There is no Planet B

[hpeer]

I’ve enough of this.

Clearly Newhaul and some others have an agenda to obfuscate any conversation on the topic which is supported by the scientific community.

I would like to move the discussion forward on a More positive note discussing changes we would like to see to reduce the emmissionnof gasses and to improve our future.

As I’ve said above I’m not a big fan of the GND approach. I feel strongly the problem we have is related to our Consumerisim. And any positive approach needs to address Consumerisim. Reducing Consumerism would do a lot for other issues as well: less waste, less pollution, less debt.

Clearly the economy would suffer because its based upon Consumption.

Just to kick things off, if anyone cares to join, I would like to see solar farms effected over our parking lots. And I’d like to see a whole lot of lights turned off at night, always bugs me to see skyscrapers completly lite up at 10pm.

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Great. This has the potential to fire up another 50 pages of vigorous debate in this thread!!!!


I better get to work researching....

Happy to peer review your "research". Just need a funding grant now....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, CO2 affects the thermosphere. There is no evidence of an effect in the other direction.

you said that the thermosphere has little to no affect on the troposphere and that is wrong .
Try again .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Jack and Gord,

That’s online with the Skeptical Science article I posted earlier. Even if you allow for the Cosmic Ray Cooling it’s a tiny fraction of the forcing from green house gasses.

But more importantly Newhaul keeps arguing there is no warming but then turn around and says his CRC theory explains warming up to 2016 and it is now going into cooling. I think o made this point back in post 866 where the contradictions were nearby.

But then again he also said “but even human warming is natural because what isn’t.”

That’s why I’ve stopped responding to him, he weasel words and changes his stance. The only thing consistent is that he is contrary to consensus AWG warming theories.

why do you keep refusing to state the whole theory which has the period of warming being due to the modern grand maximum ( which peaked in 1957) is responsible for the heating we saw and the decline since then is just now showing in the cooling . The affect of the increased cosmic rays is a now and near future is a secondary effect . Of the entering into this deep solar minimum. 2 years early I might add. We have yet to see any sunspots that are inductive of the start of the next solar cycle.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’ve enough of this.

Clearly Newhaul and some others have an agenda to obfuscate any conversation on the topic which is supported by the scientific community.

I would like to move the discussion forward on a More positive note discussing changes we would like to see to reduce the emmissionnof gasses and to improve our future.

As I’ve said above I’m not a big fan of the GND approach. I feel strongly the problem we have is related to our Consumerisim. And any positive approach needs to address Consumerisim. Reducing Consumerism would do a lot for other issues as well: less waste, less pollution, less debt.

Clearly the economy would suffer because its based upon Consumption.

Just to kick things off, if anyone cares to join, I would like to see solar farms effected over our parking lots. And I’d like to see a whole lot of lights turned off at night, always bugs me to see skyscrapers completly lite up at 10pm.

supported by some in the scientific community that is.
Not all .

Now I'm all for cleaning up our messes but that has nothing to do with what the sun is doing.

[swampbush]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’ve enough of this.

I would like to move the discussion forward on a More positive note discussing changes we would like to see to reduce the emmissionnof gasses and to improve our future.

Just to kick things off, if anyone cares to join, I would like to see solar farms effected over our parking lots. And I’d like to see a whole lot of lights turned off at night, always bugs me to see skyscrapers completly lite up at 10pm.

I think this is a good move, and it would be nice to see what we can do as individuals and boat owners to help. By way of disclosure I do think that AGW is having an affect, but as an Engineer I think we will find solutions before the disaster scenarios unfold. But headlines sell papers so outlandish claims will always be there. Believing in the science of AGW doesn't make you a socialist, and the solutions don't have to harmful to the economy.

I am lucky to live in sunny Queensland and my boat is charged almost exclusively by solar. Cheaper and greener than a diesel genset. No great hardship. I still have diesel engines, I love the ideal of electric drives but cost and technology isn't quite there yet. I use a small amount of diesel each year, by sailing instead.

What else can we do? The near future will have large numbers of distributed batteries suppling power to the grid. Telecom companies are already looking at using their tower's back up batteries to prop up the grid. Electric cars will do the same. Park your Tesla in the garage and use it to supply your house at night. Charge it at the solar powered charger at work during the day.

We can be part of that, with thousands of boats and batteries sitting in marinas with their power going to waste. My new victron inverter charger is capable of grid feed, but I don't know of any marinas that allow that.

There are alternatives to fossil fuels. Even if you don't believe in AGW, fossil fuels sure make a lot of pollution and they won't last forever. How quickly we move away from them is the real question. Years or centuries?

Nuclear power, geothermal, solar, thermal solar, wind, wave and battery storage. We don't have to go back to the stone age to make a better planet.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

please explain what the issue is in scientific terms. Not personal opinion

Would you even understand them?

Par on the the denier course, I assume.

"Scientists Published Climate Research Under Fake Names. Then They Were Caught."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.917ad0b166b8

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, it's because of the greenhouse effect. Mercury is even closer to the sun, but is not as warm.


https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...ar-system.html

The gas only heats during compression. After that it will cool down, unless there is some other heat source.


Either you or your physics professor are "balmy" as sunlight does reach the surface of Venus.

The other heat source is the sun. As long as the incoming solar radiation is in balance with the heat radiating away from the planet at the top of the atmosphere, the surface cannot cool beyond a certain point.

When you compress a gas, it gets hotter, but you have not added any energy to the gas - it's an adiabatic process. Likewise, when you reduce the pressure on a gas, it cools, but it still contains the same amount of energy. Air at the top of the troposphere may be -50C, but it contains the same amount of heat energy as air at the surface. per mole. Since the troposphere is a convective layer, air is constantly rising to the top, cooling, and then sinking back to the bottom and compressing again. The temperature at the top is what determines the temperature at the bottom, and the temperature at the top is determined by the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation.

The temperature cooling as the altitude increases is not due to heat being lost to space. It's due to the drop in pressure. Return the air to surface, and it will be the same temperature it was before.

This is what heats Venus' surface and keeps it from cooling, not the GHG effect. Light does reach the surface, but it is a very diffuse light similar to twilight on earth.

The GHG theory is based on the surface being heated by incoming solar radiation through a transparent atmosphere. The subsequent heating of the surface then radiates IR which is blocked by an opaque gas that prevents the heat from escaping. Venus does not have a transparent atmosphere, and the small amount of light that reaches the surface has very little ability to warm it.

A quick experiment is to take a mole of CO2 at 1 bar pressure and at room temperature (like on Venus at 60km altitude), and compress it to 90 bar as found on the surface. It will actually be a little hotter than the surface of Venus at that point. But again, that is an adiabatic process. The mole of air at the surface has the same amount of energy as the mole of air at 60km.

All planets with atmospheres will be warmer at the surface than they would be without an atmosphere, whether or not the atmosphere contains GHGs. Venus is warmer than Mercury because it has an atmosphere - a very heavy one at that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you said that the thermosphere has little to no affect on the troposphere and that is wrong .
Try again .

I said there is no evidence. If there is some, let us see it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

why do you keep refusing to state the whole theory which has the period of warming being due to the modern grand maximum ( which peaked in 1957) is responsible for the heating we saw and the decline since then is just now showing in the cooling . The affect of the increased cosmic rays is a now and near future is a secondary effect . Of the entering into this deep solar minimum. 2 years early I might add. We have yet to see any sunspots that are inductive of the start of the next solar cycle.

There is no correlation between sunspots and temperature.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by oldjags

The other heat source is the sun. As long as the incoming solar radiation is in balance with the heat radiating away from the planet at the top of the atmosphere, the surface cannot cool beyond a certain point.

When you compress a gas, it gets hotter, but you have not added any energy to the gas - it's an adiabatic process. Likewise, when you reduce the pressure on a gas, it cools, but it still contains the same amount of energy. Air at the top of the troposphere may be -50C, but it contains the same amount of heat energy as air at the surface. per mole. Since the troposphere is a convective layer, air is constantly rising to the top, cooling, and then sinking back to the bottom and compressing again. The temperature at the top is what determines the temperature at the bottom, and the temperature at the top is determined by the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation.

The temperature cooling as the altitude increases is not due to heat being lost to space. It's due to the drop in pressure. Return the air to surface, and it will be the same temperature it was before.

This is what heats Venus' surface and keeps it from cooling, not the GHG effect. Light does reach the surface, but it is a very diffuse light similar to twilight on earth.

The GHG theory is based on the surface being heated by incoming solar radiation through a transparent atmosphere. The subsequent heating of the surface then radiates IR which is blocked by an opaque gas that prevents the heat from escaping. Venus does not have a transparent atmosphere, and the small amount of light that reaches the surface has very little ability to warm it.

A quick experiment is to take a mole of CO2 at 1 bar pressure and at room temperature (like on Venus at 60km altitude), and compress it to 90 bar as found on the surface. It will actually be a little hotter than the surface of Venus at that point. But again, that is an adiabatic process. The mole of air at the surface has the same amount of energy as the mole of air at 60km.

All planets with atmospheres will be warmer at the surface than they would be without an atmosphere, whether or not the atmosphere contains GHGs. Venus is warmer than Mercury because it has an atmosphere - a very heavy one at that.

As this is a sailing forum, let us discuss marine weather systems. A LOW pressure system is WARM air rising. A HIGH pressure system is COLD air descending. Go figure.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

supported by some in the scientific community that is.
Not all .

Now I'm all for cleaning up our messes but that has nothing to do with what the sun is doing.

The sun is providing our energy. But has little wto do climate change. Learn something about the solar constant.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...solar-constant

[StuM]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I have a whole range of concerns, only one of which is AWG

You keep doing that.


AWG = ???


AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming.




(aka MMGW as in Man Made, but that is sexist and gives half the world's population a free pass. )

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no correlation between sunspots and temperature.

Don't be so sure of that. Did you allow for the lag time between the sun spot and temp increase? How much time? And the other variable we don't even know about.

[kmacdonald]

I'm still on the fence but am getting close to calling GW BS. Too many unknowns to raise all the doom and gloom predictions followed by pleas for more grant money for "further study". It's getting old.