tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post8233345466271619479..comments2024-02-13T02:39:22.756-05:00Comments on EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Thinking Outloud About Climate ChangeRobert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-83475586410604103122015-02-21T00:32:47.123-05:002015-02-21T00:32:47.123-05:00You are really missing the point.
In terms of h...You are really missing the point. <br /><br />In terms of heat transferring through a medium (or multiple mediums), the heat transfer coefficient will describe the effect of having multiple resistances (or multiple greenhouses) to slow heat transfer.<br /><br />It applies no matter which over-simplified equation you're using. I use the convective model to explain because it's much Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-87717975617938538202015-02-19T20:26:38.199-05:002015-02-19T20:26:38.199-05:00Except that convective heat transfer has nothing t...Except that convective heat transfer has nothing to do with the warming of the Earth... radiative heat transfer does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-2213404254039268302015-02-19T17:12:58.157-05:002015-02-19T17:12:58.157-05:00Speaking of methane, what about those buffalo herd...Speaking of methane, what about those buffalo herds that once blackened the continent. A buffalo can blow out a LOT of methane!<br />Capn Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08133441332228302495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-17000506881094943442015-02-19T16:47:35.593-05:002015-02-19T16:47:35.593-05:00Following this mental exercise about stacked green...Following this mental exercise about stacked greenhouses I thought it would be instructive to learn what’s the average temperature on the moon, since it’s on average the same distance from the sun as the earth is, and it doesn’t have an atmosphere, what I’ve learned made me realize that there is valid argument for warming with the addition of CO2 or really anything which smoothens out the Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17930409608459133280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-73171092374759092532015-02-19T11:01:37.535-05:002015-02-19T11:01:37.535-05:00Let me start by saying that I don't believe in...Let me start by saying that I don't believe in global warming. <br /><br />However, I do not agree with this argument. Going back to chemical engineering, there is a very basic equation for convection heat transfer:<br /><br />heat transfer (out of the greenhouse) = heat_transfer_coefficient * (Temperature_outside_greenhouse - Temperature_inside_greenhouse)<br /><br />This equation tells Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-25596433637565277122015-02-19T10:52:46.339-05:002015-02-19T10:52:46.339-05:00Gee, did these warmists ever notice that in cloudy...Gee, did these warmists ever notice that in cloudy weather the days are cooler and the nights are warmer?<br />Stated differently, in the cloudy tropics day/night differentials are small, whereas in deserts, the difference is huge.<br />Capn Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08133441332228302495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-32991134371470843832015-02-19T09:05:42.801-05:002015-02-19T09:05:42.801-05:00Gordon Prather debunked the "green-house gas ...Gordon Prather debunked the "green-house gas theory" of global warming (the same guy who debunked the Cox Commission report on Chinese espionage and "Chicom penetration" of US national labs) along these lines almost two decades ago: http://www.wnd.com/2001/05/9396/ (a formatting glitch seems to have substituted "?s" for dashes throughout the article).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-54419194580272092132015-02-19T08:37:33.291-05:002015-02-19T08:37:33.291-05:00Yossi L,
Right see my second comment further belo...Yossi L,<br /><br />Right see my second comment further below.skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-7245577390964816972015-02-19T08:34:40.977-05:002015-02-19T08:34:40.977-05:00Thank you for the excellent link and thoughtful ob...Thank you for the excellent link and thoughtful observations. The ACS information looks to be sophisticated, robust, well-informed, yet accessible to the layman. I agree the science is not settled. And the stakes for getting it wrong are quite high.<br /><br />IMO, too many libertarians are behaving as knee-jerk reactionaries when it comes to this issue. They observe that liberals and the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-22448310868086461522015-02-19T08:24:01.844-05:002015-02-19T08:24:01.844-05:00It is ridiculous to even attempt to forecast globa...It is ridiculous to even attempt to forecast global climate trends but,<br />considering that if our globe(earth) was to be shrunk down to the size of a marble, no present day machine could make that marble as smooth as the earth marble would be. Our globe is made up of precise uniform layers with an extremely hot and radioactive core.<br />I believe that there is a uniform layer of fossil fuel(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-29459660625853052762015-02-19T07:47:17.448-05:002015-02-19T07:47:17.448-05:00Bob,
If I am allowed to think aloud for once as w...Bob,<br /><br />If I am allowed to think aloud for once as well then I would think:<br /><br />If you look at chain of arguments by pro AGWers:<br /><br />1. More CO2 from fossil fuels cause (only) a little warming that is followed by:<br /><br />a. More Water Vapor in the air due to assumed net positive feedback causes more warming, which in itself is already reinforcing<br />b. A warming earth skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-7408388130842767522015-02-19T07:35:55.973-05:002015-02-19T07:35:55.973-05:00Following on skylien's note, the CO2 absorbs i...Following on skylien's note, the CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (IR) that is emitted by the earth. But a second CO2 molecule cannot absorb the IR that the first molecule has absorbed, so its effect is lower. This is a pretty common situation, and is called a first order effect. The result is that the absorption will be proportional to the log of the CO2 concentration.<br /><br />Water absorbsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-9624680106766501982015-02-19T03:54:03.656-05:002015-02-19T03:54:03.656-05:00The assertion that increasing concentrations in th...The assertion that increasing concentrations in the atmosphere of gasses that exhibit a "greenhouse" effect have progressively less effect is correct. Professor Ian Plimer in his book "Heaven and Earth" (ISBN 978-1-58979-472-6) provides a concise explanation, with supporting quantitative data and references, on pages 374 and 375: "The first 20 ppmv of CO2 operating as a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-4223346304378478132015-02-19T03:02:50.624-05:002015-02-19T03:02:50.624-05:00The assumption that additional water vapor causes ...The assumption that additional water vapor causes positive feedback would indicate that you would get a cycle of more and more water vapor in the air, because the reason for it is the warming not the CO2 per se hence if water vapor causes additional warming, and additional warming gets you more water vapor etc. then that would imply that minuscule changes in CO2 (or any other GHG for that matter)Yossi Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03527140565005805350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-37223028075600275332015-02-19T01:57:44.060-05:002015-02-19T01:57:44.060-05:00Hi Bob,
Well from my layman research the argument...Hi Bob,<br /><br />Well from my layman research the argument goes like this. CO2 itself alone would not be a problem. A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a warming of less than 1°C. However it is argued that the warmer it gets the more water vapor gets into the air which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas. Now they (and this is important) assume that this water vapor has a net skylienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08160738385436843080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-61031866506732709812015-02-18T22:55:00.209-05:002015-02-18T22:55:00.209-05:00Here's another problem: When an oil company p...Here's another problem: When an oil company pays for a "study" that concludes that CO2 from burning its products does not cause dangerous climate change, it is (rightly) pointed to as a conflict of interest. "Follow the money" and all that.<br /><br />However, when a bunch of climate scientists, who only maintain employment (or continue to receive research grants - same Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-35735742971562118172015-02-18T22:50:39.884-05:002015-02-18T22:50:39.884-05:00CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. It's...CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere. It's a trace gas that somehow dominates atmospheric temperature... Water vapor is by far the major greenhouse gas. One big unknown is how much CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes warming versus is a response to warming (from the ocean which is many times more than human contribution). Warming caused by solar activity, land use changes and otherSpencer Fanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403526865526817137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-43151840842193547802015-02-18T21:57:12.319-05:002015-02-18T21:57:12.319-05:00If I understand the argument, it goes something li...If I understand the argument, it goes something like this: "If the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs all the blackbody radiation emitted from the earth, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should not cause an additional increase in temperature." This hypothesis has been around for almost a century. The premise of the argument is true, but the conclusion is false. The Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-52672826499559599702015-02-18T21:38:08.536-05:002015-02-18T21:38:08.536-05:00RW,
Hi, I got from the talk from the Chem engineer...RW,<br />Hi, I got from the talk from the Chem engineer that you posted, that indeed, the more "greenhouse" gas you put into the atmosphere, the smaller the incremental effect. i.e. diminishing returns. BTW, this effect is universal in science.<br />Capn Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08133441332228302495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-67831488269695678642015-02-18T21:32:05.105-05:002015-02-18T21:32:05.105-05:00https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/below350-org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-6710742276781781002015-02-18T21:20:57.209-05:002015-02-18T21:20:57.209-05:00It has been advanced:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25...It has been advanced:<br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/25071473/Saturated-Greenhouse-Effect-TheoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-58448528921568447802015-02-18T21:20:42.696-05:002015-02-18T21:20:42.696-05:00Check this talk by Bob Carter. ( 4 parts)
https://...Check this talk by Bob Carter. ( 4 parts)<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI<br /><br />Its a bit old, actually done in 2007, but one of the examples is exactly what you are talking about re C02. <br /><br />They have found the C02 contributes to warming but only for the first few hundred parts per million. Once you keep adding more and more C02 the rate sharply diminishes until it Yohannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-66683950455953055902015-02-18T21:20:10.178-05:002015-02-18T21:20:10.178-05:00Here is an interesting question. If all of this h...Here is an interesting question. If all of this horrible co2 is coming from fossil fuels derived from animals and plants that were buried long ago, how is it that all of those plants and animals did well enough with all that co2 to create vast stores of carbon to be buried. They had to do that with obviously higher level o co2 then extant. Maybe co2 is not a bad thing! Uhhhh "fracking!&Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com