What do you think of climate change?

[Sftyvlv1]

Climate change real. Always has been always will be.
We haven’t done nearly the damage done to the earth, that the earth has done to itself since the industrial revolution.
No such thing as “man made” climate change.
Fossil Fuels Forever!

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

No one bothers to counter his [Gerlich] arguments because no one takes them seriously. They have work to do, unlike us forum posters who seem to have nothing better to do than argue about obscure claims.

learned years ago climate is not going to be explained by simple physics like “newtons” equation, or even “schrödingers” equation, so the hubris of physicist like Gerlich/Tscheuschner (2009) is they think they can explain, prove and/or disprove CC using a single field of study

In this case, the “single field of study” is physics, which is, by definition, the “science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.” If the interactions between one form of matter (CO2) and energy in the form of heat do not bear out according to the laws of physics, that is a huge problem.

It doesn’t take a great hunka burning hubris to think that contradicting basic physics is a huge obstacle for a theory, although I would suggest that it does take a great deal of hubris to suggest a cherished scientific theory about climate change based entirely on computer models can safely ignore basic physics.

The science of climate change may not be completely explained by “simple physics,” but it certainly will run into major problems if it contradicts or is not supported by established physics.

Again, we have a problem in this thread with understanding the issue, conceptually speaking, followed by a futile attempt to blame it on the hubris of individual scientists.

You might be right that hubris does sometimes create problems for scientists, as do having a vested interest in obtaining funding, in the scientific outcome, in the enormous impact your work will have on society, and in receiving lots of accolades from the mainstream press and politicians. And vested interest in all of those would be a huge contributor to the hubris of scientists whose careers are on the receiving end of all of those.

I don’t see Gerlich having much vested interest in his position, although people like Michael Mann and James Hansen, who have both received many awards, much funding and are the darlings of the MSM do have a great vested interest in having their work confirmed. I imagine hubris would make it very difficult for either of them to admit they might be wrong or have overstated the case.

Speaking of hubris, would you think that …

1. a scientist who willingly shares his data and welcomes critiques of his work is demonstrating more or less hubris than…
2. a scientist who does underhanded things to stop critiques of his work from being published and refuses to share his data with others to prevent them from formally critiquing his findings (and then brags to his colleagues about his power to stop others from publishing critiques of his work)?

Which of the two above is demonstrating more hubris?

 

[HarryStotle]

It already is.

No. It already is a foregone conclusion and “consensus.” Any scientist who so much as raises an issue with that conclusion as vilified as a “denier,” their funding and career in jeopardy.

You also know that most of the faculties in universities that directly study climate science are inbred and select their academics and projects based upon their views on global warming because that is where the funding is. To conclude that global warming is not an issue would be cutting their own throats in terms of access to funding. Why would anyone fund a non-issue?

That is why most of the criticisms have to come from faculties outside those directly affected by funding such as physics or astrophysics, or from retired climatologists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The science of climate change may not be completely explained by “simple physics,” but it certainly will run into major problems if it contradicts or is not supported by established physics.

There is a big difference between contradicting physics and contradicting a physicist.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see Gerlich having much vested interest in his position…

Gerlich claimed that the theory of AGW contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which is that heat flows from warmer to cooler, and since the air is cooler than the earth it cannot transfer heat to the earth. The response to that is if the air is warmer then the flow of heat from the earth would be reduced, which would essentially warm the earth without violating the second law. That sounds like a reasonable response…what else is going on here?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I don’t see Gerlich having much vested interest in his position…

Gerlich claimed that the theory of AGW contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which is that heat flows from warmer to cooler, and since the air is cooler than the earth it cannot transfer heat to the earth. The response to that is if the air is warmer then the flow of heat from the earth would be reduced, which would essentially warm the earth without violating the second law. That sounds like a reasonable response…what else is going on here?

This is specifically Gerlich’s answer:

a) We never claimed — allegedly with reference to Clausius — that a colder body does not send radiation to a warmer one. Rather, we cite a paper, in which Clausius treats the radiative exchange. The correct question is, whether the colder body that radiates less intensively than the warmer body warms up the warmer one. The answer is: It does not.
b) Speculations that consider the conjectured atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect as an “obstruction to cooling” disregard the fact that in a volume the radiative contributions are already included in the measurable thermodynamical properties, in particular, transport coefficients. These will show no measurable variations if one doubles the CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the “obstruction models” often neglect the fact that “radiative balance” is introduced as a preposition of the standard analysis. (p. 1339)

Also in Section 2.4…

This section presents nothing new. The reader is referred to our paper and the work of Kramm, Dlugi, and Zelger. We emphasize:
(a) Repeating our statement from above, it is impossible to calculate the temperature fields of the Earth’s atmosphere by using radiative transfer equations regardless of an introduction of CO2 concentration or molecule spectra.
(b) The radiative transfer equations do not yield the portion of radiation energy that is transformed into heat. This can be easily seen by observing that the direction of the gradient of the temperature determines whether the lines of the spectrum are present as absorption lines (Fraunhofer lines) or emission lines. In case of the so-called scattering atmosphere after Chandrasekhar, no portion of the radiation energy is thermalized at all.
(c) It is impossible to measure the temperature fields of the Earth’s atmosphere or any warming effect in spectroscopic experiments.

There is “something else going on here.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is specifically Gerlich’s answer:

b) Speculations that consider the conjectured atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect as an “obstruction to cooling” disregard the fact that in a volume the radiative contributions are already included in the measurable thermodynamical properties, in particular, transport coefficients. These will show no measurable variations if one doubles the CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the “obstruction models” often neglect the fact that “radiative balance” is introduced as a preposition of the standard analysis. (p. 1339)

This is gobbledygook that cannot be refuted because it cannot be understood.

Also in Section 2.4…

This section presents nothing new. The reader is referred to our paper and the work of Kramm, Dlugi, and Zelger. We emphasize:
(a) Repeating our statement from above, it is impossible to calculate the temperature fields of the Earth’s atmosphere by using radiative transfer equations regardless of an introduction of CO2 concentration or molecule spectra.
(b) The radiative transfer equations do not yield the portion of radiation energy that is transformed into heat. This can be easily seen by observing that the direction of the gradient of the temperature determines whether the lines of the spectrum are present as absorption lines (Fraunhofer lines) or emission lines. In case of the so-called scattering atmosphere after Chandrasekhar, no portion of the radiation energy is thermalized at all.
(c) It is impossible to measure the temperature fields of the Earth’s atmosphere or any warming effect in spectroscopic experiments.

There is “something else going on here.”

Yes, if you are impressed with big words you don’t understand.

 

[Theo520]

This is gobbledygook that cannot be refuted because it cannot be understood.

That you don’t understand the terms doesn’t make it “gobbledygook”.
You again are just finding excuses to dismiss opinions that disagree with you

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is gobbledygook that cannot be refuted because it cannot be understood.

That you don’t understand the terms doesn’t make it “gobbledygook”.
You again are just finding excuses to dismiss opinions that disagree with you

Well, if you understand it, perhaps you could explain it for those of us not gifted enough to know what he means.

 

[Theo520]

Well, if you understand it, perhaps you could explain it for those of us not gifted enough to know what he means.

FINE, if you don’t understand it, just say it was above your head. That’s very different than calling an argument “gobbledygook”

Yes, I understood the gist of the arguments in the quote though I can’t say it’s without error.

Personally if I can’t agree with or refute an argument, I just don’t post on it. Or I ask the person for a simplification.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, I will go further and say that based on my training in physics and mathematics, it is in fact gobbledygook, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

 

[Ender]

This is gobbledygook that cannot be refuted because it cannot be understood.

“Obstruction to cooling” is given by the AGW side to explain the mechanism for CO2 warming, and while I don’t understand Gerlich’s answer, what is easily understood is the obstruction to cooling explanation. It is impossible to believe a serious physicist would be tricked by something comprehensible in high school.

Given that Gerlich addressed the obstruction mechanism his explanation is likely to be much more than mere gobbledygook. I don’t know what “radiative contributions are already included in the measurable thermodynamic properties”, but it seems to me that this assertion is the one that needs to be addressed. I’d like to see where someone has done that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This is gobbledygook that cannot be refuted because it cannot be understood.

“Obstruction to cooling” is given by the AGW side to explain the mechanism for CO2 warming, and while I don’t understand Gerlich’s answer, what is easily understood is the obstruction to cooling explanation. It is impossible to believe a serious physicist would be tricked by something comprehensible in high school.

Given that Gerlich addressed the obstruction mechanism his explanation is likely to be much more than mere gobbledygook. I don’t know what “radiative contributions are already included in the measurable thermodynamic properties”, but it seems to me that this assertion is the one that needs to be addressed. I’d like to see where someone has done that.

Of course before anyone can address that question they have to understand what the question means, and only Gerlich can explain that.

As to the assertion that Gerlich is tricked, I don’t think he is tricked. I think he may be trying to trick others.

Yes, I think I know what he means by “obstruction to cooling” although I have not heard it described using those words. I would describe it differently as the CO2 absorbing heat radiated from the earth that would have been lost to space, but I guess that is a kind of obstructing the cooling.

The fact that Gerlich mentions the obstruction mechanism does not mean that he actually addressed it at all. Now maybe Gerlich does have a argument in his head that would make sense if expressed properly, but he sure hasn’t done that yet. I’m not ready to call it intentional gobbledegook, but gobbledegook it remains.

 

[phaster]

we have a problem in this thread with understanding the issue

simply stated the issue is,… anxiety and hubris of activists/believers (on both sides of the CC debate) who don’t want to admit they might be wrong vs what science is actually saying!!!

since you’ve mentioned Mann,… let’s add AOC, Gore, etc. into the mix on the side of the scientifically illiterate political left

on the right let’s group together AEI, heartland institute, etc. because they basically seem to be all about the political mindset (which says)

No such thing as “man made” climate change.
Fossil Fuels Forever!

since both sides are simultaneously right and wrong about things,… let’s do a Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) and ignore all the partisan “chatter” and (as a physicist) look at only the core relevant science

given “global dimming” (which was known 20 years ago and indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the global climate), “decreasing pH levels in the oceans” (which is another clear signal that indicates mankind does indeed have the ability to directly influence the environment), the 2015 Berkeley lab paper on the observation of CO2 increasing greenhouse effect at the earth’s surface,

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface | Berkeley Lab

the ever increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the keeling curve) and known physical properties of the CO2 molecule,… is just part of the overwhelming scientific evidence that basically tells mankind that we,… “human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future (Revelle/Suess 1957).”

AND

http://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-cl...created-account-potential-existential-threats

now (as a catholic) consider what science is saying in light of what is written AND stewardship of our eco-system,… IOW

any thoughts about the parable of the vineyard owner which seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”

Here is a brief summary:

A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.

National Catholic Register

 

[sainteriksrose]

As a Catholic, imo God expects us to be responsible stewards of this earth…

Our obedience to this shows respect for Him and the creation He’s blessed us with. This includes ourselves, and the rest of His creation both present and in the future…however long He has deemed that already determined, set time to be. (Matthew 28:20)

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Phaster,

You’ve shown one side of the coin. How about showing the other. As in the scientific proof stating the opposite.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know what “ radiative contributions are already included in the measurable thermodynamic properties ”, but it seems to me that this assertion is the one that needs to be addressed. I’d like to see where someone has done that.

One of the claimed effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere is the absorption and re-radiation of more infrared energy. Since radiation occurs in all directions, some of it is sent back to the earth where it is reabsorbed, raising the earth’s temperature. More back radiation from more CO2 returns more heat (energy) thus heating the earth. According to this paper, however, that’s not the way blackbodies work.

A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation which absorbs high-frequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature: The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. Thus only frequencies below cut-off are emitted, while all frequencies are being absorbed.

As a transformer of radiation a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cut-off, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature.

A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without getting warmer, while absorbed frequencies above cut-off are not emitted but are instead stored as heat energy increasing the temperature.

If this is true, and it seems to be a pretty basic property of blackbodies, then the heating ascribed to re-radiation from CO2 is not physically possible. Given that NASA says otherwise one is left to wonder what is going on here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m afraid the author of the article cited has not properly described blackbody radiation. His mistake is thinking that energy absorbed must be re-radiated at the same frequency. He even goes on to compare a black body to a series of resonators that can only respond and re-radiate in a narrow band of frequencies. That is not it at all. Black body radiation occurs as the result of temperature, and that’s all. If you heat up a piece of metal with a blowtorch, it first gets hot. As it gets hotter it radiates a dull red glow. As it gets hotter still it radiates a white light. Plumbers who use torches to melt solder know that the blue part of the flame is the hottest. Why? Because blue is a higher frequency than red or yellow. Radiation from heat is the basis of infrared photography. All objects radiate heat unless they are themselves at the temperature of absolute zero. This is also how cooling systems work on the International Space Station. There is no other way to dump excess heat since there is no air around with which to run a heat exchanger. Therefore they conduct the heat to black panels pointed away from the sun. These panels radiate the heat away in the form of infrared radiation. No “resonators” or “re-radiation” is involved. It is all driven by heat in the object that is radiating.

So with CO2, it is transparent to the sun’s blue light and green light and ultraviolet light, but it starts to absorb deep reds a little and it absorbs infrared a lot. So it does very little to interfere with the sun’s radiation getting to earth. Not surprisingly, the strongest portion of the sun’s spectrum is the visible spectrum, 400nm-700nm. Now the earth gets warmer and because it is a black body radiator, it radiates its heat upward, but since the earth is much cooler than the sun, it radiates at a much lower frequency (longer wavelength). At these frequencies CO2 is quite opaque, and it it absorbs that energy and turns it into heat. The CO2 heats up. As it does so, its own black body radiation increases in energy level and some of that is directed back down to the earth - not at the same frequency at which the energy was absorbed, but some energy none the less. The calculation of exactly where this system achieves equilibrium is a difficult one, and that’s why it takes such intricate modeling to explain it.

But if you want proof that this mechanism works the way I described it, just consider another greenhouse gas: H2O which also has a selective absorption spectrum similar to CO2. It is well known that on nights when there is cloud cover, the temperature does not drop as quickly as nights that are clear of clouds. The concentration of H2O is doing this.

 

[Ender]

I’m afraid the author of the article cited has not properly described blackbody radiation. His mistake is thinking that energy absorbed must be re-radiated at the same frequency. He even goes on to compare a black body to a series of resonators that can only respond and re-radiate in a narrow band of frequencies.

That’s not how I understand his comments. He said that energy was absorbed at all frequencies, but only radiated at frequencies lower than a “cut-off” frequency determined solely by its temperature. That is essentially what you referred to when describing hot things as glowing red, and hotter ones glowing yellow or white.

I don’t think there is any dispute so far; it’s what he said next that needs verification.

A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without getting warmer

Is that statement true or false?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First of all, there is no cut-off. There is only a distribution of frequencies dependent on temperature.

But more importantly, here is the whole sentence:

A blackbody thus absorbs and emits frequencies below cut-off without getting warmer, while absorbed frequencies above cut-off are not emitted but are instead stored as heat energy increasing the temperature.

The fact is that all energy that is absorbed at whatever wavelength goes into heat. And simultaneously, heat causes radiation at spectrum dependent on the temperature, which in turn lowers temperature. So the equilibrium achieved depends on the total amount of radiation energy absorbed minus the energy radiated. There is no “low pass filter” effect.

It seems the author is arguing more from analogy than from science. His “teacher-classroom” analogy is particularly inapt, as it has hardly anything in common with the temperature equilibrium problem. That and other over-simplifications lead me to believe that the author is trying very hard to sound professional to push is anti-climate change narrative, which is obvious from this opening paragraphs talking about “climate alarmism”. Really? Come up with something from Roy Spencer. At least he is a real scientist, even if he also biased against climate change.