"Uncertainty regarding global warming appears to be a legitimate basis for postponing action, which is usually identified as 'costly.' But this idea is almost unique to climate change. In other areas of public safety, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation, or vaccination, an 'insurance' principle seems to prevail: if there is sufficient likelihood of significant damage, we take some measured anticipatory action."
-- Thomas Schelling, Nobel Laureate in Economics
(from Eli Kintisch's Hack the Planet)
67 comments:
indeed. Romney no doubt has fire insurance IN CASE. But, Mr. Riverboat Gambler is willing bet the U.S. house and to double down on oil. Truly the act of a "fossil fool"
There have always been those who are so self centered that the fate of others is of little importance. How is Romney not like Stalin? Just a little more "indirect" in his purges.
"Fossil fool" - ha. I might steal that.
Case example: Iraq, 2003
Even if there was a remote (one percent) chance of Saddam Hussein possessing WMD, it was necessary to take swift action and eliminate the danger. Republicans said this was the prudent thing to do.
"We cannot wait for the final proof...", "Doing nothing is not an option...", etc.
Scientists today have a much higher degree of confidence that humans are changing the climate -- but suddenly that's not good enough!
"Scientists today have a much higher degree of confidence that humans are changing the climate -- but suddenly that's not good enough!"
Yep. Not good enough.
Tea Party:
1. I want less govt
2. CAGW, if true, requires action from govt
3. Therefore evidence for CAGW is not strong enough.
Socialist:
1. I want more govt
2. CAGW, if true, requires action from govt
3. Therefore evidence for CAGW is strong enough.
If this was the insurance policy being advocated by warmers, skeptics would accept it.
Game changer: The "green" nuclear. Molten salt thorium nuclear reactors. Much cheaper, safer, and cleaner.
Feb 2011
"China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source."
"The project was unveiled at the annual Chinese Academy of Sciences conference in Shanghai last week, and reported in the Wen Hui Bao newspaper (Google English translation here)."
"If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
June 2012
"The U.S. Department of Energy is quietly collaborating with China on an alternative nuclear power design known as a molten salt reactor that could run on thorium fuel rather than on more hazardous uranium, SmartPlanet understands."
"Proponents of thorium MSRs, also known as liquid thorium reactors or sometimes as liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs), say the devices beat conventional solid fuel uranium reactors in all aspects including safety, efficiency, waste and peaceful implications."
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/us-partners-with-china-on-new-nuclear/17037
The solution is there. Technology developed in the US in the 60's. Just needs to be updated. Fortunately the Chinese (who do and will burn the most coal) are on to it. We can all breath easier.
What is meant by "catastrophic" AGW?
"What is meant by "catastrophic" AGW?"
a) AGW where the damages far exceed the benefits. b) The damages are catastrophic.
As opposed to modest warming of a degree or so over a century or so. For example, warming in the 20th century would not be called catastrophic. Similar warming over the next century would not be considered catastrophic.
Damages to whom?
Benefits to whom?
Also, how are you calculating "damages" and how are you calculation "benefits?"
Is the 1 C threshold for the global surface average temperature? Or for regional land averages? If the latter, which region(s)?
Also, the GISS global 30-yr trend is 0.16 C/decade. 10 years ago it was also 0.16 C/decade, and 10 years before that it was 0.13 C/decade.
Are these trends leading to "catastrophe?"
Do we wait until the 1 C/century threshold is passed before taking action?
Do we consider that about 1.1 C of future warming is thought to be already committed and inevitable?
Also, aerosols from air pollution are estimated to be about -1 W/m2 on top of an anthropogenic greenhouse forcing of about +3 W/m2. Do we assume this pollution will stay in place, giving some cooling, or do we assume it should, and will, be reduced, leading to higher warming?
1) "Also, the GISS global 30-yr trend is 0.16 C/decade. 10 years ago it was also 0.16 C/decade, and 10 years before that it was 0.13 C/decade."
What is the trend the last 10-15 yrs? Basically zero thus no sign of acceleration.
2) Do we just wait for signs of a catastrophic trend and do nothing in the meantime?
Invest in clean energy R&D (get the cost below the cost of coal) but do not subsidize energy production.
3) "Damages to whom?
Benefits to whom?"
Consideration priority:
a)by local
b)by state
c)by country
d)by world
The 15-yr GISS global trend is +0.07 C/decade, but it has a large uncertainty due to autocorrelations (perhaps 0.10-0.15 C/decade, or more), and is more affected by natural fluctuations like ENSOs.
The 10-yr trend is even more uncertain due to autocorrelations, and so useless. It also is more strongly affected by natural variability.
Given committed warming of 1.1 C, investing in clean energy immediately means we are already in your catastrophic range. Or do we ignore committed warming, which is thought to be 1.1 C globally, so even larger over land, and larger in the northern hemisphere?
Do we ignore cooling from air pollution?
Your last point is unclear. Damages locally? Benefits locally? Who pays for the damages -- whoever happens to be unlucky enough to live there?
"Given committed warming of 1.1 C, investing in clean energy immediately means we are already in your catastrophic range."
I don't buy 1c "committed" (which I assume you mean is already in the pipeline) and 1c is certainly not catastrophic.
"catastrophic" give me a break! Even the IPCC only predicts a foot or two of sea level rise over the next century - and the IPCC keeps revising it's estimates down.
Compared with the benefits of cheap energy, aerial co2 fertilization, longer growing season in Canada/Siberia, fewer cold weather deaths ..... the damages (rising sea levels) don't begin to exceed the benefits over the next century.
Why don't you "buy" committed warming?
If this were 1950, and scientists said we could expect 0.7 C of warming by 2012, much of it due to our greenhouse gas emissions, would you have bought that?
Re: "1 C certainly is not catastrophic"
1 C is the global average -- it is higher over land, and higher over the northern hemisphere. Over the last 20 years, warming in the northern hemisphere has been 1.4 times the global warming.
It is "catastrophic" to farmers who lost a great deal of money to drought? To taxpayers who must pay their insurance? To people who suffered in the Sahel drought, thought to be influenced by pollution aerosols? Is it catastrophic to Arctic communities, who have already seen 2+ C of warming?
At current 30-yr rates, warming by 2100 will be 1.4 C warmer than today (again, global average). And that's if today's rate doesn't increase, as is expected. Is that catastrophic? Should we just wait to see if it happens? Wait how long? And then do what?
1) you don't get to double count warming. i.e. committed added to new. it is what it is period.
2) weather is not GW. to say it is just illustrates the frustration some feel because there hasn't been any warming for the last 10-15 yrs.
3) co2 induced GW means poles warming much faster than the tropics which implies:
a)less severe storms,
b)melting polar ice,
c)longer growing seasons in Canada/Siberia
d)and more rainfall
Explain how committed warming is "double counting." It's warming that hasn't happened yet due to the inertia of the climate system.
Do you think there is no inertia in the climate/ocean system?
And you still haven't answered my question about benefits and damages. Benefits to who? Damages to who? Who pays for the damages?
1) "Do you think there is no inertia in the climate/ocean system?"
I wouldn't call it inertia. Calling it inertia implies it continues warming/cooling forever (like a body in motion) after the forcing is removed.
We can see seasonal whether peaks that lag solar forcing. Summer temps peak a month or two after the summer solstice and winter lows are reached a month or two after the winter solstice. So I'm guessing temps would continue to rise a few months after a co2 induced forcing was removed.
2) "And you still haven't answered my question about benefits and damages. Benefits to who? Damages to who? Who pays for the damages?"
If rising oceans because severe and the linkage was strong (much stronger than today) to co2 etc then sure. Compensate the damaged parties. However, today the damages are very small and the linkage is far to weak to implement any compensation system today.
One problem you are going to have in proving co2 related damages is the fact that oceans are not rising any faster today than they did in pre-industrial times.
Your "guess" is wildly at odds with the findings of climate scientists, who, due to the large heat capacity of the ocean, find an additional warming of about 1.0 C if all radiative forcings were held fixed:
"Continued warming and its implications for climate change," Wetherald et al, GRL 2001
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/rw0101.pdf
Should we base policy on science, or on your guesses?
> Compensate the damaged parties.
How much would it cost to compensate, say, a Pacific island nation which is inundated by rising seas or whose water supply is ruined by rising seas?
If some portion of Bangledesh is flooded?
If seas rise 2 feet and parts of Manhattan go under?
Who pays these damages, and how? Does everyone just ante up when the time comes, or pitch something in a hat?
>> However, today the damages are very small and the linkage is far to weak to implement any compensation system today. <<
Define "very small" (show your work)
Define "far too weak."
Specify how much "linkage" must be demonstated.
"Should we base policy on science, or on your guesses?"
Wouldn't be the first time my physical science based "guess" was proven to be correct even though it was at odds with climate "science". (see hockey stick)
If the heating was on the ocean floor one could believe a "heat wave coming" postulate. However, since (I believe) all ocean warming comes is at the surface the idea makes no sense.
"How much would it cost to compensate, say, a Pacific island nation which is inundated by rising seas or whose water supply is ruined by rising seas?"
One could re settle the entire population for a few hundred million.
"If some portion of Bangledesh is flooded?"
Again, re settlement cost would be modest compared to making material reductions in co2.
"If seas rise 2 feet and parts of Manhattan go under?"
I think Manhattan is far more than 2 feet above sea level but even here a dike is not that expensive (see NO).
Again, one has to show co2 has accelerated sea level rise in the last few decades. Can't be done.
Here are some sea level graphs. I see no post ww2 acceleration. Nothing scary at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Another graph
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Comments?
How much acceleration do you expect in a mere 20 years?
The Wikipedia graph clearly shows acceleration.
See also:
"A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise," Church and White, GRL v33 L01602 (2006), especially their Figure 2.
Should we resettle the Bangledeshis to Utah?
How much will the relocation cost -- $25K per person, maybe, to get them moved, re-established, re-educated? Their population is 161 M; severe floods can affect 75% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flooding_in_Bangladesh
That comes to $3 trillion. Who pays that? The western world, who put most of the extra CO2 up there? You? Me? Our dead relatives?
What is the value of one's homeland, and one's culture, and one's extended family? If someone else's pollution forced you to move to, say, Chile or Indonesia or Africa, how much compensation would you want, for your house, your life, your possessions, your memories, your family? Would you feel you lost something that no amount of money could replace? Would you be angry? At whom?
You are very cavalier about playing with other people's lives.
>>However, since (I believe) all ocean warming comes is at the surface the idea makes no sense.<<
Only the ocean's surface is warming? Have you seen these graphs:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Why is it, Charles, that coastal regions have less severe annual temperature swings than continental interiors?
Why is the southern hemisphere warming slower than the northern hemisphere?
"However, since (I believe) all ocean warming comes is at the surface the idea makes no sense."
The heat to warm the ocean comes through the surface (not the depths, except for geothermal). The surface must warm first before the subsurface or depths can warm. You can't get heat into the oceans without it warming the surface first. Thus how do you store heat in the oceans without it showing up on surface temperature measurements first.
"Should we resettle the Bangledeshis to Utah?"
What percent of Bangledeshi land is lost with a one foot sea level rise?
The answer to that questions defines the magnitude of the problem.
Why do you assume a one foot sea level rise would require the entire population of Bangladesh to be resettled?
Here is an elevation map of Bangladesh. If am reading it correctly the 5m (16ft) and under area looks to be <<5% of the country. One foot is what would you say? 1 or 2%?
http://www.terraviva.net/dataviewers/whatistv.htm
1 157 tesseu"Why do you assume a one foot sea level rise would require the entire population of Bangladesh to be resettled?
Here is an elevation map of Bangladesh. If am reading it correctly the 5m (16ft) and under area looks to be <<5% of the country. One foot is what would you say? 1 or 2%?"
http://www.terraviva.net/dataviewers/whatistv.htm
If we assume 5% for 5m/16ft and a linear slope we get
5%/15ft = 0.33 %/ft
over the next 100yrs
hardly a catastrophe
the population gradually moves inland over the next 100yrs
Charles wrote:
> What percent of Bangledeshi
> land is lost with a one foot sea
> level rise?
Who, Charles, says sea level rise stops at 1 feet?
Who?
We aren't cutting emissions -- in fact, they continue to increase exponentially.
The greenhouse effect, temperatures, sea level rise -- they will only get worse.
No one anywhere expects sea level rise to stop at 1 foot.
Charles wrote:
>> The heat to warm the ocean comes through the surface (not the depths, except for geothermal). The surface must warm first before the subsurface or depths can warm. You can't get heat into the oceans without it warming the surface first. Thus how do you store heat in the oceans without it showing up on surface temperature measurements first. <<
Charles: The sea surface is warming:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&varlist=on&new_window=on&lite=&ptype=ts&dir=
"Who, Charles, says sea level rise stops at 1 feet?"
Sea levels have risen at a ~3mm/yr rate during the last and previous centuries (about 1ft/century). No one knows when it will stop but 1ft/century is not a catastrophe. [I believe even the IPCC project only 1-2ft in the next century.]
In addition, since sea levels have been rising at this rate before significant co2 increases the last 60 yrs no one can say for sure how much of this rise would stop if co2 increases stopped.
Bottom line is you attempted to paint a minor manageable problem as a near term catastrophe- saying the entire country of Bangladesh would have to be relocated in the next 100yrs or so if we didn't drastically cut co2 emissions.
"Charles: The sea surface is warming:"
I think I have lost the plot. Please explain the theory again. Some sort of pent up warming that is going to add to that one gets from co2?
Sea levels have risen at a ~3mm/yr rate during the last and previous centuries
You really can't speak to this issue. You are waving your hands and tossing word salad to FUD.
The 3.2mm.yr rate is as of today. The rate is accelerating.
No one falls for your FUD. It is weak and cheap.
Best,
D
piegel writes: German Academy of Sciences and Engineering calls off the climate catastrophe.
In fact we know this to be the case for the rest of the world, unless of course the climate veers into another ice age like situation. The above conclusion was reached by the German Academy of Sciences and Engineering (Acatech) in a study commissioned by the German Federal government. According to Acatech President Reinhard Hüttl:
“No climate conditions are going to occur here that already do not exist on the globe elsewhere and that we cannot cope with.”
Worse for the climate alarmists, the report goes on to say that warming will even bring benefits along with it, such as longer growing seasons and reduced wintertime heating costs. Readers should note that typical Germans heat their homes about 8 months per year.
Now we know that for some people bedwetting is a tough habit to break, and so we hope this latest news will help put some of the less chronic among us on the path to recovery.
Concerning rising sea levels, the scientists say that this ought to be an important concern, but “the scientists reject horror scenarios”. The scientists add:
“A climate-related mass migration to Germany appears improbable.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/german-academy-of-sciences-and-engineering-calls-off-climate-catastrophe-coping-will-not-be-a-problem/
Am I supposed to see sea level acceleration in this graph?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
Am I supposed to see sea level acceleration in this graph?
Yes.
You can use your Googles and look at old charts. You can see the rate has changed and is increasing. Even you can do it.
When you are done and realize that you don't know the first thing about the issue, you don't have to come back and apologize. Or be embarrassed (if that is possible).
Best,
D
Worse for the climate alarmists, the report goes on to say that warming will even bring benefits along with it, such as longer growing seasons and reduced wintertime heating costs.
Ah, yes, the gullible rubes parroting the 'benefits' hokum, too dull to realize the costs exceed the benefits.
Gosh, how many times has this happened in comment threads? A billion times? A trillion?
Denialists: still got nothin' for the billionth time. So comical.
Best,
D
"Uncertainty regarding global warming appears to be a legitimate basis for postponing action, which is usually identified as 'costly.' But this idea is almost unique to climate change. In other areas of public safety, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation, or vaccination, an 'insurance' principle seems to prevail: if there is sufficient likelihood of significant damage, we take some measured anticipatory action."
================================================================
The problem of this approach is that this "sufficient likelihood of significant damage" needs to be scientifically proven first. It is not enough to refer to scientifically unsupported claims even if those claims have been constantly multiplied and reinforced thorough some scientists and media coverage.
So we have to look deeper into the issue. What I see is a scientifically outrageous calculations of "global warming" and absolutely zero scientific experimental proof that CO2 can warm a warmer surface. These 2 points are crucial.
Greg House (if that is your real name): It is useless to argue with people who do not understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the evidence for it.
So I won't try.
As to "sufficient likelihood of significant damage": For over 110 years, calculations have shown that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels leads to 2-4 C of warming. Paleo data says the same, as do measurements taken since the start of the Keeling curve.
What more do you want? Seriously -- I expect an answer.
David Appell said: "It is useless to argue with people who do not understand the basic science of the greenhouse effect or the evidence for it. [...] What more do you want?"
==================================================
Actually the opposite is true. It would be useless to argue on a certain subject with people who share your opinion on that subject.
What I want is you and others to look closer at the AGW basics and see that they are unsupported scientifically. Of course, I expect some debate on those 2 crucial points I mentioned in my previous comment. And please, take into consideration that simple arguing from authority is not a valid argumentation in a scientific debate. At the same time everyone is entitled to statements like "I will not argue with you because I know they are right".
Greg House wrote:
"What I want is you and others to look closer at the AGW basics and see that they are unsupported scientifically."
This is a fucking joke. Greg, you are an idiot. Yes - you.
Scientists *have* been considering the basics of their field since its inceptions, in climate science, as in all sciences.
People like you -- exactly like you -- don't even understand enough science to know this.
Go wallow in your scientific ignorance and stupidity, and leave me alone.
Greg House wrote:
>> What I see is a scientifically outrageous calculations of "global warming" and absolutely zero scientific experimental proof that CO2 can warm a warmer surface. These 2 points are crucial.<<
Greg: You've never taken a course in climate science, or read a textbook, have you?
Go ahead -- you can be honest, since you're afraid to use you real name. Tell us....
David Appell said: "You've never taken a course in climate science, or read a textbook, have you?"
=======================================================
David, mere reference to "climate science" or "climate science textbooks" is not a valid argument in this particular debate, because I am challenging the basics of exactly that "climate science". To simply say "climate scientists are right about certain things because they have put them in their textbooks and teach them in their courses" is still not a valid argument, sorry.
because I am challenging the basics of exactly that "climate science".
Poor addled "Greg" wishes that he wants to live on this planet without GHGs in the atmosphere, does he?
Like I said elsewhere, the disinformation industry must be undergoing a hiring crisis - the number of talented lying shills has dropped off precipitously of late.
Best,
D
But this idea is almost unique to climate change. In other areas of public safety, such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, inflation, or vaccination ...
... and ghosts, and deniers, and people who don't believe in ESP, and gray goo, and vampires, and genetically engineered monsters, and
Ladies and Gentlemen: Welcome to David Appell's LOSERVILLE
... and ghosts, and deniers, and people who don't believe in ESP, and gray goo, and vampires, and genetically engineered monsters, and
If I were your firm, I wouldn't pay you for this low-quality, off-hours drivel. If you were hired by the word, it might work here as there is no date stamp.
Jus' sayin'.
Best,
D
Greg House: You will need a much, much, *much* better argument than you have presented.
Do you have one?
David Appell said: "Greg House: You will need a much, much, *much* better argument than you have presented."
=========================================================
David, I have questioned 2 AGW basics and recommended that you and others look at the issues. Specifically at the calculations of "global warming" and whether there is a scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder atmospheric CO2 to warm a warmer surface.
I assume, you and very many other people have never done anything like that, instead they simply rely on the press and what some scientists say. The problem of such an approach is, that if you do that, you do not actually have your own opinion, you have only been acting like a marionette.
So, it is your choice. I can not force you to start thinking independently, I can only help a little bit, but you need to start doing your homework yourself.
"Greg House": You haven't studied much science, have you? Please, be honest, OK, since you insist on being anonymous.
Do you understand why the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the atmosphere?
Physics undergraduates learn this as freshmen.
David Appell said: "Do you understand why the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to the atmosphere?"
====================================================================
There are a lot of things that do or do not apply to the atmosphere. I specifically talked about a "scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder atmospheric CO2 to warm a warmer surface".
OK, let us expand that. Is there any scientific experiment proving the ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) a warmer body by means of radiation?
I have asked this question many times on climate blogs and no warmist had been able to present such an experiment. "Thought experiments" do not count, I hope you understand that. It does not look good for the AGW proponents.
And again, references to textbooks were you can find the same unproven assertions are not valid arguments, because a mere repetition of an unproven assertion does not prove it to be correct.
"Greg House": Have you *ever* taken a course in basic physics, including thermodynamics?
Please be honest.
David Appell said: ""Greg House": Have you *ever*[...]"
=====================================================
Come on, David, just stick to the scientific points.
David, just stick to the scientific points.
He is. Your Internet Performance Art character is pretending to not understand them, for our amusement.
Ewps. Did I wreck the bit?
Best,
D
"Greg House": I'm asking again, have you ever taken a course in basic thermodynamics? Because if so, you would understand why your question is inapplicable.
My impression is that you have not, since you clearly do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
David Appell said: "[...]since you clearly do not understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
=============================================================
David, I did not refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you might have noticed that.
I however question the alleged ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) of a warmer body by means of radiation. More precisely, I question that this assertion has ever been proven by a scientific experiment. At the moment it looks like this assertion has never been proven, so we have to do with a sort of a scientifically unsupported tale. In the same way, the narrower assertion about the CO2 warming the warmer surface is scientifically unsupported either. So simple is that.
Greg House: Maybe you don't realize you're questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The 2nd Law is derived from a huge body of experimental results, none of which has ever been found to violate it, and a huge number of applications of it, all of which work. That's what makes it a "law." (The principle of conservation of energy is in the same category.)
The Clausius statement of the 2nd law is that "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature."
But the 2nd law only applies to adiabatic systems -- those that are thermally isolated and do not exchange heat with their surroundings. Obviously this excludes the Earth, since the Sun pours huge amounts of energy into it.
All objects radiate energy. When that energy impinges on another objects, it increases its energy content, i.e. warms it. This is basic physics. You can do an experiment to check it if you want; it is consistent with all past experiments in thermodynamics and radiation transfer.
You ask for a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions behind AGW, but don't even seem aware of what exactly you're asking, or realize that such reexaminations take place all the time, by scientists all over the world, constantly, and have been taking place since the physical principles were first proposed. It's a hallmark of the scientific reasoning and the scientific method.
>> In the same way, the narrower assertion about the CO2 warming the warmer surface is scientifically unsupported either. <<
CO2 isn't warming the surface; (some of) the radiation it emits is warming the surface, just as the radiation from the Sun warms the surface.
Radiation is radiation.
David Appell said: "CO2 isn't warming the surface; (some of) the radiation it emits is warming the surface,"
=================================================
Sorry, but I find it a little bit funny. It sounds like "X did not kill Y; the bullet out of his gun did."
I have already mentioned "by means of radiation" 2 times, by the way, like that: "I however question the alleged ability of a colder body to warm (or reduce cooling) of a warmer body by means of radiation."
David Appell said: "Maybe you don't realize you're questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. [...] But the 2nd law only applies to adiabatic systems -- those that are thermally isolated and do not exchange heat with their surroundings. Obviously this excludes the Earth, since the Sun pours huge amounts of energy into it."
=======================================================
You have already expressed this idea. You mean, that the "CO2 warming" does not violate the 2nd law, but I did not say it did, so your counterargument misses the point.
David Appell said: "All objects radiate energy. When that energy impinges on another objects, it increases its energy content, i.e. warms it. This is basic physics. You can do an experiment to check it if you want; it is consistent with all past experiments in thermodynamics and radiation transfer.
You ask for a reexamination of some of the basic assumptions behind AGW, but don't even seem aware of what exactly you're asking, or realize that such reexaminations take place all the time, by scientists all over the world, constantly, and have been taking place since the physical principles were first proposed. It's a hallmark of the scientific reasoning and the scientific method."
=========================================================
This is what you think, I understand, but now look at your argumentation. It goes essentially like that: "X says: "Prove it!" and Y answers: "It is proven"".
As I said before, no warmist I talked to on the blogs was able to present just 1 real scientific experiment proving that a colder body can warm (or reduce cooling of) a warmer body by means of radiation. And exactly like you, some of them advised me to prove it myself. You see, I should prove their point. This is a strong indication that we have to do with a sort of science fiction here.
At the same time, your point about "radiation is radiation" or about radiation causing increase in temperature is not completely senseless, because we are familiar with IR heating devices, for example. However, if you think critically you will notice that those IR sources are very hot. At the same time you might have noticed, that if you open the freezer you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken. At least this should prompt you to start thinking in the direction whether the notion about colder bodies reducing the cooling rate of a warmer body by means of radiation is a scientific fact. And who has proven that and how. And then you will question the "colder CO2 heating" as well.
>>if you open the freezer you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken.<<
What do you think happens when the radiation from the chicken hits your skin?
David Appell said: "What do you think happens when the radiation from the chicken hits your skin?"
=====================================================
David, as I said, if you do not feel the radiative heat from the frozen chicken, it should make you suspicious about what some people say about "CO2 warming". It is not important what I think. Important is, whether they can scientifically prove their assertion or not.
What do you mean, "do not feel the heat?"
The radiation from the chicken, which is like all other radiation, hits your skin. Like all other radiation, it interacts with the atoms of your skin, and the phenomenon is communicated to your brain via nerves. This is exactly what we call "feeling."
Also note that this thought experiment is also not a test of the 2nd law, since you and the chicken are not an adiabatic system, but surrounded by air that can take away or supply heat. If you want, you can place the chicken in a vacuum and replace yourself by a temperature sensor. The same reasoning works.)
Post a Comment