Global warming/climate change

[Andrew]

@Andrew

hot air engines don’t exist

They do actually exist, in Stirling cycles, but are very inefficient for their relative weight. Infact they rely on the fact that air is so shit* at storing energy to even work at all. (I actually love these engines, so quiet and graceful).

*They rely on the air very quickly changing temperature between the hot and cold sides.

Also, the very best Stirling engines use pure compressed nitrogen* internally, because it is extra shit at storing heat.!

*Note: compressed nitrogen. It’s that shit at storing heat, they put more of it in!

And that gas is 80% of the atmosphere.

[Andrew]

So, to connect the dots here, 99% of the atmosphere is using whatever heat it has to do work when it expands. There is only water, CO2 CH4 and a couple of others, which have the capacity to expand and also radiate heat.

The are givers, not takers.

[Andrew]

It’s that excess radiant heat which we rely on in the bottom of the troposphere, to keep us in somewhat liveable temperatures.

Somewhat. There are plenty of places I have been with unlivable temperatures.

[Andrew]

Getting back to personal application of this, I really like how detailed this discussion is. How the complexity reveals itself.

It actually played a big role in some monumental decision making yesterday. I am now planning on exploring the Philippines. I have this vision of the green I want around me. Lot’s yet to consider, an exploration trip will be needed, but being in the optimal environment makes so much sense to me now.

Just because I grew up here, doesn’t mean it’s the best place to live.

[Andrew]

To keep my own interests at the forefront; loving the discussion. It helps with other investigations.

So many times my “investigations” have been applications of very shallow morality.

I never asked myself the “lapse rate” of relationship desire. How and why does this or that feeling arise?

Why are some more persistent than others?

What drives my “climate change”.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

It does address it implicitly because if something can’t absorb much heat, and can’t emit much heat.

It’s not adding anything more just because it’s 99%, because it didn’t absorb it to being with.

That’s the whole point. It’s really shit at absorbing, and thus having anything to emit.

It’s not “shit at absorbing” heat. It’s “shit at absorbing” infrared radiation. It absorbs heat just fine via convection and conduction. See:

@claudiu

@solvann

Tyndall and Foote showed that nitrogen and oxygen, which together account for 99 percent of the atmosphere, had essentially no influence on Earth’s temperature because they did not absorb heat.

This is demonstrably false, though. Just start a fire in a fireplace. The air (99% of which is nitrogen & oxygen) warms as a result of contact with the fire. All of it warms, not just 1% of it.

Alternately turn on a heater that heats the air near the floor. The hot air will rise to the top. Then stand up and wave your hands in the air. You’ll feel the heat. The air as a whole (99% of which is nitrogen & oxygen) warms up. It is absorbing the heat from the air below. All the air is hotter, not just 1% of it.

The paper doesn’t even contemplate or consider the capacity of N2 and O2 to become heated outside of infrared absorption. It’s not something it addresses because it’s not in the model it’s all based on in the first place.

@Andrew

@claudiu

And yet according to atmosphere science, the first 10km worth of atmosphere is virtually unaffected by the effects of radiative heating (ie the infrared-absorbing qualities of that 1% of gases):

Yes. They are basically saying that. I haven’t seen any evidence apart from the potential 3% in that paper, to suggest they are wrong.

What I quoted here contradicts your point, it doesn’t prove it!

This is a graph of temperature vs. altitude (source):

What is accepted in atmosphere science is that the temperature of the entire first 10km of this – from 15°C on the Earth to -50°C at the 10km mark – is due essentially entirely to the heat storing and transferring qualities of the gases that do not participate in infrared absorption.

If the 1% of trace gases had a 33x stronger effect than the 99% of regular gases like you say they do, then this wouldn’t be true. The first 10km of the atmosphere would also be dominated by the properties of that 1% of gases – after all they would account for 97% of the effect (everything but the 3% you calculated).

But the facts are the opposite. The 10km is dominated by the 99% of gases not the 1%.

@Andrew

So, to connect the dots here, 99% of the atmosphere is using whatever heat it has to do work when it expands. There is only water, CO2 CH4 and a couple of others, which have the capacity to expand and also radiate heat.

Everything radiates heat! That’s how an object’s temperature is measured. If O2 and N2 didn’t radiate heat then you could heat them up forever and they’d never get hot.

@Andrew

Which, would explain why the models didn’t take the effect of the 99% into account, because it was assumed that air is essentially using whatever heat it had when it expands as work.

Despite whatever the case may be there, the fact is that the atmosphere up to the 10km maintains the temperatures that it does. However the mechanism by which it gets there, work expended or not, this is the equilibrium temperature. And, being at that equilibrium temperature… the entire atmosphere is emitting infrared light, some towards the ground, some towards space. How the entirety of the atmosphere emitting infrared light can be automatically assumed to have zero effect, as the starting point of a model, boggles the mind!

It’s also worth reiterating that all this does is show the model to be self-contradictory. The model claims that the entirety of the effect of the Earth being 33°C than it “should” be, is due to infrared light being emitted to the ground. And they ignore the infrared light that 99% of the atmosphere emits in their calculation!!

It is a self-defeating model. But it doesn’t mean that the Earth indeed should be -18°C and that 100% of the atmosphere is responsible for it being 15°C as opposed to just 1%. The entire basis of thinking the Earth “should be” -18°C is flawed. For the full ridiculosity of the argument see Richard’s article .

Cheers,
Claudiu

[Andrew]

Completely missing the point of what air does with heat.

Of course it can get hot, but it’s really no very good at it.

Bringing out the charts of the very scientists one wants to discredit?

It make zero sense.

It’s almost as if the wonder is lost.

Why can’t they just be almost right?

I never got the impression that Richard was arguing any point except to wonder about it.

Not to blindly believe , but to wonder.

It perfectly ok if they are indeed, mostly correct.

It’s the blind belief that is the point.

I see many issues in the way science is manipulated. But lasers ultimately don’t lie. People do.

But someone else with a laser will come along, and not lie.

I really enjoy just wondering about it.

Wondering if a monsoon will be bearable. Whether it really was such a great idea. Then laughing. It’s all really a trip after all. We just get the choice where we get off.

[Andrew]

Let me put it this way;

If air is the amazing conductor of heat, as you claim, then standing in the shade, walking in the shade, otherwise experientially deciding that “shade” is better, would make no difference.

Air is absolutely no good at transmitting heat. Or even carrying it the scant meter from the roasting sidewalk, to the shady tree.

Granted, it still warm, but not even close to the heat of standing in the sun.

If I were to believe that air was capable of what you claim it is, then I would have to also stop walking in the shade; because such actions are insane! Obviously.

Seems to me you are building a sand castle around an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have, rather than openly discussing it.

Again, I am happy we are discussing it. And it seems that any sensible, if unpolished reply, is met with the same recalcitrance that I am well known for.

Bravo! Now that’s an achievement I can applaud.

Personally, I want to reiterate that my impression of the very same type of discussions which Job thought were “biased” and you seem adamant of building a case for, were actually encouragement to Wonder.

I hope we can indeed continue to wonder. It’s encouraging me to consider all sorts of life changing things which I had not the courage to try.

[claudiu]

@Andrew

If air is the amazing conductor of heat, as you claim, […]

I’m not the one claiming it… this is the accepted understanding of atmosphere/climate science at least since 1972 apparently. It was in one of the links you yourself posted:

Things Climate Science has Totally Missed? – Convection

The following are excerpts from the link, from Atmospheres , by R.M. Goody & J.C.G. Walker (1972):

@Andrew

If I were to believe that air was capable of what you claim it is, then I would have to also stop walking in the shade; because such actions are insane! Obviously.

It is atmosphere scientists that are claiming it, not me, so you will have to take it up with them! I see no reason to dispute what they say in this case.

@Andrew

Seems to me you are building a sand castle around an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have, rather than openly discussing it.

Yet all I’m doing is re-presenting, re-iterating, and re-stating the argument that they are making, without really adding anything to it.

@Andrew

Again, I am happy we are discussing it.

Glad to hear it!

@Andrew

And it seems that any sensible, if unpolished reply, is met with the same recalcitrance that I am well known for.

Lol now my replies are “unpolished”??

@Andrew

It’s almost as if the wonder is lost.

@Andrew

I hope we can indeed continue to wonder.

What about what I’m writing makes you think I’m not wondering?

@Andrew

Why can’t they just be almost right?

They could be of course, but just because they could but doesn’t mean they are…

@Andrew

I never got the impression that Richard was arguing any point except to wonder about it.

You might want to re-read the article then.

@Andrew

Not to blindly believe , but to wonder.

Indeed.

@Andrew

It perfectly ok if they are indeed, mostly correct.

It’s the blind belief that is the point.

Yes, but if the wondering leads to seeing that their whole argument is baseless… then… how does it somehow cease to be wondering to point that out??

@Andrew

I really enjoy just wondering about it.

Ok, but part of the thing that makes wondering fun is figuring things out too! If we could never say anything about anything concretely then there would be no facts and really no way to make sense of any of it.

Cheers,
Claudiu

[Andrew]

@claudiu

Lol now my replies are “unpolished”??

Haha, somewhat. I approve.

[Andrew]

@claudiu

! If we could never say anything about anything concretely then there would be no facts and really no way to make sense of any of it.

Indeed.

Which is why I will continue to choose the shade of a tree. I didn’t even have to think about it really.

You know, the question isn’t really “where we get off” but “why we get on”.

I respect that I am talking to a rather accomplished professional programmer. (If programmer is beneath your accomplishments… kindly insert what is befitting). Edited for unintended meaning.

What I do know, is that I am highly unlikely to accumulate the knowledge necessary to be as sure as you are about the climate. I enjoy the journey. Very much so in fact.

I do wonder, are you so sure of arriving at facts when the entire scientific enterprise of whom there are those equally professionally proficient, if not more so, than yourself, are saying otherwise?

Would it be absurd for me to question you on some point of programming? Maybe. Sometimes a rank amateur can spot a flaw. However, it’s the aspect of having new eyes, (also know as wonder) which allows that; not the amateur status.

If someone where to lecture me, as sometimes happens, about a costing I have done, I have indeed learnt over the years that although 999 out of 1000 times they are wrong, I will do the exercise of checking.

Which is what science is, after all the politics and economics is stripped away; checking repeatable findings.

So until (never) I have a degree in climatology, a fully stocked lab, with lasers of course, and preferably a few rather dashing assistants, just because, I really can only stand in the shade and otherwise wonder; is Claudiu going to become a climatologists?

I think you would be very good. If not somewhat poor and left field.

Edit; I don’t mean that last statement as a slight, but rather a recognition that anyone who stays from the “mean” inevitably has to pay their own way. Whether it’s worth it, well, that’s a personal judgement. I am all for walking away from the crowd. However, I am careful now , in considering it for reals, exactly what that means.

[Andrew]

@claudiu

They could be of course, but just because they could but doesn’t mean they are…

This is indeed a fact. The chances however a usually slim that science doesn’t otherwise correct itself.

I have come to discover that every good thing came to me through cooperation. Competition, is usually a very wasteful and marginal activity.

Too much cooperation, when it descends into conformity for the sake of the imagined peace; not great results at all. Usually bad.

I wonder though, is it really the science that is in question, or the political/ economic aspects which are in question?

Not to say that fundamental errors are not made through the politics and economics coming first.

My 10 year old self was enraged at the Catholic church for just such reasons. The cover ups, the blatant power hungry sexual predatation… (Spelling…agg! The more I learn Russian, the less I care about english spelling. Such a mess…,)

Parenthetical point in case, convention can indeed come before factual practically.

To the point of whether the one in a thousand times a rank amateur is correct;

Is there any properly qualified voices that you could recommend me reading?

So that instead of a back and forth, I could get a better grip of the topic?

[Andrew]

Unrelated, but in spirit applicable;.

My favourite world of tanks dude;

James Web Kicks Astrophysicists in The Balls!

[claudiu]

@Andrew

So until (never) I have a degree in climatology, a fully stocked lab, with lasers of course, and preferably a few rather dashing assistants, just because, I really can only stand in the shade and otherwise wonder;

Ok how about this one?

Take a hot plate:

Say it turns on to full power and the surface gets to 40°C.

Now stick a glass dome on top of it. Will the air inside get to > 40°C? Will this make the surface heat to more than 40°C? What if you pump it full of CO2 or water vapor or CH4 or whatnot?

Because that is what the anthropogenic global warming model says happens to the Earth! That the presence of the air increases the surface temperature.

If it were true then you should be able to make the hot plate get to hotter than 40°C because of the ‘back-radiation’ from the air to the hot plate… try it, fill it with the best most wonderful heat maintaining gases you can imagine

@Andrew

I think you would be very good. If not somewhat poor and left field.

Edit; I don’t mean that last statement as a slight, but rather a recognition that anyone who stays from the “mean” inevitably has to pay their own way. Whether it’s worth it, well, that’s a personal judgement. I am all for walking away from the crowd. However, I am careful now , in considering it for reals, exactly what that means.

Indeed this intuitive recognition means you instinctually recognize that a climate scientist, who makes their living with climate science, will be in seriously dire straits if they start going against the grain!

So say you did get that impressive degree in climatology and now you have some equally impressive 6-figure debt to go along with it. Now you are choosing your research topic. Will you spend it trying to disprove the basis of global warming, which you know will lead to you being out of a job? Or would you pick something that would support it if the research pans out?

You can’t strip the economics away, that’s part of the problem…

[claudiu]

@Andrew

Seems to me you are building a sand castle around an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have, rather than openly discussing it.

@Andrew Congratulations, you’ve been called upon to back up this statement that Richard is presenting an “opinion” as opposed to stating facts:

RICHARD: Addendum: According to Andrew on the “Global Warming-Climate Change” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum – who myopically commended ‘JonnyPitt’ recently regarding how he “took one for the team” in starting his flawed-from-the-get-go ^[1] “Cause of Bias” thread – the contents of this March 13, 2023, article (with its ten paragraphs summarised and numbered one-to-twelve, above, for convenience in comprehension) is but “an opinion” Richard and Vineeto have.

(Incidentally, and just in case it has escaped any casual reader’s notice, the entire “Cause of Bias” thread at the Discuss Actualism Online forum is rendered null and void by the marked absence of examples of bias from those in whom identity in toto is extinct).

Accordingly, Richard and Vineeto invite Andrew to publicly point out which of those summarised items numbered one-to-twelve, for convenience in comprehension, are not factual and/or are not actual such as to represent “an opinion that Richard and Vineeto have”.

This is from an update to Richard’s article, at the bottom of the page: Global Warming .

If I were you I would read it all again carefully before answering!

---

1. JonnyPitt’s “Cause of Bias” thread is flawed from the get-go inasmuch his basic premiss regarding bias not being a product of ‘self’ is a premiss based upon calumny thence traducement (i.e., upon a strawman and a red-herring thence flat-out lies about “bad arguments” and “cognitive limitations” similar to “tone deafness” or “dyslexia” plus further lies, built upon those flat-out lies, about Richard and Vineeto being “stubbornly irrational”, and (allegedly) on the record with some “verifiably bat-shit crazy” opinions). ↩︎

[Andrew]

Haha, nice. I certainly wish I could fly over and have another chat. It was indeed fun.

Firstly, and this is to Richard, It seem that the burden of finding out where those 12 points come from, is left to the reader.

Whilst I am partial to a good read, and I did ask for some sources that I could read, it’s not up to me to counter assertions without references.

As it took “7 weeks” to find the information presented, the challenge, whilst welcome is outside my current available free time.

It’s a reversal of the burden of proof.

[Andrew]

To repeat, I am enjoying what I am finding, and I will at my leisure probably search a few of the assertions.

It may take a while, as my investment so far has been the enjoying of the conversation rather than anything coming close to an extensive investigation into something I have many times in this thread regarded as a diversion (carbon politics) from what I was otherwise always invested in; trees!

[claudiu]

@Andrew I won’t let you get away with it that easily

@Andrew

Firstly, and this is to Richard, It seem that the burden of finding out where those 12 points come from, is left to the reader.

It appears you didn’t follow my advice to “read it all again carefully before answering”, or perhaps even more alarmingly you did and posted this anyway, because this is one of the points that you say the “burden” is “left to the reader” to find out where it comes from:

1. The physical earth is not flat.

If you consider it a burden to find out why the earth is not flat… perhaps you shouldn’t be participating in this discussion.

Here’s another of the points:

2. The physical earth is not black.

If you’re unsure how to determine that the earth is not black, public discourse is probably contraindicated in your case.

etc. etc.

@Andrew

Whilst I am partial to a good read, and I did ask for some sources that I could read, it’s not up to me to counter assertions without references.

If you consider it an “assertion” that the Earth is constantly rotating (“3. The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).”), and need references to determine it is so… then indeed this discussion is not for you.

@Andrew

As it took “7 weeks” [sic: “about three weeks”] to find the information presented, the challenge, whilst welcome is outside my current available free time.

What you are saying, in effect, is that your assertion that Richard was stating an “opinion” was baseless, as you haven’t actually looked into it to determine what exactly Richard is saying and why he is saying it.

Interesting!

And doubly interesting as this entire thread on this forum has been discussing exactly those topics and points which Richard wrote about, with references to boot!

For example:

@claudiu

@son_of_bob

@claudiu

Yea but the basis of the models is all that the IR-absorptive gases are 100% responsible for the reason the surface is around 15C instead of around -18C. If this premise is flawed then the models are just totally wrong, and filling the gaps in them won’t rescue them.

Yes, I am aware. There is a piece missing, the value for this surface temperature that is below expectations is established from the concept of Power (in) = Power (out) for the energy received from the Sun.

[… snip details of how this -18C is arrived at …]

[…] the math here is a little funny which comes with its own set of problems.

I originally read about this in Chapter 5 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” .

Although it appears to make sense to equate energy in == energy out and consider energy in on just the part the Earth is receiving from the sun, and energy out across the whole Earth…

…

This is mathematically equivalent to treating the Earth like a flat disk, with twice the radius of the Earth (and therefore the same surface area), which disk is constantly 100% of the time receiving on average 1/4th the power per square meter than the Sun is actually emitting.

[…]

As you were actively participating on this thread the entire time I presumed you were actually reading what was being written… perhaps that was a mistaken presumption?

@Andrew

To repeat, I am enjoying what I am finding, and I will at my leisure probably search a few of the assertions.

It may take a while, as my investment so far has been the enjoying of the conversation rather than anything coming close to an extensive investigation […]

So not only was it baseless in the first place but in effect you also aren’t gonna look into it now to back it up… understood.

Perhaps the biggest ‘climate change’ in the past decades has been the climate surrounding discussion and debate, such that one bows out at the slightest challenge… with such a climate of scrutiny perhaps it is no wonder the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory survives even though it is based upon a mathematical model of a flat, black disk constantly and evenly irradiated 24/7 by a model Sun that’s actually 1/4th the strength of the actual Sun.

Cheers,
Claudiu

P.S. If you do ever follow the book reference, also relevant are Chapters 2, 3 and 7.

[Andrew]

I have read Richard’s Global Warming post a couple of times now.

Including the summarised 12 points and tl:dr conclusion, and I am still lost.

I actually thought it would be way harder to answer, but not really. I don’t have an answer.

I can respond “of course” to points 1-6 as “of course”

Point 7, is “of course, but…” Water vapour is observability far better at it than dry air. Considering that 76% of the effect unfortunately called “greenhouse effect” is attributed to water vapour, I fail to see the point here, beyond being correct technically, but practically all gases are not equal.

Point 8 is similar to point 7. Technically correct, but practically some gases are capable of absorbing far more energy to do said radiating.

Points 9&10 are restating what the greenhouse effect is; insulation. Exactly as I stated the insulation I used to install, and is used everywhere only works because “air” is a really bad storage/transmission medium for heat.

Point 11. Of course.

Point 12. That’s another entire field of investigation which relies on the core samples from glaciers, Antarctica et al, and I have no way of answering whether it’s indeed a fact that “greenhouse gases” where higher/lower in the past.

So far, I am still trying to grasp what the actual objection is.

I found, through searching the origin of Point 2, the Stefan-Blotzmann law, and the -18 degrees. However, the tl:dr assertion "there is no “greenhouse effect” in actuality (not “greenhouse gases either)” Seems to not follow from the point made. Especially, because points 7 & 8 are actually restating the poorly named “greenhouse effect”.

[Andrew]

Point 1. It’s actually interesting to consider that the earth would have indeed been a big black rock if it were not for the factors which gave us an atmosphere.

As a volcanic mass, forming around the sun, it’s primary surface material would be the result of volcanic activity.

Any quick search will show the colour of such a world.

There would be no other type of surface until such time that the surface had been pulverised like the moon has, and presumably it would be not unlike what we see the moon to be after a suitable period of time.