bradschrag

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by bradschrag

  1. You asked for repeatable science won't acknowledge the basics. I provided a plot of radiative transfer models that you said you don't understand. I get that and sounds like to help you understand what it represents. After all, it's repeatable. Let me know when you are interested in learning.
  2. Well when you're done staring at a single puzzle piece, wondering out it might relate to the whole puzzle, let me know. Not going to try to convince it's part of a bigger picture.
  3. Interesting. You have no issue with OL readers treating newcomers this way. Why isn't this a 2-way street? Nevermind that, where are you at on the effective planet temperature Michael. Are you ready to move onto the greenhouse effect yet or still clinging to why all of it is relevant?
  4. Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.
  5. Because we have to start at the beginning. If I just jump into the greenhouse effect, but you don't understand what it is or its relevance, then it isn't going to matter. With pictures, absolutely. Unfortunately I can't post any diagrams here. I'm not too familiar with it, but I'll take your word for it. Now what questions do you have about what I said in regards to effective temperature? If effective temperature makes sense, why is it that the planet is about 33C warmer than the effective temperature?
  6. As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
  7. I scrolled back up, he did say the conflict is political, so perhaps you are right. He went onto say it (CC) has nothing to do with science. This is wrong on his part, however maybe i read into it too much that the implication was the CC is political.
  8. Can't make you drink, can only show you the water: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=general+circulation+model+code&t=lm&atb=v1-1&ia=web All your questions can be answered if you even tried to look.
  9. I'm not the one who was calling fraud because a plot was posted that came all the way to this year. I'm happy to talk about whichever of those times you have questions about. So before you go answering questions for me that you ask of me how about you try honest debate. Ask a question and see if I'm interested in answering, rather than just giving a "but only..... and not.... Convenient" bullshit. That's how science, and debate, works.
  10. Equivocation fallacy. That something is used politically doesn't mean that the thing is political. Science isn't founded upon politics even though politicians might rely on it.
  11. I was replying to your comment about models. There's also code out there for adjustments. There's also raw data available for download. You don't seem to be honestly trying to learn anything here.
  12. This is why I asked the questions. Some layman are familiar with the concepts. A simple, let's start before that would have sufficed. So, let's start before that, and fair warning, this might get lengthy. Going to try to cover a number of bases here. When it comes to heat transfer, there are 3 basic modes: conduction, convection, and radiation. Of these 3, only 1 is how the earth receives and loses heat - radiation. Simply put, you can't conduct or convect energy to a vacuum, you can only send it (or radiate it) through the vacuum. All objects radiate heat, but the wavelength and quantity that they radiate is highly temperature dependent. There are a couple of laws that describe this. Plancks law describes the intensity and wavelength, while the Stefan-Boltzmann Law describes the total amount of emitted power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law While I won't go into detail on these, there are a couple things worth checking out. First, in the link to Planck's Law there is a diagram at the top of the page showing the expected spectrum to be emitted by bodies of temperatures 3-5000K. I think that diagram is helpful simply because it highlights where the visible spectrum is, and for reference, the effective temperature of the sun is ~5800K. If you want to know why our eyes evolved/created to see visible light - there's your answer. It's the dominant wavelengths that the sun emits. The other key takeaway from Planck's Law is what kind of radiation do other objects, such as a planet or person emit. These are longer wavelengths beyond the red part of the visible spectrum - therefore are referred to infra-red. In regards to Stefan-Boltzmann (SB going forward), the key takeaway is that the amount of radiated power from an object increases by the fourth power with it's temperature. So if body A has a temperature a radiates power P, then the body 2A (double temperature) will radiate (2^4 or) 16P power. So knowing now these couple of concepts we can move onto radiative balance. Objects, such as a moon or a planet, are said to be in radiative balance when they emit as much radiation as the absorb. By conservation of energy and SB, we know that if a cooler body is receiving more radiation than it emits, it will warm. As it warms, it will emit more radiation. When incoming and outgoing are balanced: voila - radiative balance. Effective temperature is simply the temperature we would expect (according to SB) for a planet to be given the amount of radiation it is absorbing and emitting in radiative balance. It is probably evident that the surface area over which the planet absorbs radiation (the lit side) is much less than the surface area over which the planet can emit radiation (the full surface area). There's some ugly calculus that I'm definitely not comfortable with trying to breakdown Fenyman style to explain, but the short answer is the the difference in surface areas is a factor of 1/4. That is, earth absorbs radiation equivalent to a flat disc with radius r, and emits from a sphere with radius r. The differences in surface area between a flat circle and a sphere is 1/4. The other key component to calculating effective temperature is albedo, which is a weird word to say reflected energy. The earth reflects approx 30% of the incoming light. Be this in clouds, snow/ice caps, simple reflection off the surface, etc. Albedo is simply (1 - relfected%), so for earth, the albedo is .7 Finally to a bit of math: Based on observations, or calculations using SB Law and our distance from the sun, it can be shown that the earth receives approx 1365Wm-2 of power from the sun. That is to say, each square meter of surface area has 1300+ watts reaching it....in space. We first need to knock down that number by a factor of .7 to account for energy that reflected away. 1365 * .7 = 955 Then, we need to be mindful of that factor of 1/4, because the earth surface area for emitting the power it absorbs is much greater than the surface area over which it can absorb: 955 / 4 = 239Wm-2 This is the effective power received by the planet. If we plug that 239 into SB Law and solve for T, we get this number referred to as the planets effective temperature: 255K What this number represents is the absolute maximum avg temperature (again, this can be shown through complicated maths that I'll link at the bottom) the planet could have given how much solar energy it absorbs. Of course no one uses Kelvin in their day to day, so let's convert this to more recognizable units: That would be -18C or just under 0F The only way to increase the planets temperature beyond that are either internal heating or adjusting the radiative energy balance. While the earth's core is very hot, it turns out the rocky surface it a rather fantastic insulator. The earth's core only gives about one-tenth of a watt per square meter to the surface. That leaves us with adjustment to the radiative energy balance. This term, be it "accurate" or not, is called the greenhouse effect. I'll stop here for now. I promise I'm on my way to the "repeatable" science. Questions? Dropping a quick link in here if anyone wants to double check what I'm saying in regards to effective temperature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature Complicated maths: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324
  13. Yep, and the code is generally open source, downloadable, and available for any and all to scrutinize. No it isn't. Calling it political is a straw man. I don't see where you offered any science. Did I miss it?
  14. Not sure I quite understand your question, but I'm going to guess that you are asking me to clarify my position on whether or not humanity is causing climate change. Yes, humans are influencing the climate and the rate at which it's currently happening exceeds previous abrupt climate change scenarios that resulted in mass extinction events.
  15. I think I understand just fine that you want to make it about some thing that didn't exist. It's a convenient way to avoid discussing what is actually happening.
  16. Perhaps you'll enjoy this article, written by a skeptic: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html A statistical pause doesn't exist in the record, especially when viewed on a climate time period (30 yrs or more). Even the worst case 10yr cherry pick might reveal at best no warming, but that doesn't mean the warming has paused, given the fact that the trends of the discussion are longer than 10 years. I'm curious, if I concede to you that there was a pause, what do you think that invalidates? The greenhouse effect? Conservation of energy? Honest question.
  17. That's irrelevant to whether or not you feel the plot should be trimmed somewhere. The plot represents what is happening to the surface temperatures currently. That you want to trim it down to validate a false claim is known as: - Cherry picking - Red herring and/or -Straw man Take your pick. Regardless, it a logical fallacy.
  18. Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required. bed -> need So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?
  19. I wasn't aware the only way to be honest was to avoid reality. Where do you think the chart should stop?
  20. I'd start simple, and that's the radiative transfer models. The equation for them was derived long before there was computing power to plot it, much less satellites to observe it. But once technology caught up, it was safe to say the models are validated.... And I can't upload anymore so here's a link https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/status/1104750783357247488?s=19
  21. Nope. What in seeing use that to some contrarians, they made a mountain out of a mole hill that was a super El Nino followed by a stratospheric volcanic eruption and labeled it as a pause. Cooling (short term) always follows an El Nino and stratospheric eruptions cause short term cooling as well. There are other metrics that we can use to see what is happening in the system such as ocean heat content. It also shows there was nothing resembling a pause.
  22. Actually, no it doesn't. What you see "see" use not what the statistics reveal. This is why we don't rely on human perception, rather objective facts, for science. Same plot, sans 1997-1999, where's your pause?