A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old July 27th 12, 02:15 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On 7/27/2012 6:48 AM, wrote:
On Jul 26, 12:43 pm, Steve wrote:
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:19:01 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:12 pm, Steve > wrote:


I joined this thread with:
"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control."


No, you better go back and look again! You wrote:

"I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in
its
truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others,
and
automatically loses some credibility."

"Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
concerned."

"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof
may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control."


In response to my statement:

"It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain."

Which of course is perfectly valid and not in the least ideological.


I suggested that using pet terms (like "warmingsta") made "ones"
statements appear ideologically charged. That response was indeed fueled
by your post, but it was a general disdain for derogatory terms used in
dialog. Derogatory pet terms are almost always used as an intent to inflame.

I then pointed out that "convincing proof" _may_ come too late for
deniers. A truth that concerns me, since the consequences are global and
potentially catastrophically irreversible once a tipping point is reached.

Interestingly enough, from that point on, you proved that you were in
fact an ideological neoconservative (or anti-federalist if you prefer).

As for me, I got lost in your charge, and obviously said too much about
how my "concern" over AGW has affected some of my decisions about fuel
economy. My decisions would be a lot worse, if I were a denier. But,
rather than acknowledge that, you used my exposure as a point of attack.

You went on the offensive. I went on the defensive. Until this post that
is. What you wrote below (snipped) is the _first_ time you have been on
the defensive. It almost makes you seem capable of civility.
  #342  
Old July 28th 12, 01:24 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James Lovelock

On Jul 27, 9:15*am, Steve wrote:
On 7/27/2012 6:48 AM, wrote:









On Jul 26, 12:43 pm, Steve wrote:
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:19:01 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:12 pm, Steve > wrote:


I joined this thread with:
"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control."


No, you better go back and look again! *You wrote:


"I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in
its
* truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
* terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others,
and
* automatically loses some credibility."


"Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
* concerned."


"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof
may
* come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
* factors over which we have some control."


In response to my statement:


"It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
* fossil fuel to maintain."


Which of course is perfectly valid and not in the least ideological.


I suggested that using pet terms (like "warmingsta") made "ones"
statements appear ideologically charged.


If it appears that way to you, then it's your problem, due to your
lack of understanding and lack of intelligence.

That response was indeed fueled
by your post, but it was a general disdain for derogatory terms used in
dialog. Derogatory pet terms are almost always used as an intent to inflame.


A warmingista would be viewed less unfavorably were he to practice
that which he preaches. He could even avoid being labeled as such.

I then pointed out that "convincing proof" _may_ come too late for
deniers. A truth that concerns me, since the consequences are global and
potentially catastrophically irreversible once a tipping point is reached..


Yet you have a larger CO2 foot print than the world average. If you
truly believe that there is a problem, then you should stop to
consider that you are not helping to solve it.

Interestingly enough, from that point on, you proved that you were in
fact an ideological neoconservative (or anti-federalist if you prefer).


Your understanding wrt conservatism is very poor. "Neocons," which
some call RINOs, are liberals who pretend to be conservatives. Neocons
like strong, repressive, centralized governments, as do other
liberals. You "anti-federalist" label makes no sense.

A true conservative supports rule of law, natural rights, low taxes
and limited government. He sees the main purposes of the federal
government to be the protection of the States and their citizens from
foreign enemies, and the protection of those citizens' natural rights
from violations by the federal, state and local governments. Those are
simple concepts that nevertheless elude you.

As for me, I got lost in your charge, and obviously said too much about
how my "concern" over AGW has affected some of my decisions about fuel
economy. My decisions would be a lot worse, if I were a denier.


Not necessarily. Rest assured, there are skeptics who consistently
have smaller footprints than you do.

But,
rather than acknowledge that, you used my exposure as a point of attack.


A faux-green celeb would get media coverage (think photo-op of an
actor sitting in a hybrid vehicle) but the truth (about his limos,
jets, mansions, pools, etc.) usually is found out, eventually. Your
habits are cloaked in obscurity, but you still have much in common
with the eco-celebs wrt green hypocrisy.

None of you do anything on your own to solve the perceived problem,
and want to use the power of government to make others do what you
will not. Warmingista is an apt description of all of you.

  #343  
Old July 29th 12, 08:03 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,alt.global-warming,sci.physics
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Green 'drivel' exposed by godfather of global warming James

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:33:50 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:55:55 -0500, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:19:00 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:



On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 15:00:47 -0500, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 08:31:15 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:


On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:56:02 -0500, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:16:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:


On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:42:22 -0500, Bill Ward
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:35:10 +0200, pausch wrote:

In article

,
says...

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:01:55 +0200, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:10:38 -0400, bjacoby

wrote:
And you forgot to mention that your model ignores
that
the
important
CO2 IR bands are saturated.

Could you give a reference confirming the

correctness
of
that
statement?

No I won't.

Ok, but stop making claims if you're so unwilling to
verify
them,
will you?



And if CO2 does not cause any warming, why is it so
hot
on
the
surface
of Venus?

Just put the strawman to bed will you? The earth is

not
Venus. And
I
didn't say CO2 causes NO warming.

The same physical laws work on Venus as on Earth,

right?

You claimed the CO2 absorption bands are saturated
already
with the
comparatively low CO2 abundance in the Earth's
atmosphere --
if so,
that would imply that any amount of extra CO2 causes

no
extra
warming
since the absorption is already saturated. That in

turn
would
imply
that the hot-as-hell temperature on Venus surface

cannot
be
due to
the enormous amounts of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere.

So why is it so hot on Venus? Venus being closer to

the
Sun
than
Earth can only explain parts of Venus high

temperature,
but
it
cannot
explain why Venus is even hotter than Mercury. Any

idea
what
makes
Venus so hot if not the CO2?

Venus is hot because it has an almost opaque, dense and
deep
atmosphere. Most of the absorption and emission of
radiation
occurs
near the top of the atmosphere, where the temperature is
just
high
enough to radiate the same amount of energy as absorbed
from
the
Sun.

The surface is much hotter because of adiabatic

compression
forming a
lapse rate from the radiating layer down to the surface,
which
is at
around 92 times the surface pressure on Earth.

The "greenhouse effect" label is quite misleading, as

the
mechanism
involved has no connection with actual greenhouses,

which
work by
blocking convection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate


the important CO2 IR bands are saturated.

Could you give a reference confirming the

correctness of
that
statement?

No I won't.

Now I know why you won't do this. You won't find any
reliable
reference
confirming this, because the statement "CO2 IR bands are
saturated" is
wrong. And by repeating it, you're propagating
desinformation.

To whom are you responding?

He





http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...aturated-gassy


No response?


argument/

you'll find a good explanation about the "CO2 IR bands

are
saturated"
myth, an historic overview about how it originated, and a
good
explanation why it is wrong. And even if it had been
correct,
more CO2
in our atmosphere would **still** give us a higher
temperature
--
that
web page explains why. It also explains why CO2 IR
absorption
matters
also in the H2O bands, despite there being more H2O than
CO2 in
the
atmosphere (the short explanation is that the IR

absorption
of
neither
CO2 nor H2O are continuous but has a lot of fine

structure,
and
quite
often the many thin absorption lines of CO2 resp H2O do

not
overlap; the
long explanation can be found on that web page).

So THAT's why it's so hot on Venus: even though the CO2
absorption on
Venus indeed is well saturated, more CO2 still yields

hotter
temperature
at the ground -- on Venus as on Earth. This is because

more
CO2
causes
the "effective radiation surface" of the CO2 to/from

space
to
move
upwards

I don't think that's significant. Here's why: The

Venusian
atmosphere
is already opaque, absorbing all CO2 radiation within a

very
short
distance. Absorption simply converts the IR to thermal
energy in
the
gas, so we have ordinary heated CO2 molecules in LTE,
exchanging
photons
like all other GHGs, but completely adiabatic until they

reach
about one
optical depth from space. From there, some of the photons
begin
to
escape to space, cooling the planet. That level is far up
into
the
atmosphere, where the temperature is just high enough to
radiate
as
IR
all the absorbed solar energy. The transition from opaque

to
semi-
transparent occurs over only a few hundred meters, and any
change
in CO2
concentration will be effective only over that short

distance
where
radiation is important. On the way down to the surface,

only
convection
carries energy. Radiation plays no part.

Be careful with RC "explanations", as they are notorious

for
misleading
half-truths. For example, in the link, they neglect to

mention
that
most
energy is carried from the surface of the Earth by

evaporation
and
convection, not radiation. Water vapor is the primary GHG,
radiating
broadband from an average radiating altitude near 6km. CO2
plays
almost
no part, as it emits only in the narrow 15u band from the

cold
stratosphere.

The "narrow lines" of CO2 is a red herring. At Earth's
surface,
the
lines are pressure broadened by collision with other air
molecules,
and
nearly all the CO2 radiation is absorbed within a few

meters.

And, given the same surface pressure, the surface of Venus
would
be
just
as hot with any other GHG providing the same optical depth.

-- and then the adiabatic lapse rate does the rest of the
work
in
heating up the ground. That "effective radiation

surface" of
CO2 of
course resides much higher above the ground on Venus

than on
Earth.

So could you now please stop propagating the myth (or

lie)
that
"CO2 IR
bands in the Earth's atmosphere are saturated, therefore
more
CO2
does
not cause higher temperature", because that statement is
doubly
flawed:

1. The CO2 IR bands aren't saturated on Earth -- more CO2
will
still
yield more IR absorption.

It doesn't matter - convection carries the surface energy

to
the
altitude
where WV can emit it to space. CO2 and radiation play
almost no
part in
that transfer.

...and more CO2 increases the altitude where radiation

becomes
dominant,
and that will increase the ground temperature since the
convection will
work over a larger altitude span.

Apparently you missed the point. If you increase the CO2 in

the
Venusian
atmosphere, you only affect the upper few meters, not the

actual
altitude
of tens of kilometers between the radiating layer and the
surface.

Why should I bother posting answers, if you're not even going

to
read
them?

....and in particular when you don't seem to read what I post
either. So
why do you post? You don't have to, feel free to stop any time
you like!

I was specifically noting that you did not respond to my comment
that
only the few meters at the top of the Venusian atmosphere would

be
affected by a change in CO2 concentration, since the column below
is
opaque to IR. You still haven't responded.

How did you obtain the figure "only the few meters at the top"???
Doesn't that depend on how much you increase the CO2 on Venus? If

you
e.g. double the amount of Venusian CO2, much more than just a few

meters
would be affected.


That would be 193% CO2, since the current concentration is 96.5%.


I said double the amount, not double the percentage, stupid!!


Nice try. No cigar.


I don't WANT any cigar....

You can always double the amount.

Here's a piece of homework for you: how do you double the amount of CO2
on Venus while keeping the percentage of CO2 unchanged at 96.5% ????


Aside from that, CO2 is opaque until the density drops near the

top.
Being opaque means adding more won't make it appreciably more

opaque -
it's already stopping all the IR within a few cm. The only place

the
added CO2 could have any absorptive effect is at the very top,

where the
density drops and the optical depth to space approaches one.

That's only
a few meters. Below that, convection rules, and the CO2 is just an
ordinary GHG in LTE.


...and what happens to the ground temperature if the layer at the top
which emits (not absorbs...) the IR is raised by, say, one scale height?
That's the same as raising the amount of CO2 on Venus by a factor of e
-- and since Venus atmosphere already contains nearly 100% CO2 that
would require also raising the ground pressure by a factor of e.


So, do you agree that the surface temperature on Venus is affected
primarily by the surface pressure, not which particular GHG provides the
optical density, or does that still escape you?


Nope! A completely transparent atmosphere on Venus with the same ground
pressure as the current atmosphere would yield much lower ground
temperatures. What gives Venus such high ground temperature is the dense
atmosphere combined with the fact that the effective IR radiation region
resides so high up. Both factors are approx. equally important in the
case of Venus.

What have you written that you think I've ignored?

E.g. the so-called "saturation' of the CO2 IR bands.


I mentioned"pressure broadening" above. Do you know what that

means?:

Yes I know what pressure broadening is, and I also know what temperature
broadening is. But I'd still like to know, not merely speculate, at
what altitude in our atmosphere this broadening becomes significant in
these IR bands. Have you got any real information to provide about this?


You said I didn't respond, but it was you that failed to comment. Your
credibility is fading fast.


Trying to evade the fact that you're unable to provide any real
information here? It's YOUR credibility which is gone already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line



At surface pressures, the lines are wider. You bought a red

herring form
RC.



2. Even if the CO2 IR bands had been saturated, more CO2

in
our
atmosphere would still yield higher ground temperatures
(assuming
everying else was unchanged, of course).

You need to explain a bit more precisely why you think

that.
CO2
has
been increasing dramatically for the last decade, but the
average
surface
temperature isn't increasing.

CO2 didn't increase much more dramatically during the latest
decade than
during the several decades before that. The current pause in
the
global
warming is interesting though,

Especially since it disproves your hypothesis that CO2 has a
significant effect on surface temperatures..

Your demands on "disproof" is very slim......

The CO2 signal is indistinguishable from noise. Isn't that
insignificant?

It's easily measureable, and plainly seen above the noise level.


Where? I haven't seen it. Do you have a cite?


No answer? Got caught bluffing again? Bye, bye, credibility.


You must have seen this figure many many times, but here's another link
to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...Dioxide-en.svg

As you see, the measured CO2 increase is much larger than any noise.

and demonstrates that CO2 isn't the sole factor determining

the
average ground temperature.

And isn't even significant, as the heating "signal", if any,

is
overwhelmed by something else you'd rather ignore.

If you bothered to read on a few lines, I actually suggest what
this
"something else" could be. That's not ignoring it!

However, the current
pause in the warming isn't unique, there have been similar
pauses
a few
other times during the latest 160 or so years. Personally I
think
that
the current pause in the warming is linked to the latest

solar
minimum
which was unusually long and unusually deep. Some

astronomers
even
speculated we were entering a new Maunder minimum, but that
didn't
happen. Maybe after the next solar cycle.

Could be. But there's obviously something a lot more

significant
than
CO2 affecting surface temperatures.

If so, why hasn't the global temperature decreased

significantly
during
the latest decade? If the counteracting factor had been "a lot
more
significant" than increasing CO2, as you put it, then the

warming
ougt
to have turned into a cooling rather than merely a standstill

in
global
temperature.

OTOH, if CO2 were significant, why hasn't it overwhelmed the

other
causes, as was predicted by the IPCC?

1. Being significant doesn't imply being overwhelming, it merely

implies
being too large to ignore.

2. Did IPCC really predict that solar variiability always will
have an insignificant effect on global temperature?


Yes. They didn't include it in their models, and denied anything
but CO2 could explain their results.


No answer?


Provide a link verifying that IPCC says solar variability never affects
the climate. Such a claim is clearly wrong, and I don't think IPCC would
be stupid enough to say so. But I do expect many deniers to lie and
claim IPCC said so. So please provide a relevant link.


But the current pause in the global warming isn't unique during
the
latest century, there have been pauses earlier too, and they
lasted
20-30 years. The current pause has only lasted some 10 years so
far. So
it's too early to draw any firm conclusions about the current
pause, we
should wait another 20-30 years before doing that. An in
partucular it's
far too premature to deny CO2's role as a greenhouse gas....

I don't know of anyone denying the IR spectrum of CO2. The issue
is
whether CO2 represents a danger that requires redistribution of
wealth
for the planet's very survival. That sounds a bit premature to
me,
since no one seems to be able to provide and explain a
scientifically
defensible mechanism by which CO2 could cause such a danger.

Did anyone really predict the destruction of the Earth as a

result of
AGW? If so, who predicted that? Such a prediction can safely be

ignored
- nothing mankind can do to Earth can be worse than e.g. that

asteroid
impact 65 million years ago which killed the dinosaurs, and both

Earth
itself and life on Earth survived that.

And is redistribution of wealth what agonizes you the most? Well,
redistribution of wealth already happens on a large scale. It's

called
"Capitalism", and it makes some people rich and other people poor.
Remember 2008.....



I think I understand your problem now. I should have known.



Can you check your newsreader word wrap? It's making the thread
almost unreadable.


Good luck with your attempt to pose as a neutral observer, but I don't
think you're fooling anyone.


Sorry, but I don't play your game of trying to fool others.....

However, I'm obviously unable to convince a determined denier like you --
but what else is new?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No drivel like the drivel which BG spews. Chris.B[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 May 22nd 10 02:19 PM
No other drivel matches the drivel which Wretch spews Chris.B[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 May 21st 10 08:21 PM
The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock kT Policy 14 October 31st 07 08:30 PM
Solar warming v. Global warming Roger Steer Amateur Astronomy 11 October 20th 05 01:23 AM
Global warming v. Solar warming Roger Steer UK Astronomy 1 October 18th 05 10:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.