Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

originally posted by: Teikiatsu


I'm getting tired of the tactic whereby you think attacking the messenger refutes the message.

If your premise is that private funding makes a private statement from a private scientist invalid, then public funding makes a public statement from public scientists (NOAA, EPA, etc) equally invalid.

What is it about the funding that makes science legitimate or not?
[snip]


And even if Greenpeace ever scrubs this page, trust me there are people who have archived it as well as taken screenshots for posterity. And for people who attack the messenger.

I am really not attacking the messenger when I point out their inconsistencies and at times straight up fallacies that they push.

I really do not like when someone tries to tell me what I am thinking. I know better and you should realize I am attacking the message. As I originally posted when you brought up Patrick Moore and the Heartland Institute, a simple ATS search will give one all the information they need to make a logical conclusion about both of them, the agenda they push, and where they receive funding.

Again you claimed Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace, when he was just a member. That link you provided says NOTHING about him being a founder.

Instead of addressing the issue, you appear to be focused on accusing 'the other side' of attacking the messenger and 'tactics' thus diluting this thread with dribble.

This a great conspiracy, there are stooges who get paid to confuse the public on what the science says about climate change.

a reply to: jrod

Gold rice now for everyone!



Eat my GMO's and shut the fck up, Patrick needs more Monsanto-money. Over & out.

How did that lady get CO2 down to 400 parts per million in that container? that's what it is at the moment.
That experiment made it look like our whole atmosphere is CO2! is it?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mc_squared

so how do we fix this?

What steps do we need to take to reverse global warming?

The 5 Stages of Climate Denial:

1. Deny The Problem Exists
2: Deny We're the Cause
3: Deny It's a Problem
4: Deny We can Solve It
5: It's too Late

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

We see this in pretty much every one of these debates as they go through the same recycled memes about “it’s not warming”…”ok fine, it’s warming but we’re not causing it”…”ok fine, we may be causing it but there’s nothing we can do about it”…etc, etc.

There’s plenty we can do about it, and I know for a fact I’ve addressed some of these solutions directly to you before. But like many issues, especially those involving addiction (fossil fuels are a societal addiction), the first step is acknowledging you have a problem.

It’s crucial here because most politicians and business leaders don’t have much interest in kicking the habit, since the old world model is making them fabulously and disproportionately wealthy already. That’s why it’s on the rest of us little peons to make sustainability an absolute economic priority, instead of mindlessly feeding the beast that’s destroying this planet in way more ways than just climate.

Do you need to believe man made global warming is a huge problem to accomplish this? Of course not. But the fact is most people are too busy or self-involved to ever care about anything until everyone else does it too. In the internet age we’ve all seen how powerful things become when they go viral. Just recently ALS researchers hit a major breakthrough, thanks in large part to the money that was raised through that ice bucket challenge.

Climate change represents the most universal problem out there today that has the power to galvanize an entire planet into economic and environmental sustainability – which is exactly why the dirty, greedy side of capitalism is almost universally against it and trying to play the whole thing off as a hoax.

Getting everyone to understand it’s not only real, but fixing it will lead to systems and infrastructure that serve us and our kids better is a vital step. It’s a lot more constructive than fixating on consumer culture so we can all keep up with the Kardashians instead.

The vapid state of our culture and general apathy most people exhibit is exactly what fills the pockets of the super-rich who want to forever own this planet by controlling its finite resources as dominion over everyone else. They are laughing all the way to the bank while we idiotically congratulate ourselves on our so-called “freedom”. It’s why climate deniers are such a sad thing to see on ATS – they are propping up the real scam here while the system they think they’re rebelling against exploits them for every last drop of their willful ignorant bliss.

originally posted by: pikestaff
How did that lady get CO2 down to 400 parts per million in that container? that's what it is at the moment.
That experiment made it look like our whole atmosphere is CO2! is it?

That experiment is a simplification that just shows the physics work. I don't know if she had 400 ppm, although in the Mythbusters video they brought in an expert to make sure the concentrations were precise - but it doesn't even really matter, because this argument is just another cop-out.

If you want more accurate simulations then just look at the satellite and ground based data I posted below those videos. They simulate real world concentrations of CO2 because...they're using real world data.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: mc_squared

S&F
and adding super fun soundtrack

Most important post in the thread! I wonder how some of these replies would sound if people were really listening to this while typing.

Engaging a thread on climate change is like going drinking with those wild friends we all know.

You know it’s a bad idea from the start, but you decide you could use a little adventure. At first everything feels good, as the conversation’s loud and lively, but inevitably it all starts to get a little out of control. Then it’s a blur. Then you wake up the next morning and see the giant mess left behind and go whhhhyyyyyy…

My head hurts.

You misunderstand the concept and physics involved. An increase in CO2 doesn't mean instant reflection in warming.

Yes it does if standard radiative physics is to be believed. Increasing CO2 means we have more molecules absorbing radiant energy from the surface and re-radiating a fraction of it back to the surface, thereby raising the surface radiant energy and warming the surface accordingly. As soon as the surface absorbs the downward radiation from CO2 the radiation would be converted into kinetic energy (i.e. heat) more or less instantly. Your anaology of a heater in a house taking a while to heat the house is not because it takes a long time for a body to convert radiant energy into kinetic energy. It is because the house is warmed convectively, not just radiatively, and convective heat-transfer of course is not instant and takes time. The CO2-greenhouse warms the surface by radiative heat-transfer. That is what we are concerned with here. I am talking about a body simply converting radiant energy into kinetic energy, and for all intents and purposes, that happens instantly. Therefore, as soon as the CO2 is radiating more energy back to the land-surface, we should see a corresponding increase in temperature.

However the same would probably not happen with the oceans. Because water has such a high specific heat and high latent heat of vaporization and covers 70% of the earth's surface a significant portion of downward radiation from CO2 impinging on the surface would be converted into the production of water vapour without raising the surface temperature.

Why do you say there is no anthropogenic signature in the global surface temperature record?

Because anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not appear to have caused any acceleration in the rate of warming. We increased our CO2-output by 3500% and the warming increased at exactly the same rate. The rate of recent warming appears to be well-within natural variation, hence the reason for asking my question: how do you know that what has happened to the temperature is not merely the earth rolling on with natural cycles?

a reply to: Nathan-D

The CO2-greenhouse warms the surface by radiative heat-transfer.

It also warms the atmosphere conductively (not to mention convection).

However the same would probably not happen with the oceans. Because water has such a high specific heat and high latent heat of vaporisation and covers 70% of the earth's surface a significant portion of downward radiation from CO2 impinging on the surface would be converted into the production of water vapour without raising the surface temperature.

Yes. Oceans act as heat sinks, slowing the rate of atmospheric temperature increase.

The signature is there. You're looking for a linear relationship where none exists.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We most likely passed the point of no return for 2C warming considering we have no globally agreed upon plan to reduce CO2 emissions. 2C warming is going to be chaotic, it's going to hurt financially, it's going to cause some human migration, it's going to affect food production and most likely cause some new wars and revolutions.

We can still hold warming to 2C. The first step in that process is to stop denying what is causing the planet to warm. Had we acknowledged simple science 30 years ago when the first alarm was sounded (actually the first alarm was sounded in the late 1800's), we could have been a lot further ahead and maybe not have passed the 2C threshold. Should we continue the false debate and not try to hold to 2C? After 2C it's starts to get a whole lot less sure that humans can survive the chaos.

Maybe we should just spend the next few hundred years erecting an, as close to indestructible shrine as we can get, with pictographs of the history of the human race and warnings against all the things we did to off ourselves, for the next intelligent species Earth spawns.

If we all sit in a drum circle, sing kumbuy-ya and agree that we have caused all of this, what then, could happen to reverse it? Or slow it down? remember, your answer needs to be realistic.

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure you have participated in a few threads where I presented technologies that are carbon neutral even some that remove co2 from the atmosphere. So the technologies exist already but as long as our elected officials block them at the behest of the fossil fuel industry because they have successfully created a false narrative that the science on AGW is unsettled then we can expect things to get worse.

My point is this:


While I understand some who are really wrapped up in this will not be able to answer this, how is it even remotely possible that we could make enough changes to even stall that chart, let alone reverse it? You know that our population will continue to increase, our consumption will continue to increase, and with ZERO advancement in alternative fuels, it's unlikely that we will be able to make any meaningful changes in the foreseeable future. Knowing that, how on Earth is it productive to continue this argument over who is to blame?

The seas have been steadily rising since long before we existed, and it's likely that they will continue, even if the polar ice caps started to increase. So no matter who we chose to blame at this point, we will still have to adapt to differing conditions.

The smug "I know more than you" attitude is just a bit off-putting. (not you, but some in this discussion)

Until a better way to move people comes around, I'd say the odds are in favor of nothing changing, unless......97% of scientists were a bit wrong and some natural event that can turn around does.

So like I said, if 100% of everyone decided that yes, humans are solely responsible for warming, it would change nothing.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Reallyfolks

We most likely passed the point of no return for 2C warming considering we have no globally agreed upon plan to reduce CO2 emissions. 2C warming is going to be chaotic, it's going to hurt financially, it's going to cause some human migration, it's going to affect food production and most likely cause some new wars and revolutions.

We can still hold warming to 2C. The first step in that process is to stop denying what is causing the planet to warm. Had we acknowledged simple science 30 years ago when the first alarm was sounded (actually the first alarm was sounded in the late 1800's), we could have been a lot further ahead and maybe not have passed the 2C threshold. Should we continue the false debate and not try to hold to 2C? After 2C it's starts to get a whole lot less sure that humans can survive the chaos.

Maybe we should just spend the next few hundred years erecting an, as close to indestructible shrine as we can get, with pictographs of the history of the human race and warnings against all the things we did to off ourselves, for the next intelligent species Earth spawns.

Great, so we most likely passed the point of no return. So now don't we only need to quickly replace currently technologies to be come carbon neutral, but we have to reverse it and asap. That's the problem, a long term transition plan, expanding population, no global plan, and no plan for cleanup. Yet we are screaming we need to do something. That something is a slow transition, when we are in a critical situation. This is the plan. Start a slow transition to apparently a point of no return issue.? Not too bright, workable or even feasible, if the problem is as defined and the situation is as dire as defined. So what's the plan to avoid the inevitable? Slow transition is an automatic fail

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

It also warms the atmosphere conductively (not to mention convection).

The chief mechanism of surface warming from atmospheric greenhouse gases comes from radiative heat-transfer, a massive forcing of 333W/sq.m in fact. It's by far and away the chief mechanism (at least according to the AGW-theory). And the back-radiation from CO2 would produce an (almost instant) increase in kinetic energy when absorbed by the land. Not so?

Yes. Oceans act as heat sinks, slowing the rate of atmospheric temperature increase.

You mean water condensing into clouds and acting as a negative feedback?

The signature is there. You're looking for a linear relationship where none exists.

Funny, all I see is CO2 increasing and temperature chugging along at the same rate regardless. I am not looking for a 'linear' relationship Phage. But one would expect the rate of warming to increase if CO2 were increasing temperature and if one increased CO2 by 3500%. Again, the recent rate of warming is not unusual and well-within long-term natural variation.

a reply to: Nathan-D

And the back-radiation from CO2 would produce an (almost instant) increase in kinetic energy when absorbed by the land.

What causes air temperatures to rise? Nitrogen does not absorb infrared energy, and yet it gets heated. And it takes time to do so.

You mean water condensing into clouds and acting as a negative feedback?

No. I mean water absorbing and retaining heat gained by both radiation and conduction. Cool ocean currents absorb heat from the atmosphere, cooling it. That heat is retained in the ocean.

Funny, all I see is CO2 increasing and temperature chugging along at the same rate regardless.

Then your eyes are closed.

a reply to: network dude

While I understand some who are really wrapped up in this will not be able to answer this, how is it even remotely possible that we could make enough changes to even stall that chart, let alone reverse it?

We can simply switch to solar, geothermal, and wind power.

You know that our population will continue to increase, our consumption will continue to increase, and with ZERO advancement in alternative fuels,

Yes our population will rise but it isn't true that there have been ZERO advancements in alternative fuels.

There have been huge advancements in alternative fuels.

it's unlikely that we will be able to make any meaningful changes in the foreseeable future.

That is true if we keep electing representatives that are owned by the fossil fuel industry. That is true if the PTB can keep the population debating settled science.

how on Earth is it productive to continue this argument over who is to blame?

It isn't so much a who but what. Once people stop arguing over the cause I think we can start addressing the solutions as a whole.

So like I said, if 100% of everyone decided that yes, humans are solely responsible for warming, it would change nothing.

On that I disagree.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: network dude

While I understand some who are really wrapped up in this will not be able to answer this, how is it even remotely possible that we could make enough changes to even stall that chart, let alone reverse it?

We can simply switch to solar, geothermal, and wind power.

You know that our population will continue to increase, our consumption will continue to increase, and with ZERO advancement in alternative fuels,

Yes our population will rise but it isn't true that there have been ZERO advancements in alternative fuels.

There have been huge advancements in alternative fuels.

it's unlikely that we will be able to make any meaningful changes in the foreseeable future.

That is true if we keep electing representatives that are owned by the fossil fuel industry. That is true if the PTB can keep the population debating settled science.

how on Earth is it productive to continue this argument over who is to blame?

It isn't so much a who but what. Once people stop arguing over the cause I think we can start addressing the solutions as a whole.

So like I said, if 100% of everyone decided that yes, humans are solely responsible for warming, it would change nothing.

On that I disagree.

How simple is this switch over considering costs of replacement, what that means to consumers, logistics, production to fill all the needs, and were up against a very small window . If it were so simple and account for all obstacles my guess is a well defined plan would be there to make it happen. And considering climate is global the plan would include this simple change on the global level. It's not simple as you state and saying that isn't reality.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

The US Navy has already devised a method of turning sea water into jet fuel. Geothermal plants are expensive to build but pay out better than coal in the long run.


The only real logistics to overcome are the obstacles the fossil fuel industry has placed in front of us.

It isn't that hard just look at Costa Rica they accomplished it and solar isn't even part of it with them.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

It isn't that hard just look at Coasta Rica they accomplished it.

They are a tiny country of less than 5 million who are using mainly hydroelectric to produce energy. Our hydroelectric output is maxed and there are no new sources for us to exploit.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And we are a country that barely scratches the surface with geothermal andwe have huge potential with solar something Costa Rica doesn't mess with because of the 12 hour days.

We are in a much better position to switch to renewables.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
And we are a country that barely scratches the surface with geothermal andwe have huge potential with solar something Costa Rica doesn't mess with because of the 12 hour days.

Not accurate, we are far and away the top megawatt producer of geothermal energy in the world (the largest plant in the world is in California). We just happen to have the third highest population to go along with it.

We are in a much better position to switch to renewables.

Nothing at this point is as low cost as fossil fuels and anytime there is talks of putting ANY type of power plant somewhere the NIMBY's heads explode.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not accurate, we are far and away the top megawatt producer of geothermal energy in the world. We just happen to have the third highest population to go along with it.

It seems you misunderstood me. I said we have barely scratched the surface. That means we have barely tapped that abundant resource.

I know we are not a top megawatt producer but that is because we do not have adequate plants.

Nothing at this point is as low cost as fossil fuels

I already said geo plants cost more to build but in the long run they pay off better.

anytime there is talks of putting ANY type of power plant somewhere the NIMBY's heads explode.

I wish everyone had that attitude towards the keystone pipeline.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Reallyfolks

The US Navy has already devised a method of turning sea water into jet fuel. Geothermal plants are expensive to build but pay out better than coal in the long run.


The only real logistics to overcome are the obstacles the fossil fuel industry has placed in front of us.

It isn't that hard just look at Costa Rica they accomplished it and solar isn't even part of it with them.

Takes time and money. This has nothing to do with the fossil fuels industry. We apparently have no time. The technology may exists but there are a great many problems with the implementation of it, again nothing to do with the other industry. Even if money was not an issue, even if we had a whole army of qualified workers trained to do the switch out, even if we could account for all cause and effects of doing the switch out. We apparently have very little time. Basically the solution I see I we have a problem and needs a car to go 100 miles per hour but can only do 60. Not simple, not easy, and if the problem is as defined, as dire as defined, and we're pretty much at a point of no return. Not even a solution.