|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 10, 2023 8:35:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 8:56:11 GMT
The reason that an urban area is considerably warmer than an equivalent rural area is that the rural area traps a large amount of the Sun's energy and uses it to grow (i.e. to create more vegetation via photosynthesis) while the urban area simply acts as a giant storage heater. The buildings and roads etc all warm up and then heat up the surrounding atmosphere. Your errors grow with every post. Urban areas store more of the suns energy per sq mtr, but its tiny compared to the overall planets surface. Further much that heat would dissipate into space if we didn't have AGW. The proportion of the land's area that is "urban" is NOT "tiny". In the UK 8.7% of the land area is urban - and it's growing all the time. And a further 1.3% is covered by roads. And 75% of the land area of the world has been "repurposed" in one way or another (built on, or deforested, or converted to growing monocultures etc etc). And this land is KNOWN to be very much warmer than rural areas. From an EU document: " Working with satellite data, scientists measured that surface temperatures in cities were sometimes up to 10-15°C higher than in their rural surroundings. The study also estimated that the temperature in extreme heat islands in cities around the world has risen on average by 1°C in since 2003." So why do you dismiss urbanisation as having "no measurable effect". Considering that average temperatures have risen by only 1.5C since 1850, I'd say that urbanisation is a very large cause of warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 10, 2023 9:00:56 GMT
Your errors grow with every post. Urban areas store more of the suns energy per sq mtr, but its tiny compared to the overall planets surface. Further much that heat would dissipate into space if we didn't have AGW. FFS I just quoted you the figures. And even quoting one of the most densely populated countries in the world you still have only 8.7%. I dismiss it because across the planet it has no measurable effect. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 9:04:11 GMT
I suggest that you read that article. It doesn't say anything about warming being caused primarily by CO2. For example: " A previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."
I don't think ANYONE would try to argue that human activities aren't altering the Earth's climate.
You're very careless with words. Is that all you've got? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 10, 2023 9:09:30 GMT
I suggest that you read that article. It doesn't say anything about warming being caused primarily by CO2. For example: " A previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."
I don't think ANYONE would try to argue that human activities aren't altering the Earth's climate.
You're very careless with words. Is that all you've got?I would never dispute its a combination of human factors, I am saying Co2 is the primary cause, which is why scientists have encouraged governments to focus on Co2 reduction. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 10, 2023 9:57:20 GMT
It is articles and papers like these that make many think there is a desperation to prove that man, by way of CO2, is responsible. We had Cook in 2013 reaching a similar conclusion through spurious assessments of a multitude of papers which was easily refuted. You can go through the wording and try to discover how they reached the conclusion and in the end one has to conclude that if a paper made no comment or took no identifiable position as regards the causes then it was assessed as agreeing with the IPCC position that greater than 50% of global warming was attributable to man. This is assumptive nonsense, is decidedly bad science and in the end must be regarded as propaganda. Which adds significant fuel to the conspiracy theorists. Those who believe implicitly in man made global warming have now only themselvs to blame for the proliferation of 'denialists'. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 10, 2023 10:06:01 GMT
I suggest that you read that article. It doesn't say anything about warming being caused primarily by CO2. For example: " A previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."
I don't think ANYONE would try to argue that human activities aren't altering the Earth's climate.
You're very careless with words. Is that all you've got?I would never dispute its a combination of human factors, I am saying Co2 is the primary cause, which is why scientists have encouraged governments to focus on Co2 reduction. Yet this is being shown to be a false assumption as more information comes to light and each and every prediction goes awry. Runaway warming is not occurring, increases predicted for the early 21st century have not happened, storm energy has decreased, rainfall is not unusual, drought is not exceptional, snow still occurs in the UK and climate scientists are as effective in predicting climate as weathermen are at predicting weather. Edit And once again the annual tornado count is below the mean for the tornado count since 2005 despite predictions it was going to be worse. This is according to the NOAA's own data. www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/ |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 10, 2023 13:06:48 GMT
If you try and figure out the total energy of the system by your various measurements of thermal energies on the planet and its atmosphere then this figure will not jump all over the place. It's a steady state system except the amount of greenhouse gases increase, which is what you are trying to find out and the other factor is the change in the albedo of the surface which we can measure. This will vary if vegetation changes and also the ice, because ice is white and very reflective. Indeed the most often cited climate model uses this energy approach. Best of luck trying to figure that out. Are you aware of how impossible it is to accurately measure the total energy of the planet? It's impossible to measure the thermal energy of the land let alone the oceans which are a vast unknown quantity. And as for the effect of greenhouse gases that's even more difficult. Does CO2 have an overall warming effect or not? We don't know. The same for water in the atmosphere. Both these greenhouse gases have warming and cooling effects depending on their phase (in the case of water) and depending on the nature of the area in the case of CO2. And no one has ever managed to do the calculations. And even if anyone EVER managed to get all the data (which is impossible) and ever managed to work out all the basic equations (again impossible) and managed to measure the data to extreme accuracy (again impossible) the models would STILL be wrong - for the simple reason that it's a stochastic system and doesn't obey deterministic laws. I think the issue of the atmospheric optics is 'linear' as in if you have some water vapour which will scatter some photons and then you have the CO2 in the gaps between which will scatter some more. You can get a theoretical prediction of the scattering.
Do you like maths? Well if you do, here is a 101 guide on how to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 14:08:28 GMT
Best of luck trying to figure that out. Are you aware of how impossible it is to accurately measure the total energy of the planet? It's impossible to measure the thermal energy of the land let alone the oceans which are a vast unknown quantity. And as for the effect of greenhouse gases that's even more difficult. Does CO2 have an overall warming effect or not? We don't know. The same for water in the atmosphere. Both these greenhouse gases have warming and cooling effects depending on their phase (in the case of water) and depending on the nature of the area in the case of CO2. And no one has ever managed to do the calculations. And even if anyone EVER managed to get all the data (which is impossible) and ever managed to work out all the basic equations (again impossible) and managed to measure the data to extreme accuracy (again impossible) the models would STILL be wrong - for the simple reason that it's a stochastic system and doesn't obey deterministic laws. I think the issue of the atmospheric optics is 'linear' as in if you have some water vapour which will scatter some photons and then you have the CO2 in the gaps between which will scatter some more. You can get a theoretical prediction of the scattering.
Do you like maths? Well if you do, here is a 101 guide on how to do it.
This is nothing to do with mathematics, BvL. This is science. No one knows if CO2 has a net warming effect on the Earth or not - except in areas with no vegetation like deserts or polar ice caps. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 10, 2023 14:13:49 GMT
I think the issue of the atmospheric optics is 'linear' as in if you have some water vapour which will scatter some photons and then you have the CO2 in the gaps between which will scatter some more. You can get a theoretical prediction of the scattering.
Do you like maths? Well if you do, here is a 101 guide on how to do it.
This is nothing to do with mathematics, BvL. This is science. No one knows if CO2 has a net warming effect on the Earth or not - except in areas with no vegetation like deserts or polar ice caps. Science is maths. You are ignoring our tools. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 10, 2023 14:21:25 GMT
Science <> mathematics
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 14:23:18 GMT
I suggest that you read that article. It doesn't say anything about warming being caused primarily by CO2. For example: " A previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate."
I don't think ANYONE would try to argue that human activities aren't altering the Earth's climate.
You're very careless with words. Is that all you've got?I would never dispute its a combination of human factors, I am saying Co2 is the primary cause, which is why scientists have encouraged governments to focus on Co2 reduction. This whole argument is about whether CO2 is the primary cause of warming. CO2 is the only thing that the govt is spending absolutely vast amounts of money to try to control - and failing. WAKE UP you dozy git. You can't say that "I am saying that CO2 is the primary cause" because you have an obviously very limited understanding of science and absolutely none of climate change. So your opinions are irrelevant. You were asked to show evidence of your claims that 95% of scientists say that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and you come up with a ludicrous article in the Guardian (of all papers) which doesn't say any such thing. As for the "scientists that "have encouraged governments to focus on Co2 reduction" I know of NO scientists who have done that. The people encouraging the govt to focus on CO2 are political organisations like the IPCC or morons like Greta Thunberg. NOT scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 14:28:48 GMT
Yes. Maths is based on deductive logic and can be PROVED to be true - or not. Science is based on seeking relationships between various observed data and postulating a theory as to why it is so. It can never be proved to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 10, 2023 14:51:42 GMT
Let's just nail this bollocks about 95% of scientists supporting the CO2 theory of warming - or 97% or whatever daft number journalists or politicians make up. The 97% figure came from a journalist (in the Guardian I believe) who googled a vast number of scientific papers looking for "climate change". Of those he found he skimmed through them to find if they supported climate change or not (not necessarily based on CO2) and found that nearly all of them did. Which is pretty obvious because climate change has been going on for ever). So he posted this pointless figure that 97% of scientists supported climate change. Another journalist decided to peer review this pointless exercise and found that nearly all the papers that were talking about climate change were talking about the CONSEQUENCES of climate change NOT the CAUSES of climate change. The causes of climate change are very difficult for scientists to write papers on because you need a vast army of scientists (in various disciplines) and access to super computers and teams of computer technicians. That's why climate science is NEVER peer-reviewed. So the claim is complete nonsense. But this hasn't stopped it being quoted all over the internat and being believed by many stupid people. The other claim "that there's a 95% of chance of climate change being caused by CO2" is more interesting - but equally wrong. There was even a BBC Horizon program bout this a few years ago (no doubt never to be shown again). What happened was that a bunch of statistical mathematicians were give access to a climate model and they ran a lot of tests varying the amount of CO2 in the data and plotting the average global temperatures. They found that in 100% of the cases more CO2 caused higher temperatures. But they decided to change the figure to 95% because they didn't know anything about the programs that they were running. They could have obviously saved themselves a lot of trouble because the programs are BASED on the assumption that CO2 causes warming. There are no clever calculations going on - it assumes a strict correlation between CO2 and temperature.  No one could make this up. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 10, 2023 15:21:01 GMT
We can exactly calculate the quantum effects of this scattering. You should be glad, it was a big achievement. We can eradicate one uncertainty by understanding the mechanism. |
|
No one could make this up.