Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Oh. So my objection based e.g. on this chart

---

Oh really? That’s your objection? I thought it was that the report was written by communists.

The important thing to remember is the current chemistry of the oceans and the atmosphere are such that the global imbalance of energy is always positive regardless of any variations in the flux of incoming energy. The difference is approximately 0.04% +/- of the incident flux. Modern measurements put the imbalance at 0.6 Watts/m^2. The Earth’s radius is about 6378 km, so the amount of energy captured annually is roughly equal to

(0.6 Watts/m^2) x (4 x pi x (6378000 m)^2 x (1 year x 3600 s/hr x 24 hr/day x 365 days/yr) =
9.68 x 10^21 Joules.

This is 17 times the amount of energy the Earth’s population consumes in one year. 90% of this excess energy is largely stored as heat in the Earth’s oceans.

https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2...rgy-imbalance/

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...ance/page7.php

One of the objections, yes.

"Human activities continue tosignificantly affect Earth’s climate by altering factors thatchange its radiative balance. These factors, known as radiativeforcings, include changes in greenhouse gases, small airborneparticles (aerosols)", and the reflectivity of Earth’ssurface.”

• That is a quote from the bit or your report I discussed yesterday... I am pretty sure that changes in greenhouse gases, or small airborne particles are not being quantified in W/m/m. - your terminology is wrong.
• Energy hitting an area is the solar flux and if you measure that at the top of atmosphere it is more less equal to 1361 W/m/m and since we measure that in space, it cannot be affected by any radiative forcings like heat-trapping gasses
• (… really can't be arsed any more, I guess)

Are you going to refer to what I had written about the chart or are you just going to keep flooding this thread with your communist bullshit propaganda about global warming, some definitions from Wikipedia and calculations that are completely irrelevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Are you going to refer to what I had written about the chart or are you just going to keep flooding this thread with your communist bullshit propaganda about global warming, some definitions from Wikipedia and calculations that are completely irrelevant?

---

Trish, who knows more about science than I do and has an ability to present it with a depth of knowledge that you lack, has not used Wikipedia as a reference for the last year of correspondence on this topic -I checked. She does use universally recognized centres of scientific excellence which you do not.
In a world of bullshit propaganda, you lead us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Trish.....has not used Wikipedia as a reference for the last year of correspondence on this topic -I checked.
In a world of bullshit propaganda, you lead us all.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_dung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
I wasn't sure what you meant by your last sentence but fortunately have been able to research it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

... I am pretty sure that changes in greenhouse gases, or small airborne particles are not being quantified in W/m/m. - your terminology is wrong.

---

If I had used W/m/m to measure changes in the mass density or particle density of any gas or suspended dust in the atmosphere, then you’d be entirely right, but I hadn’t and you aren’t.

I believe it was you who first used Watts as a measure of flux. After you saw I used kW/m^2 you quickly recovered saying, Oh yeah, W/m/m, which technically is correct but still a bit weird since area is measured in square meters and never in meters per meter. (Not being a pedant I usually let these sort of things ride. But since you’re bringing up the matter of units for flux I thought I should point it out). When you complained that the greenhouse model doesn’t consider anything like solar flux, I was dumbfounded. It sounded like you didn’t even know what an energy flux is or how the greenhouse model works. I guessed that you either meant variations in the solar flux or perhaps the solar wind, but when given several chances to correct yourself, you didn’t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Energy hitting an area is the solar flux and if you measure that at the top of atmosphere it is more less equal to 1361 W/m/m and since we measure that in space, it cannot be affected by any radiative forcings like heat-trapping gasses

---

You’re forgetting the atmosphere isn’t opaque to all the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Sun. At sea level the measurement is approximately 1000 W/m^2 depending on a number of factors including atmospheric conditions and the angle of the Sun’s rays.
The energy that doesn’t make it to sea level doesn’t just stop at the top of the atmosphere and hang there. Nor does it all get reflected. Its gets transmitted, scattered and eventually absorbed by the atmosphere and converted to heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

Are you going to refer to what I had written about the chart ...?

---

I already gave it as much attention as it deserves, see my last post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ts RedVeX

... are you just going to keep flooding this thread with your communist bullshit propaganda about global warming...?

---

Yes. Here I’m only temporarily adopting your private (and thereby irrelevant) vernacular wherein everyone who disagrees with you is a communist and everything you disagree with is bullshit propaganda.

Cape Town ,South Africa may soon earn the dubious distinction of being the first major modern city to run dry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/op...-day-zero.html

A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Hence it takes longer to reach saturation and condense. Longer periods between rains can mean droughts (like the one Cape Town is now experiencing). Higher saturation levels can mean deluges as well as higher energy storms (like the Harvey and other recent hurricanes that destroyed cities and towns along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. and devastated islands in the Caribbean. Whether you’re thirsty or underwater depends on how your local geography interacts with (and your local population reacts to) the new climatic conditions.

In addition to stronger storms, dryer droughts, rising tides, shifting habitations, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost and the concomitant runaway effects (i.e. release of sequestered greenhouse gases and lessening albedo) we now find out that the thawing permafrost could release 1100 tons of mercury into the atmosphere. The risk of this higher level of mercury to humans (direct or through the food chain) is not yet clear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0a31be01955f

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...7GL075571/full

Hey trish , excellent thumb nail synopsis of the basic science / mechanics behind climate change . Damn , even The Donald could understand that.:banghead

Thanks, but Donald's mental and emotional capacities deteriorate with each passing hour. Doctors tell us he's still capable of identifying and properly labeling drawings of animals. So I guess there may still be hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Thanks, but Donald's mental and emotional capacities deteriorate with each passing hour. Doctors tell us he's still capable of identifying and properly labeling drawings of animals. So I guess there may still be hope.

---

definitely...