BBC at its finest....
- Thread starter Storcky
- Start date
tackb
Well-Known Member
if you had been promoted way above your ability and was earning way more than you were worth even though you're thick the very last thing you'd want would be somebody smart joining you.........
thats why theres no really clever people in government currently
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
Not wanting to rubbish the above, but this site clearly shows a diminishing dataset for solar activity since 1980 and fairly consistent data from when records started. (Historical solar cycles | Solar activity). So how does that correlate with global average temperatures rising in that same period. Can’t be from extra solar flares can it?
But let’s park solar flares and look at solar energy as the possible cause.
To heat 1kg of water by 1K (1 degree C) it takes 4200 joules of energy. That is a scientific fact.
So if you take the surface of the Mediterranean Sea at 2.5 million square KM or 2,500,000,000,000 m2 and you heat the top 1cm by 1C then that would require 105,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
Now, the top 1m of the water has seen an average temperature increase of just over 1C since 1994, and to do that would require 100 times the amount of energy, so that’s 105 and then 14 zeroes of joules. That’s extra energy from somewhere.
Now, we can see from the solar data that the amount of radiation we are receiving is pretty constant, if not slightly decreasing, and using the first law of thermodynamics we know that energy or matter cannot be created, only converted from one form to another, that means that the additional ’energy’ has to come from some other source, and a source that already exists on this planet (cos we don’t have any other external source of energy).
So that leaves us or volcanoes.
Now, volcanoes emit 0.13-0.14 billion tonnes of co2 per year, which sounds a lot until you compare it with human created co2 which is 35-40 billion tonnes per year. So we emit roughly 270 times more co2 than all of the volcanoes on the planet. So it’s not volcanoes either.
To recap:
Solar activity is relatively constant
Volcanoes emit 1/270th of the co2 that we emit.
And this brings us full circle to where the root cause of climate change may be, as it’s not the sun (science proves that) and it’s not volcanoes (science proves that too).
So, anyone still unsure as to where the issue may lay? If so, the please tell me where all of that extra energy or heat is coming from (btw, I only measured the Mediterranean Sea, so if you add all oceans and the land then the numbers are totally mind blowing.
I appreciate it’s inconvenient to have to concede that our actions might be the cause of accelerating climate change but, as my old granny used to say, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’!
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
But would you listen to them if they were in government?
You have clearly stated that you ignore what I write, despite my studying climate change for 4 years and obtaining a first class degree in the subject. So why would you listen to a real expert if they were in government?
tackb
Well-Known Member
i didn't ignore you on a whim , this is why.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
It’s not clear that we are measuring all the incoming energy from the Sun.
It is noted that some may cling to the notion that the Sun’s energy levels are relatively stable, but the devil is in the details; it takes but a fractional movement of the Sun relative to Earth in terms of angle of its energy levels to turn our present pleasant summer here in the temperate Northern latitudes at the same time to record cold temperatures in Antarctica (see above, Nr 139), and in turn the stubborn refusal of the Arctic Ice to melt even at the North Pole and latitudes above 80°. We also know that in a few months time, our Summer will have turned to winter and cold again. All from a Sun that knows nor cares not of our seasons ( a peculiarity due to our offset angle of spin relative to the Solar plane, a phenomenon largely absent from other planets, the equators of which are relatively aligned to that of the Sun).
Thus we can see, it takes a very small perturbation of the total incoming solar radiation - over the entire spectral range - to differentiate between summer heat and winter cold.
Nobody has yet explained quite how the man made part of our carbon dioxide budget - the 17-18 molecules per million, being indistinguishable from those remainder of natural origin - are able to simultaneously heat the northern hemisphere and cool the southern, and vice versa - ot least because CO2 simply does not possess such an ability, and as the total amount increases, the ability to warm diminishes (see nr 127 above); correlation is neither causation, to ascribe properties known to be impossible merely because the molecule stands accused in the narrative is most certainly NOT science, but false and foolish ideology, hardly even pseudoscience.
This much is well understood and accepted, by most at least. See again, Nr 80, above.
Edit: data from the Paris Madone and Royal Belgian Observatories respectively will confirm that we are now past the present solar cycle maximum ( which peaked mid August 2024) and are now into the quieter descending phase toward the Solar Cycle minimum, which will occur around 2030. Professors
Abdussamatov, Zharkova and others have demonstrated that already the magnetic energy waves ( plural) emanating from the Sun are in a phase which for the next two solar cycles will largely cancel each other out, resulting in much less total solar irradiation being detected here on Earth, along with the other planets, this cooling effect has been measured by NASA among others, on the other planets, which again serves to cast doubt as to man made carbon dioxide’s imagined role (or indeed any of natural origin either) in the causation of such cooling.
It would appear that there are therefore degrees of ‘worth’ among Degrees, with ‘worthless’ also being a distinct possibility. Personally, I used the time to go stalking..
It is noted that some may cling to the notion that the Sun’s energy levels are relatively stable, but the devil is in the details; it takes but a fractional movement of the Sun relative to Earth in terms of angle of its energy levels to turn our present pleasant summer here in the temperate Northern latitudes at the same time to record cold temperatures in Antarctica (see above, Nr 139), and in turn the stubborn refusal of the Arctic Ice to melt even at the North Pole and latitudes above 80°. We also know that in a few months time, our Summer will have turned to winter and cold again. All from a Sun that knows nor cares not of our seasons ( a peculiarity due to our offset angle of spin relative to the Solar plane, a phenomenon largely absent from other planets, the equators of which are relatively aligned to that of the Sun).
Thus we can see, it takes a very small perturbation of the total incoming solar radiation - over the entire spectral range - to differentiate between summer heat and winter cold.
Nobody has yet explained quite how the man made part of our carbon dioxide budget - the 17-18 molecules per million, being indistinguishable from those remainder of natural origin - are able to simultaneously heat the northern hemisphere and cool the southern, and vice versa - ot least because CO2 simply does not possess such an ability, and as the total amount increases, the ability to warm diminishes (see nr 127 above); correlation is neither causation, to ascribe properties known to be impossible merely because the molecule stands accused in the narrative is most certainly NOT science, but false and foolish ideology, hardly even pseudoscience.
This much is well understood and accepted, by most at least. See again, Nr 80, above.
Edit: data from the Paris Madone and Royal Belgian Observatories respectively will confirm that we are now past the present solar cycle maximum ( which peaked mid August 2024) and are now into the quieter descending phase toward the Solar Cycle minimum, which will occur around 2030. Professors
Abdussamatov, Zharkova and others have demonstrated that already the magnetic energy waves ( plural) emanating from the Sun are in a phase which for the next two solar cycles will largely cancel each other out, resulting in much less total solar irradiation being detected here on Earth, along with the other planets, this cooling effect has been measured by NASA among others, on the other planets, which again serves to cast doubt as to man made carbon dioxide’s imagined role (or indeed any of natural origin either) in the causation of such cooling.
It would appear that there are therefore degrees of ‘worth’ among Degrees, with ‘worthless’ also being a distinct possibility. Personally, I used the time to go stalking..
Last edited:
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
But you are talking about a HUGE increase in solar radiation to make these numbers work.
What we are seeing here is the greenhouse effect.
Solar radiation enters our atmosphere and warms our seas and land, like it always has for millions of years. But, the increased co2 stops a lot of that radiation from escaping back into space.
This has been happening for decades and we knew nothing about it, yet all the time the energy being retained was being absorbed by the land and especially the oceans.
Water can retain huge amounts of energy hence the time lag in increasing co2 output to temperatures rising.
Add to that the heat that we produce and the doubling effect of warming water holding less dissolved co2 and voila! Here we are.
This is the science behind climate change. It’s really simple and founded within the laws of thermodynamics (unless you are going to tell me that they don’t exist either or are wrong??)
Stop looking for a scapegoat and look in the mirror - you will find one of the 8 billion culprits looking back at you.
We all did this and have to own it!!
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
You clearly don’t understand radiative transfer. You have to own that, the rest of us don’t live in a vacuum. See #80, again. Happer and van Wijngaarden put your misconceptions to bed years ago.
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I can accept that the climate is changing, I can even accept that we may be somewhat responsible for some of the changes.
What I can’t accept is that we have the ability to change it back or hold it at some undefined Goldilocks zone because that particular climate range is what suits us best here in the northern hemisphere.
Thats the bit I just can’t swallow.
What climate range is acceptable?
Where?
How are you proposing to make this change and how are you going to stabilise the climate it within your specified desired range once you have achieved your global climatic values?
It’s just not possible. Too many variables, which is why we can’t accurately predict the weather for the next month, let alone stabilise the climate for the next ten thousand years.
TringSaint
Well-Known Member
I agree. The damage has been caused over decades and it will take decades for it to change. We are probably not even close to the peak yet, even if we hit the magical net zero today.
The amounts of energy we are talking about are so huge they are beyond comprehension - this is not something we can fix in my lifetime for sure and I’m 51.
We are in for the long haul on this, whatever the cause.
The only things we can do are to try to reduce what we consume. Try to adapt to increased or decreased rainfall in different parts of the country. Try to replace fossil fuels with renewables and hope that the climate settles down a bit and becomes more predictable.
fixedwheel
Well-Known Member
The elephant in the room that you don't talk about in your response though is global population.
The fact that the population of the planet has doubled in the last 50 years has put far more strain on the planets resources than anything that came before. Even just trying to feed that rapidly expanding number.
And it just gets worse. And every religion seems to think it is the first duty of their followers to breed more rugrats as future members of their congregation.
You'd have to wonder why such a push for solar in the UK? Production rates must be crap on a dark day in rainy January, yet look at the rush to electric heating.
And then you see the solar fans replacing food production on prime farm land. Genius.
And if off shore wind is so great, wtf are we tying the price of all energy to the price of gas?
And that's before we look at the costs, and even capability, of recycling the current turbines and panels, and replacing them.
I'm definitely closer to the end of my life, rather than the beginning, and it may be that I am just a miserable, cynical, moaning old git (guilty as charged). but I can't see many pushing for that as part of the solution.
tackb
Well-Known Member
What I don’t get is apparently the increased co2 prevents the radiant heat from leaving but surely that would also stop the radiant heat from the sun getting here equally ?
Seems a little cotradictory to me ?
But I don’t have a first class honours degree in climate change…..
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
Long wave incoming, short wave outgoing, the outgoing has a longer route ( through all those molecules of air, and the water vapour in clouds). , but carbon dioxide doesn’t radiate back out to other molecules in the manner suggested, it’s pure fantasy. Were there a case of positive feedback, then the planet would have burned up after the first lightning strike or volcanic ejection. Look up Le Chatelier’s principle
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
We will never hit net zero and even if we did it will make no difference, there 300 year’s worth of fossil fuel emissions out there. And that is dwarfed by natural sources of Co2
I’m 71 and I’ll let you in on a secret, I’ve been listening to climate change doom mongering for over 50 years, not one of the forecast global disasters has come about. Dublin, London and New York are still comfortably above sea level, we haven’t tipped into another ice age and the planet remains as inhabitable as it has been since the last ice age. There are definitely some regional changes, but forecasts of the end of civilisation and the extinction of almost everything just aren’t happening.
The net zero ideology is based on fear, not science. Every single time we pass a threshold without consequence, a new threshold is created and the fear factor is ramped up.
Its dumb.
Adaptation is what we do, we adapted to sudden changes in climate before and we can do it again, but we can’t do it by de industrialising our economies and impoverishing ourselves. We need a healthy vibrant economy to pay for the transition to whatever is coming.
Should we use clean technology wherever possible? Absolutely, but don’t go letting the search for perfection get in the way of building a robust, flexible, adaptable source of energy. The renewables just can’t provide that, not now and probably not ever.
Here’s a scientifically unchallengeable climate prediction. It is changing, it has always changed, it has never been stable and it never will be stable.
I appreciate that my views are highly inconvenient and are not consistent with the net zero consensus, they are however based on 3 billion years of this planet’s climate data, which regularly and cyclically swings from blue marble to dirty snowball without any inputs from Homo sapiens.
Scarpa
Well-Known Member
And that is exactly why you should never give much credence to either extremist end of the spectrum. People here seem to be looking to both opposite ends of the spectrum and arguing against hardline cases while as we have probably found out during our lives the factual answers usually lay somewhere in the middle.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
All well and good, but the point being missed is that even though we had been emitting CO2 for a thousand years, it wouldn’t make a jot of difference, the IPCC and the nutters don’t understand how radiative transfer works.
What the IPCC missed, and what the Government & its supporters never bothered to learn for themselves:
52:10 to 58:00 - less than 6 minutes that can end the needless and wanton emiseration of a society. All anyone - including government bodies, both local and national - need do is check.
The assumption they have done so will be a very costly one for the poorest households, though it could be that the policy is by design, and being promoted by ALL parties in Westminster except Reform, despite the science to the contrary of what they want everyone to believe.
Freeforester
Well-Known Member
As history has shown, the consensus view is the one which prevails, right up until an outlier - such as Zharkova in this case - comes along to point out the error the consensus are making, whereupon the next 200 years are wasted by ‘eminent’ types whose egos got pricked by something they either missed or, in the case of ascribing the ‘problem’ incorrectly to CO2, where in fact no such problem exists.
First president of USA George Washington was bled to his death by such ‘eminent’ physicians some two centuries after it became obvious that we have but a finite amount of blood which circulates around our bodies.
Watch the first and last ten minutes of this presentation at the least - the ‘consensus blob’ destroyed his career and shortened his life for pointing out the error of their ways:
If disaster awaits as is being suggested, why is it that the global warming is resulting in the shrinking of the arid regions, effectively reversing the desertification process, as has been ably demonstrated by satellite observations for the past half century and more? Surely, if going by their ‘reasoning’, the arid regions of the planet should be turning brown, and not the green being observed?
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Good point, I've also noticed that on a clear night how the temperature drops rapidly. When Google explained it I smiled.
Due to no cloud cover the daytime heat escapes to space. Not a single word about c02 trapping it! Probably because it doesn't.
This c02 is one major **** up.
