Global warming/climate change

The Watercooler
204

Ahh not quite though. There are really two discs in play:

1- the disc to measure total sunlight into Earth, this being the shadow the earth would generate
2- the implied mathematical equivalent disc that happens from geometrically flattening the spherical earth into a disc

#1 is simply correct as far as I can tell. That is how one would measure total sunlight in, and it does ‘spread out’ as you get to the poles, as the link says. If you could get more sunlight in by varying the geometry of an object then solar panels would be wavy not flat :smile:

#2 is where the quantumville flat Earth comes in. Because they equate this total energy in to energy out. They are saying that instantaneously, every speck of energy that comes in from the sun is instantaneously divided and radiated out across the entire surface area of the sphere, which mathematically comes out to 1/4th the energy out per square meter.

As energy in = energy out then also therefore (obviously; “trivially” :grin:) this energy out of 1/4th sun energy per square meter now also becomes the energy in per square meter too:

image
[source]

Note well that “Incoming Solar Radiation” is shown as 342 W m-2, not 1368 W m-2.

All this mathemagics has the effect of treating the Earth as a flat 4x-larger disk where each m^2 of it receives (and emits) this 1/4th solar energy sunlight.

206

Oh jeez! @claudiu

I hadn’t looked at that chart properly at all.

207

Whoops, I linked the wrong one. The normal idea is to mix baking powder and vinegar in a jar to create CO2 and then compare it to various controls, like here.

208

That experiment seems to demonstrate that a jar with a higher concentration of CO2 in it will be hotter than a jar with regular air in it, after a period of being heated by an external source (eg a heat lamp) for 5 to 10 minutes.

The “greenhouse effect” however isn’t quite this. It is rather that the surface of the Earth is said to supposed to be -18C, but then the surface of the Earth heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface of the Earth to a higher temperature, raising it by +33C to reach +15C. i.e. the atmosphere is externally heated (by the Earth) and it then heats its heat source (the Earth) to a greater than original temperature.

As such the experiment you cited doesn’t demonstrate this. It would need to, for example, show that the gas in the jar ends up raising the heat source (e.g. the heat lamp)'s temperature.

209

I am spinning here.

It’s all a massive lie! There is no “greenhouse effect” .

This pdf here; is a great summary of many of the debunking points against the CO2 hoax.

210

Most of last week, I focused of the -18C starting point, which left me with some doubt that I could get to Richard’s tl;dr “there is no greenhouse effect”. Because, what if it could be verified by a more physical science based model?

However, though it’s incredibly important what the starting point is, there is other information that also debunks the entire greenhouse story.

It is now plainly obvious to me why there are no available simulations based on actual physical geological data validating the Stefan-Blotzmann equation starting point of -18C.

Because they can’t. Such a model based on the actual properties of the earth, sans atmosphere, oceans, and biomass, will debunk the -18C.

211

Specifically what’s warming is not “the Earth” but the oceans and troposphere. The other layers of the atmosphere are actually cooling because of the enhanced greenhouse effect within the troposphere. So it’s not the “heat source” that is being heated (most of the infrared radiation being captured by GHGs comes from radioactive decay of elements within the Earth’s crust).

212

Damn…things can get this nasty :

213

@lexej

I raise my glass to “change”.

Although I was indeed disappointed to learn I don’t have a new Russian speaking scientific friend, I am however impressed with the ingeniously devised approach.

Although significant change is indeed very rare , and highly prized, small change is very underrated and often goes unnoticed.

I sincerely wish you well. Not because I am better than you, blessing you from above, but because I am you, the very same ‘stuff’.

Cheers to still being alive after all these years.

Здоровья тебе :beers:

1 Like
214

IMG20230402163405
IMG202304021634051920×2560 389 KB

So I was with my FWB at the University of WA last night, in the physics department discussing climate change.

Today, with my son, looking at geological core data.

Although, there is no chance of anyone changing the status quo through actual science, I have a lot of confidence that given enough centuries, there will indeed be a far more free and informed world. At the very least.

215

I’ve been told that carbon takes 1,000 years to breakdown and leave the atmosphere completely. I take it to mean we are stuck with current levels and what ever we add to the atmosphere each day. So when people talk about saving the planet they really mean it. Not human beings, but “Mother Earth” “Gaia”.

They have been saying the point of no return is ten years since I was ten years old.

My suspicion is that the science of climate change is not mistaken or a hoax but rather the politics of climate change is a gigantic scam. Green initiatives are all the rage. There is a lot of green to be made from it.

In other words I bet we passed the point of no return a long time ago but no one wants to say it out loud. What would be the benefit. Although we could be focused on adapting rather than undoing if undoing is indeed not an option.

Another thought that always occurs to me when I hear from the climate alarmist is “what about super volcanoes? Asteroids?” Where is the alarm and massive amounts of research dollars for these threats to life? My guess is that they can’t tax you for it so it’s not useful to the powers that be.

I didn’t read all the post in this thread so maybe this was already touched on. Also, I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about :grin:

216

This was roughly my opinion too, yet once I began to search over the last few weeks, with Claudiu’s help, and Richard’s invitation, the only thing I am still convinced of is the scam politics.

The science is a long way from being worthy of called “proof”.

Indeed, the science is itself hidden behind a huge amount of websites which simply copy each other.

One of the most “hit” climate sites (which I was linking to in this thread) is run by a so called “scientist” who was caught out big time back in 1998 for falsifying the infamous “hockey stick” chart which claims to show a dramatic temperature rise in the later half of the 20th century.

It’s a fascinating, if not damning story.

The guy named in this article “Mann” is the same that runs “skeptical science”.

Have a read. Then decide whether the science is worth further investigation.

I did it by just following what I found interesting.

I was very interested to see if anyone had modelled from actual geological data, a virtual globe which could confirm or deny the starting temperature which the entire “greenhouse effect” is based on.

Claudiu also extensively looked into it, and it would seem that the “Stefan-Blotzmann law” is the only calculation being used. It proposes that the earth, using mind you, a single emissivity number to model the entire planet, is theoretically starting at -18C. The rest of the temperature, a whole 33C to get us to the observed average of 15C, is due to the “greenhouse effect”.

Whatever avenue interests you is well worth having a look into.

No matter which point of interest I went down, there was nothing of substance to the claim which is behind the “greenhouse effect”.

It was indeed a “heady” couple of weeks.

217

This may be part of the reason why!

image
image870×803 113 KB

image
image804×362 43.4 KB

i.e. screening of the comments that actually hold water …

3 Likes
218

Yes, I was shocked to learn what “peer reviewed” means from that article.

An unpaid day, from essentially a “clique” of those attached to the publication.

It’s really quite disturbing that the “scientific method” is associated with “peer review”.

My whole life I blindly thought they were somehow the same thing. That a second or third group of scientists has repeated the findings of the report/theory.

Nope. No such thing. Apparently.

In fairness, I was intending to look up the court case mentioned in the article, but I didn’t. Which would be enough for me to verify that the article is legitimate.

1 Like
219

Hmm, maybe I miss remembered this. I would have to reread the article.

220

I’ll check it out. I was aware of falsified science related to the climate even more recent than your example if I remember correctly. Research ‘funding’ is I assumed part of the scam.

I’ll probably still continue to use the same argument with the sanctimonious climate cult “sure climate change is real but it’s too late, we are doomed” just to shut them up without getting called a ‘science denier’ or giving them ground at all. They can be very fanatical in my experience.

I watched a doc last night on the asteroid that killed off the giant lizards that used to rule the planet. Mile high tsunamis and a decade long winter. It’s hard to believe anything survived.

Even if the science were airtight, the notion that you will get an organized effective response from all the world governments is laughable. I remember reading about the Paris Climate Accord and how China, the world’s biggest polluter, was not required to come into compliance until 2030. When Trump backed out of the agreement I had to laugh at the talking heads loosing their minds over it. The same people saying we only have 10 years to reverse it.

Just imagine telling developing nations “yeah all the prosperity and convenience we have enjoyed in our countries, that’s over with. We are going to need you guys to go back to being poor” Ha. That’s going to be a big ‘Fuck You!’.

I think we most likely get done in by another asteroid or Chatgpt 8, lol.

221

Ha, yes. I reread about half the article I linked, and then read the end of it.

His conclusion is exactly that. The best way to have a cleaner future, in all aspects, is to allow developing nations to “get rich”.

Burn all the coal etc they need to advance their economies, their standards of living, education et al.

If CO2 does have any warning effect, he concludes that it won’t be more than 1C. By the time that happens, a richer and more advanced world will be able to deal with it.

Essentially, there is no point to creating difficulties for developing nations for the sake of something which can easily be dealt with by a overall richer and more advanced world.

Assuming there is anything to “deal with” at all.

222

One part I was particularly happy to read was that the world is actually 14% greener in my life time!

From the first satellite images in 1979 till now(ish), the world is greener. There is more plant growth. All that CO2 is plant paradise!

And frankly, if the plants are happy, so am I. I like plants. :rofl:

1 Like
223

Agreed. I also like warm weather :grin:

224

That’s another way of looking at it!