 Perhaps you can explain to me how this graph, which shows CO2 as absorbing radiation from Earth, is wrong. The caption says:

Graph showing the mostly visible radiation spectrum emitted from the Sun as seen from the surface of the Earth (left curve) and the IR radiation emitted Earth as seen from space (right curve). Compared it to Figure 1 this graph shows the wavelengths that are absorbed by atmospheric gases, causing gaps in the spectrum. For the left curve, it is obvious how ozone acts to absorb UV light before it reaches the Earth's surface with some visible light also being absorbed by water vapor. For the right curve, the impact that the major greenhouse gases have on the amount of IR that Earth emits to space is clear: carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor act together to absorb and re-emit radiation that stays trapped in the lower atmosphere (that is, the outgoing radiation from Earth is much less intense than expected from the temperature one would measure in space due to the effect of greenhouse gases). Carbon dioxide absorbs at wavelengths centered on 15 microns, ozone at wavelengths of 10 microns, and water vapor over broad ranges of wavelengths. [emphasis mine]

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 10:38pm

I also don't believe the data is being ignored. There certainly isn't incentive to reexamine though because all the grants for climate research are only given if one conforms to the orthodoxy. 

In the paper I cited they put it like this:

  • Rather than revising current understanding of solar physics and solar variability effects on climate, what is needed is improved characterization of the SIM observations. Work is under way to reassess the spectral irradiance variations measured by SIM and a new, advanced SIM has been designed and constructed for flight on the Joint Polar Satellite System (P. Pilewskie 2011, personal communication). To prevent future research following a path of unrealistic solar-terrestrial behavior, the SORCE SIM observations should be used with extreme caution in studies of climate and atmospheric change until additional validation and uncertainty estimates are available.

I think this is well worth following up on in a few years. If SIM2 data confirms the variations even the most conservative scientist will be compelled to suggest that at the very least the real data needs included in climate models. 

Again this is a huge complaint I have with climate science, when you look at the math behind their climate models you find these huge areas where they just assert that a given variable is scalar. IE is an unchanging constant. Given that, of course the math works out that the greenhouse gasses are the predominant influences. But the system is more complex. 

They also commented:

  • SIM’s solar spectral irradiance measurements from April 2004 to December 2008 and inferences of their climatic implications are incompatible with... empirical climate change attribution results.

I hesitate to read too much between the lines here. But what is "climate change attribution" if not the orthodox hypothesis that CO2 and other gasses are the primary influence of climate change?

So I'm not saying conspiracy. Just that there is obviously an incentive to disavow data that contradicts ones bank account. But they still published the raw data. So at least there is that. 

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 8:39pm

I wasn't aware of this huge spectral shift in solar irradiance, and it's outside of my expertise. I may have misunderstood your argument. I thought you suggested that CO2 wasn't a significant greenhouse gas, or that it's increase isn't largely responsible for recent global temperature change (ignoring that methane has had a huge effect too, for the moment).

It will take a few days for me to look at this more closely.

I can't imagine that valid data is being ignored by the entire climate science community.

Different substances absorb different frequencies.

Indeed. Some think Albedo changes could double the net warming caused by human emissions.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 6:47pm

Just to make that graph more concrete, what you are seeing is a huge spectral shift away from frequencies that aren't readily absorbed by earth toward frequencies that are readily absorbed by earth. Thus, more heat retained, less earthshine reflection into space. 

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 6:43pm

Thank you I've seen that data before. You again tell me I'm using unreliable sources. Did you check the sources I linked? There isn't any more reliable than that. I shall try again this time with basic science and if I am made into another straw man I shall consign this group to the ranks of the climate religion true believers.

If one doesn't understand absorption spectrum and other physical sciences then my argument cannot be comprehended and one is instead just trusting some authority. This act doesn't behoove a skeptic.

I didn't write that CO2 has zero impact. I wrote that it has zero absorption at 11µm. There is no scientific argument on this fact. 

The sun output in W/m^2 is quite constant. I didn't claim otherwise. In fact I linked where it showed exactly that. My earlier sources explain how a fundamental law in physics (Plank's law) demonstrates that the EM wavelength of a body is proportional to its heat.  

Thus any photon emitted from a body must have the same total energy at any temperature. 

The temperature of the sun varies. It's output spectra varies even more. There are complex reasons that we still don't fully understand yet. But there is no doubt as to its spectral variance. 

Different substances absorb different frequencies. This accounts for thousands of phenomenon from why we see colors to why your microwave oven heats unevenly despite the food being evenly irradiated.

When the sun changes it's spectra the earth alters temperature according to whether the spectra are of a type absorbed.

Now do you understand? Sunspots are correlated though rather poorly to spectral shifts. And the hard data we have on sol's spectra is disbelieved even though the same instrument used to measure far away spectra is believed. It's ludicrous. 

SIM (the Spectral Irradiance Monitor) vs the orthodox prediction model NRLSSI (Naval Research Laboratory Solar Spectral Irradiance)

In my book, DATA trumps HYPOTHESIS any day, any time. But not so in climate science? Why do you think that is?

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 3:26pm

Čenek, you must be using unreliable sources if you think CO2 has zero impact as a greenhouse gas on rising global temperature.

The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the solar input argument. You should have been alerted to cherry picking by the fact that the comparison used was The Maunder Minimum. Nor is solar output during ice ages a helpful standard of comparison.

Solar activity accounts for current warming. This isn't so much misleading as it is flat-out wrong. Total solar activity has been declining over approximately the past 35 years.

NASA says

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

Here's an interactive graph from June, 2015 comparing various causes of climate warming. What’s Really Warming the World?

Excerpts:

Temperature is the grey line and solar forcing is the beige line.

Temperature is the grey line and greenhouse gases, such as CO2, are the green line.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 15, 2016 at 2:17pm

Compare 2016 so far with previous years global averages.

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on March 15, 2016 at 12:51am

Yes Ruth we're in a low. But as always the question is: compared to what? Nearly all the data on solar output in one graph

There are short and long cycles in every natural process we've observed from earthquakes, volcanism, carbon release, carbon reuptake, ice formation, ice loss, and solar output. 

In terms of the long cycle of solar output, we're up, way up. And we've been up for a long time. Heat can be cumulative if the input exceeds output. Long established fact that the solar input max is 1380 W/m^2 with the mean being 340 W/m^2

What is the output of the earth? Let's look at spectra. Earth vs sun. The earth reradiates primarily at 11µm (keep firmly in mind it is on a log scale). Now look at the (non-logarithmic) absorption spectra for co2

That's right:  Zero. 

For those who might not be following the science, this means that the idea of energy from the sun being 'trapped' on earth by co2 is ridiculous. Yes, some is. But clouds are many orders of magnitude more influential than co2. Are we banning clouds? 

Having done the work, I stopped worrying and just enjoy my bigger veggies.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 14, 2016 at 3:10pm

Here's the reference for that 6 year old quote.

Climate Change: The 40 Year Delay Between Cause and Effect

Sorry I forgot.

 

Members (53)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service