Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Roy Spencer are different atmospheric research scientists. Lindzen specializes in the dynamics of the atmosphere. You apparently thought the scientist debating at UVA was Spencer.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change Denial
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I like energy from all sources. And power engineers should never be told by a bureaucrat what kind of power to produce.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
So we should just ignore external costs? Power engineers aren't oncologists or pulmonologists or climate scientists. They don't have the expertise to weigh the external costs of coal vs wind vs natural gas.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Having individual scientists oppose a theory doesn't mean that much. Even Albert Einstein was more than doubtful about some aspects of quantum physics, even though he contributed to it for example with his research on the photoelectric effect. It took about 50 years to show his doubts were incorrect (after his death), and some chose to doubt even longer. In this case we can't wait 50 years until the last scientist is convinced.
Spencer has a thorough explanation for the greenhouse effect. Adiabatic lapse rate and the GE are both involved. Spencer does support the idea of IR radiation in the upper atmosphere radiating downward. I haven't read an explanation from Lindzen but I think I've heard him in lectures that he generally accepts the idea of downward radiative flux from the atmosphere.What's their explanation for Venus... kinda doubt it's adiabatic compression
The Warm Earth: Greenhouse Effect, or Atmospheric Pressure? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Norbert
TSLA will win
I'm not so sure about cloud cover by itself, but surely CO2 is small compared to all other variables combined. The thing, is, all other variables are largely in balance, otherwise we would see much larger ups and downs, especially aside from the trend that corresponds to the CO2 change. The trend that we see does not require larger variables than CO2 and the mostly obvious higher temperature -> more water vapor reinforcement.
Also, the outward radiation at the surface, which corresponds to the black body radiation, is largely in balance with measurable incoming short wave and long wave radiation at the surface, not leaving that much space for additional factors (like adiabetic pressure). (Unless these largely cancel each other out, which would pose the question of why bring them into the climate change discussion in the first place.)
Nevertheless, that's why climate science spends so much effort in creating complex models and simulations: in order to verify all factors that might play a role. And that's why Lindzen, Curry and Spencer do get a certain amount of attention from climate scientists in general. It's just that their desire for political attention is not in relation to the significance of their research compared to climate science as a whole.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Wow.... that guy is a looney toon. It's a simple equation.... pressure isn't a source of heat.... compression is.
You seriously believe just pressure creates heat? So.... why again isn't my SCUBA tank still ~110F like it was 3 days ago? I just checked... still ~3,000psi.... but only ~75F. Weird.
..... why.... why do you suppose he puts these.... 'ideas' on an internet blog and not published in a journal? Food for thought
Norbert
TSLA will win
..... why.... why do you suppose he puts these.... 'ideas' on an internet blog and not published in a journal? Food for thought
As far as I can tell, Spencer measures his success by having had influence on Rush Limbaugh and what he said on his radio show.
These guys just don’t understand heat transfer or any of thermodynamics apparently.Wow.... that guy is a looney toon. It's a simple equation.... pressure isn't a source of heat.... compression is.
View attachment 667781
You seriously believe just pressure creates heat? So.... why again isn't my SCUBA tank still ~110F like it was 3 days ago? I just checked... still ~3,000psi.... but only ~75F. Weird.
..... why.... why do you suppose he puts these.... 'ideas' on an internet blog and not published in a journal? Food for thought
So if Venus is so hot because of the pressure (according to you) and Earth and Venus are roughly the same mass what’s driving the super high pressure on Venus since they both have roughly the same gravity…..
Additional pressure/compression generating heat may have some impact as follows: When fossil fuel is in solid form underground, it exerts no pressure upon us. When fossil fuel is burned, those atoms combine with other atoms in the atmosphere and is now in a gas form above us. Most stuff above our head = increase pressure = heat.
Someone can probably explain this better...
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
.... no.... there's ~no increase in pressure. That's not a thing. The Oxygen is already in the atmosphere so you're only adding the mass of Carbon. That's a ~0.00003% increase in atmospheric pressure compared to the change in radiative forcing of ~1%.
Last edited:
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yep. And Mercury is closer than Venus. Which do you think is hotter? Venus or Mercury? Why?
One of the things that concerns me here is the lack of risk assessment. In particular, what are the consequences if one side or the other is wrong, but their opinion prevails?
Case 1: Global warming is not occurring, but we globally work to counteract it.
Well, apart from looking a bit silly, we will end up spending quite a large sum reducing greenhouse gas emissions unnecessarily. But we also end up with a cleaner environment, greatly reduced pollution, an overall healthier planet, and cities made more pleasant by EVs that cause no chemical pollutants and make streets peaceful to walk along (after 100 years of ICE noise).
Case 2: Global warming is occurring, but we dont so anything about it.
Well, we save a lot of $$ in the short term, but then we face catastrophe, as hurricanes batter coastal cities to destruction, rising sea levels render many ports unusable, and global changes in weather patterns cause major crop failures, leading to global famines, economic instability, and massive social upheaval, as countries go to war over the scarce resources that are still up for grabs.
I know which one of these I would choose. Of course, those who deny global warming is real will say my predictions are nonsense, but frankly I'm affronted by someone who has the arrogance to play Russian roulette with my children's future.
External costs is just a faulty concept from the land of liberaldom. The benefits of fossil fuels to humanity far outweigh any harm caused by the ancient fuel. But as our technology advances, we'll eventually replace fossil fuels with something better and cheaper. Let the scientists, engineers, and the free market sort it all out. Get out of their way, and get the bureaucrats off heir backs.
Add to it current and future space applications. Solar panel research was possible only because 'bureaucrats' have deemed it necessary for powering satellites and space station vs flying fuel up there constantly. Battery and geothermal research will be crucial too for the eventual space bases and colonies.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
???? So you don't think there's a different effect to having a coal plant vs a natural gas plant near your home? Really? So why do death and asthma rates drop when coal plants convert to NG? Should this not influence policy?
Drop in coal power plant emissions associated with asthma improvements
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
