Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

The fact you state that we have to imagine there was undisputed proof of AGW shows that you don't know of any. Like I've said many times, it's the shakiest science know to man.

Nope, I already think we have undisputed proof - it's you who doesn't.

I am asking you to think what you think we shouid don't there was something that did convince you. (Which you ducked doing)

[BeElBeeBub]

Firstly I am fully aware of the Vostok ice core record, and if you watch documentaries on it you'll find that the guy who ran the isotopes on it is a staunch AGW denier.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark_(geologist)

There are more ice cores studies than just one. They come from multiple locations (though most are Greenland and Antarctica for obvious reasons) and they are not all the work of one guy.

[Nick]

I slap a load of extra insulation. Say triple glazing and even more roof insulation.

If you keep the heater on for the same time and put the same power into your house, the average temp in your house will rise.

This is undeniable.

So now we move on to the huge flaw in what you've said. Your heat source is coming through your huge layer of insulation, how's that work? Has the CO2 just turned into a Diode with a depletion layer?

[Nick]

It's a valid question about how they could know what co2 (or temp) was in the past.


Back to the late 50's we have direct gas samples stored in glass bubbles.

Before that we have gas bubbles trapped in ice. This goes back was before human history nearly 1m years

Before that they can analyse sediments and rocks.

They cross check the various methods to see if they agree and to create an agreed range of past co2 levels.

It's important to note the ice cores are pretty accurate as we are directly measuring atmosphere trapped at the time and those records go back way before humans were around.

It's also important to note that the rise from the 1950's (around 315ppm) to now (well over 400ppm) is way outside any measurement error. So we can confidently say that levels of co2 have risen by about ⅓ since the middle of last century.

So we have the observable facts (that I think we both agree on) that co2 has risen and temps have risen.

The arguement is over what we think has caused it (and we were thinking we can do about it.

Can I ask a hypothetical?

Let's say there was some absolute (in your eyes).unshakable proof that human produced co2 was in fact responsible for the global temp rise and that that was driving the changes in climate.

What would your response be?

I will answer the reverse (let's say unshakable truth the human co2 is innocent and it's sunspots).

If that were the case, then the environmental case for stopping burning fossil fuels would fall away.
There are still some compelling reasons to reduce fossil fuel usage - geopolitics, air quality, finite supply, the fact it is useful for so much more than burning etc.  so I would still push for reducing fossil fuels but the urgency would be less and some cases might well be in favour of fossil fuels (gas boilers for domestic heat come to mind)

Your turn

Firstly I am fully aware of the Vostok ice core record, and if you watch documentaries on it you'll find that the guy who ran the isotopes on it is a staunch AGW denier.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark_(geologist)

The fact you state that we have to imagine there was undisputed proof of AGW shows that you don't know of any. Like I've said many times, it's the shakiest science know to man. 

As for your insulation spiel, I already mentioned that in my previous post. 

Are you ever going to share any scientific proof of your theories?

I'm betting that in the future they announce that extra CO2 in the atmosphere helps to cool the Earth, rotting vegetation / warming seas gives off way more CO2 that humans and I am sure Mother Nature would not build a
mechanism where the sea warming releases CO2 which warms it even more. 

[BeElBeeBub]

And based on this thread, what use is the stat that you're highlighting? None.
And as we have agreed on, if the sun doesn't rise, the Earth freezes. Winter is a less violent version of that and temperatures anywhere in the upper two thirds of the norther hemisphere will be hit zero or very close to it. This means any latent IR in the CO2 will be spent. This also means when summer comes round again we start from a zero mark, there will be no compound heat processes. I will do some mansplaining also.

If my house is at 5 degrees C and I put my heating on for one house, it achieves 18 degrees C for example. If I let it cool to 5 degrees C and do it again it will reach the same temperature every time. My house is fully insulated, and adding no amount of insulation will change this, the saturation point has been met.

This makes me think you still don't understand the process.

To take your example.

Let's assume it is a constant 0c outside and that you put your heating on for 1 hour a day, and it puts exactly the same energy into your house each day.

During the off times, heat will leak out because for the delta t between inside and out. The rate it does that is determined by the level of insulation.

Let's say, it is insulated to a level where your house gets to 18C at the end of the heating hour and gradually cools to 5C over the next 23hours.  So you average house temp is 11.5C

I think we agree to this point.

Now where we may differ.....

I slap a load of extra insulation. Say triple glazing and even more roof insulation.

If you keep the heater on for the same time and put the same power into your house, the average temp in your house will rise.

This is undeniable.

I think where your mental picture is leading you astray is the bit "If I let it cool to 5 degrees C and do it again". That is true.  If you waited until 5C then turned the heating on until you hit 18C the average temp would stay the same.  You would find the time between "burns" was increased though. But you are controlling the energy input to respond to the heat loss.

We can't do that on earth, we are stuck with the heating coming on at a fixed time and power.

Edit: to align example temps with OP

[BeElBeeBub]

How did they measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a hundred years ago? Do you believe their measurements are accurate? The sudden change in CO2 in the atmosphere could be down to inaccuracies of years ago and now we have hi-tech measuring equipment that is more accurate.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of your statements, I just don't equate either of them to human activity, and you cannot show any scientific evidence to prove it. All you've got is a 21 year old girl and models that I have shown you are wildly inaccurate, a point you keep ignoring.

It's a valid question about how they could know what co2 (or temp) was in the past.


Back to the late 50's we have direct gas samples stored in glass bubbles.

Before that we have gas bubbles trapped in ice. This goes back was before human history nearly 1m years

Before that they can analyse sediments and rocks.

They cross check the various methods to see if they agree and to create an agreed range of past co2 levels.

It's important to note the ice cores are pretty accurate as we are directly measuring atmosphere trapped at the time and those records go back way before humans were around.

It's also important to note that the rise from the 1950's (around 315ppm) to now (well over 400ppm) is way outside any measurement error. So we can confidently say that levels of co2 have risen by about ⅓ since the middle of last century.

So we have the observable facts (that I think we both agree on) that co2 has risen and temps have risen.

The arguement is over what we think has caused it (and we were thinking we can do about it.

Can I ask a hypothetical?

Let's say there was some absolute (in your eyes).unshakable proof that human produced co2 was in fact responsible for the global temp rise and that that was driving the changes in climate.

What would your response be?

I will answer the reverse (let's say unshakable truth the human co2 is innocent and it's sunspots).

If that were the case, then the environmental case for stopping burning fossil fuels would fall away.
There are still some compelling reasons to reduce fossil fuel usage - geopolitics, air quality, finite supply, the fact it is useful for so much more than burning etc.  so I would still push for reducing fossil fuels but the urgency would be less and some cases might well be in favour of fossil fuels (gas boilers for domestic heat come to mind)

Your turn

[BeElBeeBub]

You may be the young guy in this photo, however, Beelzebub is one of those knobs, so he knows what he's talking about.  😁

Don't be a T@@@ (I am only making this personal swipe in response to Scott's name calling)

I don't disagree with anything JoG posted there.  It pretty much backs up that the two figures we talked about (342 and 1300) are both valid ways of talking about the same thing.

[Nick]

The plane normal to the imaginary line between the center of the sun and earth.
Effectively the maximum w/m² at the earth's distance from the sun.

And based on this thread, what use is the stat that you're highlighting? None. 
And as we have agreed on, if the sun doesn't rise, the Earth freezes. Winter is a less violent version of that and temperatures anywhere in the upper two thirds of the norther hemisphere will be hit zero or very close to it. This means any latent IR in the CO2 will be spent. This also means when summer comes round again we start from a zero mark, there will be no compound heat processes. I will do some mansplaining also. 

If my house is at 5 degrees C and I put my heating on for one house, it achieves 18 degrees C for example. If I let it cool to 5 degrees C and do it again it will reach the same temperature every time. My house is fully insulated, and adding no amount of insulation will change this, the saturation point has been met. 

[Nick]

No proof?

Which do you disagree with?

The rise in Co2?

The rise in global temps?

How did they measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere a hundred years ago? Do you believe their measurements are accurate? The sudden change in CO2 in the atmosphere could be down to inaccuracies of years ago and now we have hi-tech measuring equipment that is more accurate.

I don't necessarily disagree with either of your statements, I just don't equate either of them to human activity, and you cannot show any scientific evidence to prove it. All you've got is a 21 year old girl and models that I have shown you are wildly inaccurate, a point you keep ignoring.

[Scott777]

Can I jump in here please. I have credentials in this sort of thing



THIS is me, photographed almost forty five years ago today.

The ink is still wet on my Baccalaureus Im Scienta Magna Cum Laude and I am being paid about three times what would then be the wage of a Macdonalds Burger Flipper as a Reseach Technician at University College Cardiff's Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Energy Studies. My job was to monitor the degree to which incident solar radiation could be used to collect the heat from the sun's rays and use it to heat water in header tanks for domestic or industrial use.

I am standing at GPS Coordinates 51.48834672332317, -3.177322882196336 although we never knew it at the time we just called it 51 degrees 30 minutes North Three Degrees 15 minutes west, and it is the middle of june 1979. It is 12:30

The white disc above my hand allows me to see the degree to which this aparatus, which could be rotated by electric motor in both the horizontal and vertical plane, is pointed at the sun.

Although there seems to be no shadow on of the long metal rod that is fitted perpendicular to the disk above my hand, a glance at the two white discs at the far end of the test rig shows a shadow of the metal arch on the lower disk

That is because for this week, we are deliberately choosing to collect measurements of direct solar insolation upon a fixed solar panel. The rig is currently aligned to precisely match the orientation and rake angle of the much larger panels installed in the roof of the Llys Tal Y Bont Student accomodation built on what was once my great great uncle's farm about five miles from where i am now standing, which has long since been swallowed up by Cardiff's Urban sprawl from the day it was forcibly purchased from him

In "normal" use i would have adjusted the track of this rig to ensure the metal rod had zero, or next to zero, shadow from the sun, and in that configuration the arch on that lower disk would have obscured the small dark circle below it.

Those circles are Kipp Solarimeters, and they are measuring the Instantaneous Direct and Indirect Solar Insolation falling on the rig. They each have a light sensitive compoment that is (in this case) two and a half centimetres squared.

The walls are painted in white paint and the floor is pearl white spar chippings. The photographer is standing whth his back against a low building that contains various building mechanicals and is also painted brilliant white to reflect the sun, this is deliberately to mimic the sort of mediterranean rooftop envoronment

Right, with all that out of the way, having been paid to do this for an entire summer, I can tell you with some authority that the maximum total solar insolation falling on Central Cardiff in June 1979 was 654 watts per square metre, and the lowest noon day reading was 150 when it absolutely fucking chucked it down. The highest reading at dawn from a cloudless sky was 412 and the worst was about 120 when my brother and his pals then at Llanwern Steelworks opened the vents during the shutdown and the sky eleven miles to the east was buggered by a cloud of microparticles of rusty shite thrown up from the top of the blast furnaces or whatever the hell it was they had there

I can also tell you that the direct solar insolation at local noon at zero degrees north on the 21st of June 1979 in KobeKobe, Gabon was 1215 watts per square metre, and i know this because the Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Manchester whose name now escapes me was standing there with one of those solarimeters measuring it.

So, from what i know as a scientist, I absolutely believe a figure of 344 watts per square metre as the average direct solar insolation falling at ground level on the planet's entire surface, having penetrated the cloud cover, is a totally believeable figure.

Where the F@@@ they're getting the extra eighty five watts from for the max perpendicular figure beats me. Unless the sun is going meain sequence a whole lot faster than i thought. Or maybe there was water vapour in the Gabon stratosphere in 1979

You may be the young guy in this photo, however, Beelzebub is one of those knobs, so he knows what he's talking about.  😁

[johnofgwent]

I think I see the discrepancy. Again we are at cross purposes.

There is the total energy received by the earth in a year divided by the total area (342w)

Then there is the energy per m² perpendicular to the earth/sun axis (1300w)

From a planetary point of view they are just different ways of if expressing the same thing

Can I jump in here please. I have credentials in this sort of thing



THIS is me, photographed almost forty five years ago today.

The ink is still wet on my Baccalaureus Im Scienta Magna Cum Laude and I am being paid about three times what would then be the wage of a Macdonalds Burger Flipper as a Reseach Technician at University College Cardiff's Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Energy Studies. My job was to monitor the degree to which incident solar radiation could be used to collect the heat from the sun's rays and use it to heat water in header tanks for domestic or industrial use.

I am standing at GPS Coordinates 51.48834672332317, -3.177322882196336 although we never knew it at the time we just called it 51 degrees 30 minutes North Three Degrees 15 minutes west, and it is the middle of june 1979. It is 12:30

The white disc above my hand allows me to see the degree to which this aparatus, which could be rotated by electric motor in both the horizontal and vertical plane, is pointed at the sun.

Although there seems to be no shadow on of the long metal rod that is fitted perpendicular to the disk above my hand, a glance at the two white discs at the far end of the test rig shows a shadow of the metal arch on the lower disk

That is because for this week, we are deliberately choosing to collect measurements of direct solar insolation upon a fixed solar panel. The rig is currently aligned to precisely match the orientation and rake angle of the much larger panels installed in the roof of the Llys Tal Y Bont Student accomodation built on what was once my great great uncle's farm about five miles from where i am now standing, which has long since been swallowed up by Cardiff's Urban sprawl from the day it was forcibly purchased from him

In "normal" use i would have adjusted the track of this rig to ensure the metal rod had zero, or next to zero, shadow from the sun, and in that configuration the arch on that lower disk would have obscured the small dark circle below it.

Those circles are Kipp Solarimeters, and they are measuring the Instantaneous Direct and Indirect Solar Insolation falling on the rig. They each have a light sensitive compoment that is (in this case) two and a half centimetres squared.

The walls are painted in white paint and the floor is pearl white spar chippings. The photographer is standing whth his back against a low building that contains various building mechanicals and is also painted brilliant white to reflect the sun, this is deliberately to mimic the sort of mediterranean rooftop envoronment

Right, with all that out of the way, having been paid to do this for an entire summer, I can tell you with some authority that the maximum total solar insolation falling on Central Cardiff in June 1979 was 654 watts per square metre, and the lowest noon day reading was 150 when it absolutely fucking chucked it down. The highest reading at dawn from a cloudless sky was 412 and the worst was about 120 when my brother and his pals then at Llanwern Steelworks opened the vents during the shutdown and the sky eleven miles to the east was buggered by a cloud of microparticles of rusty shite thrown up from the top of the blast furnaces or whatever the hell it was they had there

I can also tell you that the direct solar insolation at local noon at zero degrees north on the 21st of June 1979 in KobeKobe, Gabon was 1215 watts per square metre, and i know this because the Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Manchester whose name now escapes me was standing there with one of those solarimeters measuring it.

So, from what i know as a scientist, I absolutely believe a figure of 344 watts per square metre as the average direct solar insolation falling at ground level on the planet's entire surface, having penetrated the cloud cover, is a totally believeable figure.

Where the F@@@ they're getting the extra eighty five watts from for the max perpendicular figure beats me. Unless the sun is going meain sequence a whole lot faster than i thought. Or maybe there was water vapour in the Gabon stratosphere in 1979

[Scott777]

The plane normal to the imaginary line between the center of the sun and earth.
Effectively the maximum w/m² at the earth's distance from the sun.

So I guess that was another typo, because a line from the sun to the earth is not an axis, the word you used for some reason.

Leaving that aside, why would you measure the energy reaching such a plane?  A plane is flat.  The earth is not.  So the energy reaching that plane does not tell us anything about the energy hitting the earth.  So that does not seem correct in the context of measuring global warming, and yet, conversely, you said 342W per sq metre does not seem correct, and therefore the paper unreliable, so you seem very confused.

[BeElBeeBub]

Please do clarify this, as you seem to be a hexpert.  What would this measure?  A plane perpendicular to such an axis does not make any sense in relation to any surface on the earth which would receive sunlight.  Did you mean perpendicular to the direction of the sun?

The plane normal to the imaginary line between the center of the sun and earth.
Effectively the maximum w/m² at the earth's distance from the sun.

[Scott777]

Then there is the energy per m² perpendicular to the earth/sun axis (1300w)

Please do clarify this, as you seem to be a hexpert.  What would this measure?  A plane perpendicular to such an axis does not make any sense in relation to any surface on the earth which would receive sunlight.  Did you mean perpendicular to the direction of the sun?

[Scott777]

Think of it like filling the bath with the plug out. Water flows in and out.  As long as the two rates are balanced the water level remains the same.  But if the plug is blocked slightly the level slowly builds up.

I never knew that.  😉