Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 113   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 54304 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #680 on: August 30, 2019, 08:16:44 am »

Yes indeed, but it becomes a fixed idea that there are no penalties to pay for altering the chemical balance of our atmosphere. I only studied Physics and Chemistry up to Highers level (Scottish), but learned enough to understand that there is no such thing as a one-sided alteration to the status quo: every action brings about a reaction.

That pumping zillions of tons of car exhaust (just one source of pollutant) into the air is not going to have a reaction on that air/atmosphere is cloud cuckoo land. It surprises me that otherwise brilliant people can force themselves to believe that the world can continue doing this without it having any effect. Because nature has given us volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters is not a valid reason to continue happily on our dangerous way; if anything, those events should be seen as what they are: natural disasters, not as some sort of benign contribution to the finer quality of life. We have seen only too clearly what recent eruptions have done to the world. Those eruptions subside, and after a while the solids come back down to Earth, but what about the lighter than air particles and gasses? Imagining that our own contributions to the mess, on a daily basis and with little appetite to desist, can do anything but increase the damage beggars belief. Yet, it's what they argue.

I, for one, could not make that up.


Rob

You certainly have made it up, Rob. Either that, or you're very confused about the whole issue.

I've never had a conversation with anyone who believes that it's okay to pump zillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Toxic waste from industrial activities, plastic waste and general rubbish discarded randomly into the landscape, smog in the atmosphere consisting of particulate carbon from coal-fired power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and other pollutants from cars, such as Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and various Nitrogen Oxides, need to be controlled and significantly reduced. No sensible person would argue against that.

The latest 'state-of-the-art' emission controls reduce these pollutants from coal-fired power plants and vehicles to insignificant levels, especially when the 'state-of-the-art' emission controls are combined with the more efficient Ultra-Supercritical coal power plants.

Unfortunately, some of the Ultra-Supercritical plants are not combined with the latest emission controls, because of the additional construction and maintenance costs.

From the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#cars 

"Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions), while Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled has dramatically increased." Refer attached graph.

The confusion lies in the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant. I bought a new car last year which I'm very pleased with. However, I wish it had been an electric car at a similar price because they are potentially more efficient, and no matter how effective the emission controls are in the latest petrol-driven vehicles, they still produce noise pollution.

Unfortunately, the electric vehicle has been rather slow in development partly because of the conflict between their perceived benefit in reducing all CO2 emissions and the necessity of having a reliable electricity supply for recharging, which requires a continuation and even a growth of fossil fuel power plants which emit the non-polluting CO2.

Imagine a million people in a large city attempting to recharge their electric vehicles at the same time, after returning from the day's work. Solar and Wind power, even with back-up gasoline generators, wouldn't be able to handle it.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 08:26:29 am by Ray »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #681 on: August 30, 2019, 09:25:45 am »

You certainly have made it up, Rob. Either that, or you're very confused about the whole issue.

I've never had a conversation with anyone who believes that it's okay to pump zillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Toxic waste from industrial activities, plastic waste and general rubbish discarded randomly into the landscape, smog in the atmosphere consisting of particulate carbon from coal-fired power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and other pollutants from cars, such as Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and various Nitrogen Oxides, need to be controlled and significantly reduced. No sensible person would argue against that.

The latest 'state-of-the-art' emission controls reduce these pollutants from coal-fired power plants and vehicles to insignificant levels, especially when the 'state-of-the-art' emission controls are combined with the more efficient Ultra-Supercritical coal power plants.

Unfortunately, some of the Ultra-Supercritical plants are not combined with the latest emission controls, because of the additional construction and maintenance costs.

From the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#cars 

"Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions), while Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled has dramatically increased." Refer attached graph.

The confusion lies in the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant. I bought a new car last year which I'm very pleased with. However, I wish it had been an electric car at a similar price because they are potentially more efficient, and no matter how effective the emission controls are in the latest petrol-driven vehicles, they still produce noise pollution.

Unfortunately, the electric vehicle has been rather slow in development partly because of the conflict between their perceived benefit in reducing all CO2 emissions and the necessity of having a reliable electricity supply for recharging, which requires a continuation and even a growth of fossil fuel power plants which emit the non-polluting CO2.

Imagine a million people in a large city attempting to recharge their electric vehicles at the same time, after returning from the day's work. Solar and Wind power, even with back-up gasoline generators, wouldn't be able to handle it.

Fair enough, perhaps not face-to-face, but here on this foum they are present all the time, telling us that things were ever thus, and global warming but a myth.

You can do your own research here for that one - it's easy to find them.

;-)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14728
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #682 on: August 30, 2019, 09:40:18 am »

...and global warming but a myth.

I don't think anyone's said that, Rob. What the people with some actual understanding of the situation have said is that the earth warms and the earth cools. It's been doing that as far back as we can track things with paleogeology and paleontology. The real problem is the sun, and windmills and solar panels aren't going to help us control the sun. But the prospect of a new ice age that was all the rage fifty years ago, and the current fashion of an earth getting unbearably hot make it possible for people to come up with scary charts, and in panicky voices "debate" the situation. This will go on as long as there are people. It's all politics, and as long as you have even two people left on the earth you'll have politics.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #683 on: August 30, 2019, 10:02:59 am »

Here's an interesting article from a very qualified contrarian on the climatic significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the huge inaccuracies of climate models.

The author, Dr J.R. Christy is so qualified, I suspect Bart will call him a 'crackpot', attacking the person rather than the evidence.  ;D

About the author

"Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollution (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims of climate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications.
This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019."


https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf

"If an engineer built an airplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models."

Below is an interesting cartoon representing the balance that our planet naturally creates.

By the way, in order to understand this article you need at least the capacity to understand the DXOMark graphs comparing camera sensor performance.  ;D
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #684 on: August 30, 2019, 10:04:19 am »

It's all politics, and as long as you have even two people left on the earth you'll have politics.

Nope. It’s all actually science. And if you have a better theory then there are effective ways for you to present it.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #685 on: August 30, 2019, 10:07:12 am »

Here's an interesting article from a very qualified contrarian on the climatic significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the huge inaccuracies of climate models.

The author, Dr J.R. Christy is so qualified, I suspect Bart will call him a 'crackpot', attacking the person rather than the evidence.  ;D

Since you don’t present any evidence that will be tricky.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #686 on: August 30, 2019, 10:24:05 am »

Since you don’t present any evidence that will be tricky.

I've given you a summary of his view which also mentions the existence of a 100 peer-reviewed publications, which you can find if you're interested. If I were to present the actual evidence, it would be several hundred pages or more. This is not the site for that. Try to be more rational.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14728
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #687 on: August 30, 2019, 10:31:33 am »

Try to be more rational.

Good luck with that.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #688 on: August 30, 2019, 10:36:43 am »

I've given you a summary of his view which also mentions the existence of a 100 peer-reviewed publications, which you can find if you're interested. If I were to present the actual evidence, it would be several hundred pages or more. This is not the site for that. Try to be more rational.

Not really - you quoted some trivial analogy.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #689 on: August 30, 2019, 10:37:49 am »

Good luck with that.

Careful with the personal attacks, Russ - you don’t want Roussak banning you, do you?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #690 on: August 30, 2019, 10:45:55 am »

Not really - you quoted some trivial analogy.

So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #691 on: August 30, 2019, 11:37:23 am »

Here's an interesting article from a very qualified contrarian on the climatic significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the huge inaccuracies of climate models.

The author, Dr J.R. Christy is so qualified, I suspect Bart will call him a 'crackpot', attacking the person rather than the evidence.  ;D

About the author

"Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollution (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims of climate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications.
This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019."


https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf

"If an engineer built an airplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models."

Below is an interesting cartoon representing the balance that our planet naturally creates.

By the way, in order to understand this article you need at least the capacity to understand the DXOMark graphs comparing camera sensor performance.  ;D

Ray, In fairness to my own theories, and yours I believe,  that it's not enough time to "test" global warming theories, isn;t it also not enough time to prove this researcher's theories either?  15 years to "re-prove" his theory and other short term collection by questionable means raises issues regardless of which theory may be proposed.  There could well be other factors neither side has considered that may add weight one way or the other.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #692 on: August 30, 2019, 12:49:48 pm »

So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?

I did read the article and concluded that it is not a peer reviewed scientific paper but (I assume a summary of) a talk held for a thinktank that has a somewhat dubious reputation. That doesn't say much about Dr. Christy but his conclusions seem to be proven wrong by the recent record of actual temperature rise. Others who have spent a bit more time on looking at his claims in that presentation, seem to object to the so-called evidence he produces:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=23&t=1141&&a=15#132190

And although I have not read enough of his work to have an opinion about his work, there are others who have commented on a number of his statements:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #693 on: August 30, 2019, 01:46:29 pm »

I did read the article and concluded that it is not a peer reviewed scientific paper but (I assume a summary of) a talk held for a thinktank that has a somewhat dubious reputation.

No need to assume. It was stated clearly in the article that "This paper is based on a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019".

Quote
That doesn't say much about Dr. Christy but his conclusions seem to be proven wrong by the recent record of actual temperature rise. Others who have spent a bit more time on looking at his claims in that presentation, seem to object to the so-called evidence he produces:

It's difficult to prove anything relating to the causes of climate change. But one can prove that climate-model predictions made 30 to 40 years ago were drastically wrong and exaggerated, which is Dr Christy's main point in this article.

In other words, the claimed sensitivity of the climate to anthropogenic emissions of CO2, has been grossly exaggerated, so far.

Quote
And although I have not read enough of his work to have an opinion about his work, there are others who have commented on a number of his statements:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm

Dr John Christy is a very qualified climate scientist with over 100 peer-reviewed papers to his credit. Skepticalscience.com is a biased, climate alarmist site which doesn't tolerate any serious differences of opinion. I know because I've commented on the site, politely and rationally, and have been banned twice, using different names. On that site, any unqualified person can waffle on with their subjective views, as long as they support the alarmist position. That's not science. I strive to be objective.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #694 on: August 30, 2019, 03:36:52 pm »

So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?

Correct. I deduced from the forum and from the quote you provided that it was rhetoric not science.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #695 on: August 30, 2019, 09:20:40 pm »

The problem with destruction is not that the climate is changing.  Rather it's because people are moving to where the destruction happens such as mid-Florida where Hurricane Dorian is likely to hit.

"How We Create Our Own Hurricane Catastrophes"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/florida-hurricane.html

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14728
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #696 on: August 31, 2019, 09:40:02 am »

Correct. I deduced from the forum and from the quote you provided that it was rhetoric not science.

How about giving us an idea of what you think is "science," Jeremy?
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #697 on: August 31, 2019, 11:51:23 am »

How about giving us an idea of what you think is "science," Jeremy?

Not Jeremy, but I'll help you with one of many definitions.

Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Quote
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14728
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #698 on: August 31, 2019, 11:55:15 am »

Okay, Bart, give me an example of a "testable explanation" associated with climate change: something other than the "testable explanation" that the earth gets warmer and it gets cooler and it has done those things off and on as far back in time as we can find evidence to support our findings.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8847
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #699 on: August 31, 2019, 12:37:42 pm »

Okay, Bart, give me an example of a "testable explanation" associated with climate change: something other than the "testable explanation" that the earth gets warmer and it gets cooler and it has done those things off and on as far back in time as we can find evidence to support our findings.

Why something other?

We can measure the temperature (the conditions are standardized by the WMO), air-temperature on land, water-temperature at sea, air-temperature in the troposphere, and do that systematically in many places for a long period of time. That shows that they are generally rising globally, more so in the Northern hemisphere (relatively more land-mass) than the Southern hemisphere (relatively more water-mass).

We can measure the Sun's energy as it reaches the earth's surface, and we can measure the reflected energy back into space. The reflected energy has longer wavelengths than the incoming energy.

This longer wavelength of reflected energy is partly absorbed by the CO2 molecules in the air which was more transparent for the shorter wavelengths that allowed them to reach the earth's surface in the first place.

By colliding with other molecules in the air, the atmosphere heats up. Usually more at lower altitudes and less at higher altitudes on average.

The warmer atmosphere can contain more water-vapor which also traps reflected energy but more at different wavelengths than CO2 does. They kind of complement each other.

I could go on with more examples of individually testable phenomena that add to the body of Scientific knowledge.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 113   Go Up