Solving climate crisis will require a total transformation of global energy

Renewable energy is the subject of magical thinking.
The Future Of Energy: One Of These Things Is Not Real
June 07, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  As we all know, making predictions can be difficult, especially about the future. On the other hand, sometimes it’s just a question of distinguishing reality on the ground from pure self-delusion.
  
  
• At the moment, we have two visions competing to be the reigning official prediction of the future of energy. One of those visions, foreseeing the rapid demise of fossil fuels, is on full display even as we speak in a virtual summit put on by the American Clean Power Association.
  
  
• The summit began today and is running for four days, through Thursday June 10. The speakers are a who’s who of “clean energy” glitterati, starting with essentially all the leading U.S. Democratic pols. OK, President Biden is not speaking; but then, he doesn’t get out much these days in his dotage. But the speaker list includes both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well as all the leading Biden admin “climate” officials (Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, Climate Envoy John Kerry, White House Climate Czar Gina McCarthy} and plenty of representatives of “woke” corporate America (e.g., Andrew Steer of the Bezos Earth Fund, Anne Finucane of Bank of America). And on and on.
  
  
• You get the idea. These people are our betters, and to the extent they are not actually the “experts” themselves, we can be sure that they are tightly tied in to the true experts by direct brain connections.
  
  
• The other vision of the future of energy can be called the “reality on the ground.”
  

READ MORE

 

In order for that to make any sense, you will have to define "greenhouse gases".

And I've already told you why you're wrong on this point.

This is one of the favorite go-to arguments of Warmizombies. I call it the Magick Blanket Argument. It argues that CO2 "keeps us warm" just like a blanket "keeps us warm". The main issue with this argument is that it is a false equivalency.

The blanket is not what is warming the person. We are our own source of thermal energy (we are warm blooded). We are still warming ourselves all the same. The blanket is simply acting as a coupling reducer between our bodies and the colder air around us, allowing us to maintain our body temperature with less energy consumption. The blanket also creates a bit of "trapped air", and air is not a good conductor of heat (hence why CPU fans are needed, which is likewise why we feel warmer when we wrap a blanket around ourselves). Try putting a blanket over a lizard sometime and see what happens... Hint: the lizard will not get any warmer.

CO2, on the other hand, does not trap air nor does it insulate anything any more than air already does. CO2 is actually a fairly good conductor of heat (unlike air), and the open atmosphere has convection.

TLDR: You cannot equate a thermal energy source (a person) with a non-thermal energy source (rocks, dirt, oceans, etc... "Earth's surface").

No, it's yours. See above.

Define "greenhouse gas".

RELEVANT. Atmospheric gases radiate all the same as anything else that is above absolute zero in temperature. Thermal energy does not flow from cold to hot.

CO2 does not insulate anything any more than air already does. See above.

False equivalence. You cannot equate a thermal energy source with a non-thermal energy source. See above.

Rocks cannot warm themselves... Water cannot warm itself... dirt cannot warm itself... A lizard cannot warm itself... They all require an outside source of thermal energy (such as the Sun).

Nope, it does not.

This temperature is unknown. We do not have near enough thermometers in order to measure it to any usable accuracy.

Ahhhh, so CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is making Earth's surface warmer, eh?? Then riddle me this... Why is the daytime side of the moon (no appreciable atmosphere) so much HOTTER than the daytime side of the Earth (has an appreciable atmosphere)?

This is how I know that you are a warmizombie (your avoidance of the word 'emissivity').

Nope... Earth's atmosphere does not warm it in any way.

Your Magick Blanket Argument has been debunked. See above.

Yup. So? It is still a part of Earth as a whole.

A closed system is simply a system with defined boundaries.

It IS a closed system (it has defined boundaries).

I'm not. I've been talking about the Sun-Earth-Space system this whole time. It has defined boundaries.

Define "greenhouse gases". It is not possible to trap heat, as there is no such thing as a perfect insulator. There is ALWAYS heat (flow of thermal energy). I have already addressed the false equivalence that you are making here.

Blankets do not trap heat. They trap air. There is still heat; the blanket has only reduced it.

You've been arguing this whole time that they are (they are "warming the Earth").

Yes there is.

No it isn't. It is radiation.

The presence of an atmosphere is irrelevant. Earth is a black body and the SB Law applies to it just as it applies to any other matter. The SB Law applies to all matter, anytime, anywhere. You simply wish for it to not apply because it blows your wacky Global Warming religion right out of the water...

The Earth is a black body, and the SB Law applies to it just as it applies to all other matter. You can't simply toss it away because it exposes your wacky religion for what it is...

A blanket does not warm one's skin. "Greenhouse gases" do not warm Earth's surface. See my prior explanations for details.

Here, I'm just going to copy and paste a friend's post that gets into the mathematical issues at hand with this:

It is time to consider why it is not possible to do things like measure the temperature of the Earth again.

This is a statistical math problem. Statistical math is a wonderful tool for summarizing past or existing data. It's use of random numbers, however, inhibit the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics. Thus, statistical math is incapable of predicting a summary.

In any summary, two numbers are produced as a final output: the data summary itself (based on averages), and the margin of error. This is the plus/minus number you see in a summary. This number is not calculated from the data, but from the possible variance of the data. In the case of temperature, that variance is the possible number of degrees that may change in a single fixed distance, say a mile. This will be an observed value. Personally, I have observed variances as steep as 20 deg F per mile. This usually happens during a fast moving cold front, or can be the result of a mountain wave compression in high winds. Variances can also occur due to changes in vegetation in a very short space as well.

To begin a summary, you must first select the data. Selection must follow a few simple rules to avoid a biased (and useless) summary. First, data must be selected by randN. This is the type of random number that drawing from a deck of cards uses. Once picked, a data point may not be picked again. If it is picked, it can only be picked once, not twice, not 0.7 times, but ONCE.

This requirement that data must be selected by randN means you cannot select from cooked data. The data must be selected from a raw source with no adjustments. That means you cannot 'adjust' for heat island effects, the type of weather prevalent, etc.

Time is significant. Storms move, the Earth spins, air moves, etc. The effects of time must be eliminated. That means the temperatures must all be read at the same time.

Location grouping is significant. The effects of a temperature in one area has little to do with the effects of temperature in another area, even nearby. An urban heat island effect is theorized, thus a lot of thermometers in cities will produce a possible biased result. This effect must be eliminated. Thermometers must be placed uniformly across the surface of the Earth.

The number of thermometers is significant. This number is used along with the observed possible variance to calculate the margin of error value. Thus, the first question to ask is how many thermometers are used to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Fortunately, places like NOAA and NASA do document how many thermometer are used. The higher number is used by NASA and is roughly some 7500 thermometers spread across the Earth. These thermometers are NOT uniformly distributed. They are concentrated in cities and on roads (they must be serviced). For the sake of argument, however, I will assume they are uniformly placed.

The surface of the Earth is 197 million square miles. Spreading 7500 thermometers across this surface results in one thermometer for every 26,267 square miles. This is approximately the size of West Virginia or South Carolina. In other words, it is one thermometer for the entire State of West Virginia.

Since the observed possible variance can be as steep as 20 deg F per mile, the result of any summary using this number of thermometers produces a margin of error that is essentially the widest spread of temperatures ever observed as the high and low temperatures on Earth. This effectively means the summary is nothing more than a wild guess.

Thus, the NASA data is manufactured. So is the NOAA data. So is the IPCC data. So is any data that claims to be the temperature of the Earth. We have no idea if the Earth is cooling, warming, or just staying the same.

RAAA. (repetitive argumentation already addressed)

Nope... You do know that temperature can often enough vary by 20degF per mile, right? Such a high variance means that you would need a boatload of thermometers in order to get any sort of accurate results in the end. This doesn't even get into the location grouping biases in such data (since thermometers can only be placed in areas where they can be serviced).

RAAA.

 

Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation at the wavelengths typical of the earth's thermal IR emissions.

No, you claimed it, but I proved you wrong.

No it isn't. The analogy is valid, accurate, and informative.

<yawn> Then why do people use them?

Wrong again. FOOD is our source of thermal energy, and the sun is the source of all the energy in our food. Similarly, solar radiation is the source of the earth's surface heat, which the blanket of greenhouse gases helps retain.

Exactly as greenhouse gases do between the earth's surface and the cold of outer space. Thank you for proving me right and yourself wrong again.

No, energy consumption is barely affected. A blanket is mainly to warm the skin for comfort.

No, I already proved you wrong on that point, too, remember? Plastic film will trap air much more efficiently than a blanket, but does not warm the skin as a blanket does because it does not stop IR radiation. By contrast, a reflective "space blanket" warms the skin much more effectively than plastic wrap despite not providing as good an air barrier.

No, I already proved you wrong about that, too, remember? ALL animals generate metabolic heat. Lizards just don't regulate their body temperature as birds and mammals do. Some people put clothes on their pet iguanas to keep them warmer and more active in the winter. Why can't you ever remember that I have already proved you objectively wrong on all your claims?

False. Greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb infrared radiation from the earth's surface, reducing the loss of heat to outer space, which nitrogen and oxygen do not because of their molecular structure. Water vapor is much more abundant than CO2, and its insulating effect is easily proved by the difference in night-time cooling rate between a desert and a rain forest at the same latitude.

Please try to remember that I have already proved you objectively wrong on every substantive claim you have made.

No, there is very little difference between the heat conductivity of air and CO2.

Which also transports heat away from the earth's surface.

I didn't. You simply made that up. The energy source is the sun, which warms the earth's surface. I have corrected your strawman fallacies on that point many times, and you just ignore the fact that I have corrected you and repeat the same strawman fallacy over and over again.

No, it's yours. I proved you wrong. See above.

See above.

Nope.

False. Molecular gases preferentially absorb and radiate photons at characteristic wavelengths. That is very much the point.

But it can be prevented from flowing from hot (the earth's surface) to cold (outer space). That is also very much the point.

Already refuted. See above. The example of water vapor's effect on night-time cooling of desert vs rain forest climates also applies to CO2, except that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and its concentration does not vary as much geographically as water vapor's does.

Already refuted. See above.

I didn't. See above. The sun is the thermal energy source for the earth's surface, not CO2. I have informed you of that fact many times, and you just ignore it and repeat the same strawman fallacy.

<yawn> Stop pretending I haven't told you many times that the earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and CO2's effect is to reduce the rate of heat loss, like a blanket.

Yep, it does.

Already proved false. The required statistical techniques are well known and not difficult to use.

Because only the top few centimeters of the moon's surface are being heated by the sun, while the earth's whole troposphere and oceans are. Put an empty pot on a stove burner, and see how much hotter it gets than a pan full of water.

I didn't avoid it. You simply made that up.

Yes it does, in two ways: the Combined Gas Law and the insulating effect of greenhouse gases. That is why the earth's surface is so much warmer than the moon's, even though they are both the same distance from the sun and the moon's albedo is much lower.

No it hasn't. See above.

We are concerned with CO2's effect on the earth's SURFACE temperature, not its internal or top-of-atmosphere temperature.

But to be closed in the thermodynamic sense, as you falsely claim the earth is, no energy can pass through those boundaries.

It is not closed thermodynamically because it gets energy from the sun and loses it to outer space.

Then why have you been pretending the earth's surface can't be warmed by CO2 because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics??

See above.

<yawn> Blankets trap heat just fine without being perfect insulators.

No, you have only falsely claimed there is no equivalence. And I have already proved the equivalence is correct and that you are wrong.

Yes they do. That is why people buy them.

Not as well as plastic film, yet they warm the body much more effectively than plastic film. Such a mystery.

To you, that is...

Like CO2 reduces heat flow away from the earth.

The earth's SURFACE.

No there isn't.

Yes it is.

It is also net radiation because 99% of the radiation the sun produces is internal, and is absorbed by the sun. I am therefore objectively correct. Your attempt to evade that fact by quibbling is disingenuous, despicable, and disgraceful.

Your refusal to know objective facts is irrelevant.

It most certainly is not.

That's just objectively false. The S-B Law only applies to a black body, a theoretical surface that absorbs all incident radiation. The earth doesn't, as it has a positive albedo. You are just objectively wrong, as usual.

It doesn't apply, as I just proved to you. And if you had read any of my posts on the subject, you would know I do not subscribe to the view that CO2 governs the earth's surface temperature.

The earth is not a black body:

"A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Any competent physicist can see which of us is wacky.

Then why do people buy them?

They most certainly do. See my comprehensive and conclusive refutations of your "explanations."

No it isn't.

False. randN is just a convenient source of random numbers.

False.

False.

False. Geographical sampling can be used to correct for unequal distribution.

That's not the variance.

Gibberish with no basis in statistical methodology.

Garbage.

Refuted above.

False.

Irrelevant. The representativeness of the locations can also be checked statistically.

There is a difference between claiming to have addressed an argument and actually addressing it.

 

GFM7175: "Ahhhh, so CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is making Earth's surface warmer, eh?? Then riddle me this... Why is the daytime side of the moon (no appreciable atmosphere) so much HOTTER than the daytime side of the Earth (has an appreciable atmosphere)?"

Moon Albedo - Universe Today

"The albedo of the Moon is 0.12. In other words, the Moon reflects back 12% of all the radiation that falls upon it. As you may or may not know, albedo is a term that astronomers use to measure reflectivity of an object in space; more specifically, it measures how much of the Sun’s radiation an object reflects"

That was a much smaller value than what I expected. The moon may have some ice at the poles but it has no water or atmosphere of any significance.
The earth reflects about 30% of the sun's rays.

The daytime temperature of the moon is much hotter than the daytime side of the earth, but the night time temperature of the moon is much colder
than an average night time temperature of the earth. This does not refute the greenhouse effect. The moon has a lower albedo than the earth, it
is about the same distance from the sun as the earth, so it should be receiving more energy from the sun per unit of surface area. You forgot to
mention how cold it gets at night on the moon.

What Is The Temperature On The Moon? | Centigrade and Fahrenheit (nineplanets.org)

"When illuminated by the sun, the surface of the moon can reach up to 127 degrees Celsius (260 Fahrenheit). When the illuminated side moves into darkness, the temperature falls significantly. Since the sun no longer heats the surface, the moon’s surface can drop to -232 Celsius (-387 F). These are the coldest temperatures in our solar system, which means the surface of the moon becomes colder than that of Pluto."

 

"Folks like me" constitute the vast majority of the scientifically literate world. I am not religious and never have been. I waste my time on this forum
because of my interest in this scientific issue and because it has huge implications for humanity. The subject of climate science is interesting and
complicated but it is not based on guesses.

Some scientists say that climate science is just like any other science and that is probably true with the exception that climate science is very complicated
and depends on many different fields so it cannot be easily summed up with a few equations or a brief explanation.

I am skeptical about many of the "skeptical" arguments trying to refute anthropogenic climate change. I acknowledge that their are some highly
intelligent individuals who put forth arguments against AGW and some of them are difficult to completely refute. I find the mainstream arguments
more compelling.

 

To TEJAS: Don't copy and paste those long commentaries. You should give your own commentary and only paste a small portion of
the source. You are violating forum rules but I did not report you and no one is going to read all of that.

 

I've seen no credible evidence that that is the case.

 

I want to state that I was wrong about the concentration of well-mixed greenhouse gases being lower at their emission heights. You are right on that; they have

all been increasing since humans have been altering the atmosphere. What I find confusing is that the density of air decreases with height,

so the concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen decrease with height, but carbon dioxide and other GHGs only change by a few percent.

density(z) is approximately = density (sea level) times exp[-z/H] , where z = height of the gas and H = scale height and the pressure and density curves
are very similar.

The optical path of carbon dioxide increases as the emission height increases and the temperature at which carbon dioxide radiates out to space goes down

with increasing concentration. You are right that there are more carbon dioxide molecules radiating away energy to space at the new emission

height but can that make up for the difference of the emission occurring at a lower temperature? The energy radiated away by atmospheric

carbon dioxide depends on the 4th power of its temperature and this change is a larger effect than the increase in concentration - which is linear.


This statement is confusing: "Again, it is not the concentration of GHGs that governs emission altitude, it's the density."

If the concentration of CO2 goes up then why wouldn't the density of CO2 go up? There is a linear conversion factor to get from conc. to density.


I know that Angstrom wasn't entirely right and I will get back to you on that.

 

I am not a political person, I don't demand anything from others and my interest is mostly intellectual - understanding the climate and the impacts humans

are having on the environment. The real world is consistent with AGW.


I don't turn a blind eye towards China and they are bad actors in the world.


There is a mathematical definition of global mean surface temperature and it is an abstraction. It's only reality is in its usefulness as a single number in which

to discuss climate change for the entire surface of the earth over time.


The main evidence in global surface warming comes from both the ocean and land surface temperature records, but we also have most of the world's glaciers

shrinking in size, the atmospheric temperature record, changes in the biosphere consistent with significant global warming, and measurements of a positive

energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere existing for many decades.

 

This is from a NASA study by James Hansen that found that the Earth had a positive energy imbalance of +0.58 watts/square meter from 2005 to 2010.
Note that the study was performed during a period of a prolonged solar minimum. These results are consistent with other studies done from 1990 to the present.
The range of positive energy imbalances (meaning that the Earth is out of thermal equilibrium and that its surface is warming) range from 0.4 to 1.0 watts/sq. meter.

NASA GISS: Science Brief: Earth's Energy Imbalance
Earth's Energy Imbalance
By James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha and Karina von Schuckmann — January 2012

"The fact that Earth gained energy at a rate 0.58 W/m2 during a deep prolonged solar minimum reveals that there is a strong positive forcing overwhelming the negative forcing by below-average solar irradiance. That result is not a surprise, given knowledge of other forcings, but it provides unequivocal refutation of assertions that the Sun is the dominant climate forcing."



Figure 2. Solar irradiance in the era of accurate satellite data. Left scale is the energy passing through an area perpendicular to Sun-Earth line. Averaged over Earth's surface the absorbed solar energy is ~240 W/m2, so the amplitude of solar variability is a forcing of ~0.25 W/m2. (Credit: NASA/GISS)

 

No, their density does. Their concentrations increase slightly with altitude as water vapor condenses out: 2% less water vapor --> 2% more CO2, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.

Because water vapor is no longer present except as a small trace.

Huh? That makes no sense. Do you mean increasing altitude??

It has to, because the radiative equilibrium is maintained.

I already explained that: spherical geometry implies that the emission window expands with altitude, and very rapidly in the relevant range.

It does go up, FOR any given altitude. But because the emission altitude increases, the density stays about the same. Think about it: the emission altitude is governed by the probability that an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule will be absorbed higher up in the atmosphere, and that is strictly determined by the total amount of CO2 (i.e., the integral of CO2 density) between the emitting molecule and outer space. The key point you seem to be missing is the simple geometric one: as you go higher in the atmosphere, the probability of absorption declines even more rapidly for photons emitted at a shallow angle than for ones emitted straight up.

He was right about increased CO2 having almost no effect on IR radiative heat transfer in atmospheric air at the earth's surface, which is what counts.

 

What rule am I violating for quoting my brother who is an expert on climate?

There are so many strange draconian rules on this forum... how can anyone keep from violating some of them?

.

 

Yes, because the sun was more active in the 20th century than it has been for thousands of years, which naturally returned the earth to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest (i.e., lowest-solar-activity) 500-year period in the last 10,000 years. That climate change has nothing whatever to do with CO2. You need to make an argument that the warming must have been caused by increased CO2 because the natural cyclical factors that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes are no longer operative. You have not made and cannot make any such argument, and neither has anyone else, nor can they.

 

I have read the rules and you should read them. They are similar to other forums when it comes to copying and pasting from
sources. It is a violation of the rules to copy and paste without giving some of your own opinions first and then you should limit
your pasting of comments to only a paragraph or 2. You are supposed to acknowledge the source. Some people routinely
violate the rules and get away with it because there is often only 1 moderator working from what I understand. If there
wasn't such a rule then the forum could be used for propaganda by flooding the forum with copied material representing
one point of view. It is best to briefly summarize the contents of what you want to post and then copy and paste the most important
points in the article. The opinions should be yours and not your brothers.

It doesn't matter who your source is. Your brother may be an expert but there are thousands of experts with different opinions.

P.S. I may at some time read through some of that lengthy post and comment.

 

From what I have read, an atmospheric carbon dioxide molecule will quickly lose the vibrational energy gained after absorbing a photon emitted
by another carbon dioxide molecule. Very often that energy is lost through a collision with either an oxygen or nitrogen molecule. Only rarely
does a carbon dioxide molecule return to the unexcited state by emitting a photon. The kinetic energy transferred to the air is one way that
the atmosphere is warmed.

If the density of oxygen and nitrogen decline with height, then their concentrations must decline with height. Isn't that a fact? I am not talking
about the relative concentrations of those gases which doesn't change very much. As you mentioned, there is 2% more of those gases as
water vapor condenses out. It is a well know fact that oxygen molecules are spaced further apart as the elevation above sea level increases.
Why do CO2 molecules not display this behavior?


I am not the only person who has difficulty with this subject. I read this about an hour ago from "The science of Doom" blog. I don't know
exactly what Eli Rabett means. If the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up then the concentration at which it radiates out
to space must go up also (since there is near uniform conc. with height through the atmosphere up to about 100 km. So "the concentration at level at which the atmosphere emits" can't be constant for increasing levels of CO2. It just radiates out to space at a higher elevation. I was thinking that this could have something to do with a lower probability of excited CO2 molecules colliding with oxygen and nitrogen, and increasing the probability of photon emission to space. Your changing geometry argument with height is one that I hadn't read about.


Eli Rabett: The “Greenhouse” Effect Explained in Simple Terms | The Science of Doom

"Increasing CO2 DECREASES the emission from the troposphere. A simple way to think about this is that the concentration at the level at which the atmosphere emits is constant, because if concentration increased, then radiation would be trapped at the current emission level and would have to occur higher up, and if it decreased, emission would come from a lower level."

 

I figured out my misunderstanding about 20 minutes following the previous post. CO2 molecules show a similar drop off in concentration to oxygen and
all other air molecules. My difficulty was realizing that CO2 is usually expressed in units of ppm when one discusses concentration. However, in my
previous posts I was intending to mean absolute concentration, not relative concentration. The ppm units are of course a relative concentration.

So, Eli Rabett might be saying the same thing that I was saying when I said that the concentration, meaning absolute concentration, stays about the same
for CO2 at the emission height. The idea is that the spacing of CO2 molecules above a radiating CO2 molecule at the emission height becomes so great
that the probability of that photon being absorbed by another CO2 molecule declines enough for that photon to escape to outer space.

 

Density. Concentration is measured in ppM, density in gm/m^3 or mole/m^3.

What is "absolute concentration"? Do you mean density?

That's what concentration is. If you mean density, say density. It will make the discussion a lot clearer.

That should be obvious from the physical process: what is the probability an emitted photon will be reabsorbed before it escapes to outer space? The answer depends directly on how many potential absorber molecules are in the way.

Right. And as density halves for each 3km in altitude, doubling CO2 will increase the average emission altitude by ~3km, with some allowance for the lower characteristic emission temperature and increased window size at higher altitude.

 

Thanks for the information.

For the past 20 years, I've been posting on Russia's Pravda forum that gave posters free reign of topics and methods of posting.

I am not educated in climate, so my personal opinion doesn't matter. But I thought posters on this climate topic might like to see what a NASA scientist who actively participates in a professional climate study group says on the subject. Apparently I was mistaken so I apologize for interrupting your discussion.

.

 

Look at the graph that I presented on oxygen concentration vs. altitude. Note that the concentration of oxygen is in units of molecules per cubic meter.

Those are the units of what I call "absolute concentration". Dividing the "absolute concentration" by Avagodro's number and multiplying by the molecular weight

of carbon dioxide converts this to density in units of grams per cubic meter.


Since the radiating surface area at the emission height for CO2 increases with increasing CO2 relative concentration, the number of CO2

molecules radiating at this higher altitude increases. That seems to be the crux of your point. I am equating increased radiating surface area to what

you called increased window size, if that is what you meant. Since the temperature drops as the emission height increases and radiance depends

on temperature raised to the 4th power, this temperature dependence on energy emitted will be a greater effect than the increase in the

absolute number of CO2 molecules created by an increased window size. This is a qualitative argument so it could be wrong. One would have

to do the calculations to know for sure.

 

I read through the first page of your brother's post and the beginning of the second page. When did he write this article? He mentions only 0.8 degrees C. of
global warming since the late 19th century. We have had around 0.90 to 0.95 degree C. from 1970 to 2020. We are not in a natural down cycle since the
late 1990's. It is true that atmospheric CO2 concentration did not increase by much between 1750 and 1950, but it was enough to cause some degree of global warming in the late 18th century through the first half of the 20th century. The climate scientists that I am familiar with would not make a statement saying
that "these global temperature variations could not have been caused by CO2". They would mention that there are multiple factors affecting climate during
that period and CO2 played a significant role. Radiative forcing of an increase in CO2 from Co to C is approximately = 5.35 X ln(C/Co) watts/sq. meter.
5.35 X ln(310/277) = 0.62 watts per square meter. That isn't something that can be ignored.

'"Since the late 19th century, Earth’s average global temperature has apparently increased by about 0.8 degree Celsius (deg-C). "

"Since the late 1990s, which might be part of a natural down cycle, atmospheric temperature has varied little. The specific cause of this apparent variation is unknown, but may be one of the natural factors mentioned above.


"For the past ~300 years global temperature has been increasing. Prior to the mid-20th century, these global temperature variations could not have been caused by CO2, which remained relatively constant."

 

IMO that's a misuse of the word, "concentration."

No, because that should be obvious. Likewise, it should be obvious that although doubling CO2 concentration doubles the number of molecules radiating IR at a given altitude, it also doubles the number above that level that can absorb the emitted IR. So all else equal, doubling CO2 would just increase the emission altitude to where CO2 is at the same density as it was at the previous emission altitude (i.e., it would be roughly 3km higher, where the density of the atmosphere is halved). However, three factors complicate that picture:

1. The characteristic emission temperature is lower at higher altitude because the atmosphere is colder there (adiabatic lapse rate).
2. The chemical composition and thus the IR absorption spectrum of the atmosphere changes slightly with altitude, as water vapor becomes scarcer but ozone increases.
3. Because the earth is a sphere, the geometric aperture where IR radiation will probably escape to outer space gets rapidly larger with altitude, especially near the average emission altitude.

No, the window size is a geometric object: the angular area of the circular aperture where emitted IR radiation will probably escape into outer space. It rapidly gets bigger at higher altitude because the earth is a sphere: there is less CO2 out to the sides to absorb any IR photons emitted in that direction before they escape to outer space.

It is hard to explain this without an animation because it is a three-dimensional effect. Any given CO2 molecule will emit thermal IR photons in random directions. Think of it as an "emission sphere" where all directions are equally probable. At the earth's surface, there is no aperture in the sphere where an emitted IR photon can escape into outer space: it will always encounter another molecule and be reabsorbed because GHG density is so high -- i.e., absorption is "saturated." But as you look at CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere, at some point a small aperture opens directly above the molecule, where a photon emitted in that direction is more likely to escape into outer space than to hit another molecule and be reabsorbed. That is the atmospheric "window" I am talking about.

As you go higher in the atmosphere, that circular aperture widens. Because the earth is a sphere, it widens most rapidly at the altitude where the aperture for a photon's escape into outer space takes up the whole top half of the emission sphere. Not coincidentally, that must also be very close to the average emission altitude. Note that the aperture never expands to cover the whole emission sphere no matter how high the molecule gets, because a photon can always be emitted directly back at the earth and be reabsorbed, like light from a distant galaxy.

Because of this geometric effect, increasing CO2 just correspondingly increases the average emission altitude, reduces the temperature, and expands the aperture to restore the thermal equilibrium. There is no reason to expect these shifts to have any more than an immeasurably small effect on the earth's surface temperature because of all the saturated GHG absorption layers between the surface and the average emission altitude.

 

It wasn't enough to cause any measurable warming before the 20th century. All warming between the end of the LIA and the 20th century was therefore natural.

Then they are just wrong.

Again, it just flat-out didn't and couldn't.

OTC, it can be ignored because it is a made-up number.

 

Fossil fuels to the rescue!
Climate Activist Europe Firing Up Coal Plants as Gas Shortage Bites
Eric Worrall
As Europe emerges from a harsh winter with depleted gas reserves, desperate European governments are increasingly firing up old coal plants to bridge the energy supply gap. . . .

 

A self-fulfilling prophecy:

The Looming Oil Shock
David Middleton
Guest “You get what you pay for” by David Middleton Hat tip to Jan from the Netherlands… It’s Too Late To Avoid A Major Oil Supply CrisisBy David Messler –…

 

Renewable energy advocates omit the cost of intermittency to make their false claims about low cost.

Texas Starts Waking Up To The Issue Of The Full Costs Of "Renewables"
June 20, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  The promoters of the climate scam have a variety of deceptions to get the gullible to accede to their socialist plans. Those deceptions range from the quite sophisticated to the completely preposterous.
  
  
• At the sophisticated end of the scale we have what I have called The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — the deception by which 50 and 100 year old temperature records are altered (reduced) by impenetrable computer algorithms to make it seem like global warming has been much greater than the reality.
  
  
• At the preposterous end of the scale we have the claim that the fashionable “renewable” sources of electric power, wind and solar, are actually cheaper than fossil fuels to generate electricity.
  
  
• I call this claim preposterous because the fundamental deception is so obvious that you would think that no one of any intelligence could possibly fall for it.
  

READ MORE