Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science

#31
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud#Effe...ate_change
Quote:High-level [cloud] genus-types particularly show this duality with both short-wave albedo cooling and long-wave greenhouse warming effects. On the whole, ice-crystal clouds in the upper troposphere (cirrus) tend to favor net warming.[119][120] However, the cooling effect is dominant with mid-level and low clouds, especially when they form in extensive sheets.[119] Measurements by NASA indicate that on the whole, the effects of low and mid-level clouds that tend to promote cooling outweigh the warming effects of high layers and the variable outcomes associated with vertically developed clouds.[119]
It seems the effect of clouds on climate isn't quite as cut and dried as a naive audience member might like to believe.

Picking up the lecture at the point of a large CME :-
https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo?t=359

The total amount of energy of the CME is negligeable compared to the Sun's output (I posted about this earlier but Syne didn't understand). Our hero speaks of X-rays:100x-100,000x increase (and more). "These are the biggest deliveries of energy.." - over two days (his figure) so the increase due to a flare is 0.00015% (see my post https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6830-page-2.html ). Hyperbole aside - is there anything other than cloud formation (nucleation) we should be looking at? Does he state - this could initiate cloud formation? Maybe next post I'll look at cloud formation.
Reply
#32
From that same link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud#Effe...ate_change

Most of the sunlight that reaches the ground is absorbed, warming the surface, which emits radiation upward at longer, infrared, wavelengths. At these wavelengths, however, water in the clouds acts as an efficient absorber. The water reacts by radiating, also in the infrared, both upward and downward, and the downward longwave radiation results in increased warming at the surface. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases and water vapor.
...
Broadly speaking, if clouds, especially low clouds, increase in a warmer climate, the resultant cooling effect leads to a negative feedback in climate response to increased greenhouse gases. But if low clouds decrease, or if high clouds increase, the feedback is positive. Differing amounts of these feedbacks are the principal reason for differences in climate sensitivities of current global climate models. As a consequence, much research has focused on the response of low and vertical clouds to a changing climate. Leading global models produce quite different results, however, with some showing increasing low clouds and others showing decreases. For these reasons the role of tropospheric clouds in regulating weather and climate remains a leading source of uncertainty in global warming projections.


And it's that same "uncertainty in global warming projections" which is currently being attributed to human activity. Way to cherry-pick your own citation.

When the ejection is directed towards Earth and reaches it as an interplanetary CME (ICME), the shock wave of traveling mass causes a geomagnetic storm that may disrupt Earth's magnetosphere, compressing it on the day side and extending the night-side magnetic tail. When the magnetosphere reconnects on the nightside, it releases power on the order of terawatt scale, which is directed back toward Earth's upper atmosphere.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_ma...t_on_Earth


That's one trillion watts as a secondary effect (not directly transmitted)..."directed back toward Earth's upper atmosphere". This is the THIRD time I've told the aptly named confused2 about this, but he hasn't understood it yet. And again, C2 has to make up this "over two days" duration, when the video timecode he just cited clearly specifies "in x-rays we see one hundred to one hundred thousand times increase over minutes to hours". C2 STILL hasn't justified this made up "over two days" claim that wasn't even in the source he cited when he first made it. If he were intellectually honest, he'd either find data to debunk that duration for these CME increases or redo his calculation with the duration actually given.

https://youtu.be/NYoOcaqCzxo?t=18m56s
Accelerating the creation of cloud condensation nuclei. Have you even watched the video, or are you just skipping around to cherry-pick and straw man it?

And that's just top-down forcing. He also discusses other thermal and electromagnetic coupling. You'd know that if you bothered to watch what you think you're supposedly debunking. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Reply
#33
Quote:For these reasons the role of tropospheric clouds in regulating weather and climate remains a leading source of uncertainty in global warming projections.
- where I see 'uncertainty' you seem to see 'ignored' - possibly one of us has a comprehension problem.

Being English I did interpret "increase ... over minutes to hours" as the time it took for the increase to occur rather than the length of time the high value lasted. He had just said "..a couple of days.." which is what lead me to make the mistake - sorry.

Quote:That's one trillion Watts as a secondary effect
The actual energy received by the Earth's disc is about 100,000 teraWatts (please confirm this) so a few terawatts (heat) more or less isn't going to make any difference to anything. It is the attempts to engage the audience with nonsense that damage the credibility of the rest of the lecture - if indeed it has any credibility. Moving on, if the event produced clouds which changed the albedo then he might have a point - but he makes no such claim.

Looking at his atmosphic resistive heating figures
200x1015 Ohm/m^2
250-500kV
GEC 10-12 A/m^2
where GEC is Global Electric Current

Given the obvious typos I'll refer to a credible source:-

From https://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SO...202007.pdf

Quote:The ionosphere is at a potential V of about 250 kV,maintained by an upward current of about 1000 A, from the totality of thunderclouds and other highly electrified clouds over the globe (Williams, 2005). The magnitude of the return current J is 1–6 pA/m^2.
Multiplying voltage by current (which gives power) I get about 0.25 to 1.5 Watts/m^2 distributed through the height of the atmosphere. This is three orders of magnitude lower than the direct heat from the Sun. In fairness this is within an order of magnitude of the change we are looking for so is not entirely insignificant. I'll give him a point for that but take it away again for not making clear clouds are the dominant effect he is talking about.
Reply
#34
(Mar 10, 2019 02:12 PM)confused2 Wrote:
Quote:For these reasons the role of tropospheric clouds in regulating weather and climate remains a leading source of uncertainty in global warming projections.
- where I see 'uncertainty' you seem to see 'ignored' - possibly one of us has a comprehension problem.
The uncertainty means that if it is natural forcing, they are attributing it to humans...as they are dealing with the same increase in global temperature, whether they account for that uncertainty as natural or human forcing. IOW, the uncertainty, itself, is ignored when they make such self-assured claims about how much human forcing is involved. It's not like they ever manage to say that humans are a primary/significant cause of climate change "unless"...

Quote:
Quote:That's one trillion Watts as a secondary effect
The actual energy received by the Earth's disc is about 100,000 teraWatts (please confirm this) so a few terawatts (heat) more or less isn't going to make any difference to anything. It is the attempts to engage the audience with nonsense that damage the credibility of the rest of the lecture - if indeed it has any credibility. Moving on, if the event produced clouds which changed the albedo then he might have a point - but he makes no such claim.

Again, apparently ad infinitum, the one trillion terawatts from a CME magnetosphere reconnect are in the form of plasma particles, which have a greater climate impact than just the raw heat directly transmitted.

Any time anyone is talking about a change in cloud cover related to climate change, they are talking about the albedo. How hard is that to understand?

Quote:In fairness this is within an order of magnitude of the change we are looking for so is not entirely insignificant. I'll give him a point for that but take it away again for not making clear clouds are the dominant effect he is talking about.

If you can't understand the simple point, that's a problem with your comprehension.
Reply
#35
A teraWatt of of plasma particles makes no sense whatsoever. Try some physics.
Reply
#36
(Mar 10, 2019 08:15 PM)confused2 Wrote: A teraWatt of of plasma particles makes no sense whatsoever. Try some physics.

Wow, so you honestly don't know that things like lightning are a plasma, huh? Rolleyes
And you don't know that everything is composed of particles? SMH.
Reply
#37
I think it has been shown that you can use science words to confirm a pre-existing bias.

Let's play this the other way round. I linked to a paper (an actual science paper) which matched temperature changes to what our hero calls 'particle forcing'. The writers admit (it is a science paper) that much more work needs to be done to match theory to observations - let's assume all of that work has been done and we have a perfect match to historical data. Happy Syne? Now let's increase the CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm entirely independently of particle forcing and historical bio-feedback mechanisms. Can the particle forcing model predict the effect of raising CO2 concentration when it isn't in the model? <laughter> - Clearly not <mutters of approval>- and that is the fatal flaw in the particle forcing model.
Reply
#38
Yes, you certainly do like to talk about things you obviously don't understand, like apparently not knowing that plasma conducts energy.

Particle forcing is only one factor in a climate model. No one claims that particle forcing alone explains everything, so your little "raising CO2 concentration... isn't in the model" is ignorant nonsense.
And if we ever manage to sort out what impact all the natural forcing actually has, instead of arbitrarily claiming any uncertainty must be applied as human activity, then we'll have a better idea of the impact of CO2. IOW, knowing one solves the other.

Claiming we already know everything is ideological hubris. Angel
Reply
#39
Maybe you missed the first line in the Youtube text
Quote:We must stop pollution for reasons of biosphere toxicity, NOT because of climate change.
Why is he saying "NOT because of climate change."?
Reply
#40
(Mar 11, 2019 01:09 AM)confused2 Wrote: Maybe you missed the first line in the Youtube  text
Quote:We must stop pollution for reasons of biosphere toxicity, NOT because of climate change.
Why is he saying "NOT because of climate change."?

Nope, I quoted that here: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6830-p...l#pid27241

Pollution, like the air in China or the water in Flint that has immediate health repercussions, is far more critical than the largely natural variability of the climate. The climate has always changed, and to much greater extremes than we currently predict for the foreseeable future. There are natural feedbacks and balancing forces that we do not fully appreciate, whereas direct pollution of the air, water, etc. is obviously caused by humans and just as obviously remediable by humans.

Climate change is only an issue for the targets of scaremongering, like the morons AOC convinces that the world is going to end in 12 years. Like Yaz said, slowly migrating weather patterns are no where near beyond the human capacity to adapt to.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Change will NOT end human civilization by 2050 C C 1 43 Jun 8, 2019 12:14 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate change responsible for uptick in kidney disease? C C 0 102 Feb 17, 2019 09:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why climate change skeptics are backing geoengineering C C 0 166 Jan 4, 2019 06:01 AM
Last Post: C C
  It’s time to look at the (political) science behind climate change C C 1 148 Dec 11, 2018 06:32 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Is Climate Change Draining Nutrients From Crops? C C 0 221 Aug 27, 2018 06:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Climate change to overtake land use as major threat to global biodiversity C C 1 162 Jun 21, 2018 04:43 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Climate Change Can Be Stopped by Turning Air Into Gasoline C C 2 272 Jun 20, 2018 12:10 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Climate Change Is Weakening a Crucial Ocean Current C C 0 233 Apr 11, 2018 08:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Can We “See” Climate Change? C C 9 1,131 Oct 25, 2017 07:42 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Will Climate Change Make Rockslides Worse + Shield to protect Earth from solar storms C C 0 253 Oct 3, 2017 05:01 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)