Last Build Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:50:53 +0000
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:50:53 +0000Jim Eager, Yes, any of us can be wrong, but it takes a special brand of hubris and stupidity to think that every single thing we don't understand is an indication that all the smart people are wrong. When Mack says this: " Does Trenberth, (and this “basic earth science” calculation by Fourier…and perpetuated by all the institutes of earth science)have the correct amount of solar radiation arriving at the TOA, (top of the earth’s atmosphere) ?? Actually, I think not,..." It's pretty obvious that he isn't interested in checking his math.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 10:39:21 +0000SE 6: when we use fossil fuels we release GHG’s but also generate heat which escapes to the atmosphere, think of a car engine or an airconditioner for example. Has this been taken into effect? BPL: Yes, but it's trivial compared to the amount of energy coming from the sun, which is what drives climate.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 09:01:24 +0000212 Scott: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I think we are in a situation where the horse has bolted and we are just now closing the gate. The agricultural recommendations you propose is only possible if we have a dramatic reduction in global population. There is really not a lot you can do with 7.3billion humans teeming all over the place. Placing people in cities is not a solution if Aleppo is any indication for the future. I have thought LONG AND HARD about this situation for many years and I'm afraid we are too far down the path to our imminent destruction to do anything meaningful at this stage of the game. The arctic regions are locked into a vicious +ve death spiral cycle, so is the combined ocean/land temperature trajectory. I am very pragmatic about the situation. We are just too uncivilised and spiritually blind to even acknowledge the situation for what it is let alone will be in the next few short decades. We are not (and never have been or ever will be) the guardians of the planet but rather a mere deadly pathogenic parasite upon it's surface. What guts me and you as well I'm assuming is that there are people who do understand, who do instinctably walk softly upon it's surface, who know our purpose in life. But we are up against the worse type if ignorance imaginable... "There are non so blind as those who do not wish to see." So Scott I'm focussing my energies on adaptation for as long as we've got.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 08:41:30 +0000Re 229 Scott Strough said @Killian, AHA I figured it out! (I think) You are a permaculture design advocate. That's like saying an engineer is an engineering advocate. It's nonsensical. Not just the elements of permaculture relating to agriculture, but all the various other “culture” elements of permaculture. This, too, is nonsensical. There is nothing about the application of permaculture ethics, principles or design process that is in any way situation-dependent. That is, there is no such thing as agricultural permaculture vs. urban permaculture vs. whatever other nonsnese is running around your head. When you hear terms that approximate these you are either 1. talking to someone with a limited understanding or 2. to someone speaking colloquially/using the easiest jargon to get an idea across. By the way you wrote this, it seems you are the former. You need to let go of this misconception. The ethics, principles and design process do not change dependent on what you are doing. Besides, separating agriculture from all else is beyond nonsense. One cannot separate the elements of the system if one wishes to heal or preserve the system. I would simply just say that while your design ideas may or may not work (I haven’t seen them), most certainly there is room for other designs besides yours. No, there isn't. First, this has nothing to do with "my designs." Anybody can attempt to design anything they wish, any way they wish. That is not at issue. What does matter is whether one is solving problems sustainably or not, and there is no system superior to permaculture for that. However, all disciplines, approaches, modes, methods, etc., can be applied under the overriding guidance of permaculture to achieve regenerative design. I would never tell someone not to use biodynamics in their garden or on their homestead, etc., but you cannot use bio-dynamics to do community design. Permaculture can solve problems at both scales... or any scale. When you start telling people yours is the only possible way, all it does is become an off-putting annoyance to many. Bite me. If I had wanted to say that, I would have. What is off-putting is someone like yourself, who should be an ally, turning into enemy because of your own limited understanding. You telling me what permaculture is, e.g., or what it can or cannot be applied to. You can present ANY type societal issue to a permaculturist and find a suitable solution. That is true of no other design philosophy or practice. You may not like the answers you get - such as the massive farms you think can be kept around despite the fact they are inherently unsustainable. I tell you they cannot remain and you attack permaculture. Foolish. Typical. I take the complete opposite approach. Rather than try to force the whole world to conform to my ideas, Laughing at you, dude... There is nothing about permaculture that forces anything to conform, nor anyone. Since you do not understand permaculture, you falsely characterize it, and me, and become a hypocrite in the doing. You are, in fact, saying "my way" is the "wrong way." You are a hypocrite. What is true, is whatever it is you THINK you are doing, it is not regenerative. That's just a word you've started tossing around without understanding it. I try to adapt regenerative agriculture to their economic, political, cultural and societal context. No, you don't. You pretend to. How do I know? Because one of the principles of permaculture is to let design emerge, to never force solutions onto sites. This is what you are *claiming* you do, but if you dismiss effective strategies because of your bias, you are starting from a point of forcing solutions. While permaculture really does leave solutions to emerge, really does state solutions are site/situation-specific, you're just cl[...]
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 07:50:15 +0000Mike said Also, keep in mind that when we look at a noisy weekly number right now we are comparing two weeks in two consecutive years that both had El Nino impact, so the differential is likely independent of EL bump, but I could be wrong about that Both had impact does not equal both had EN's, however. I think there's more recent heat in the system than perhaps is being fully considered, but that doesn't equal two EN's. Also, we have no real evidence the increases we see are from CH4 vs. CO2, so the short-term effects should not be surprising in any way. All that said, it is hard to know what tipping points will come, or what they will manifest as, for that matter. Have we heated the Arctic enough that it not much matters what the coming heat addition is, in a sense? What I mean is, if we hit the point where the melting of the permafrost and clathrates becomes widespread enough, they will become major contributors, or at least reach points of no return. That latter is the more likely in the short term. Once again, it all comes down to this: Where is the hysteresis? I see none to speak of that can put a brake on things. We have been the forcer, now we must be the hysteresis. Wish us luck on that. But, yes, all this compounds, so 4 ppm bump this year with bottom water temps at, near or above zero over clathrates, with ecosystems falling apart all over the planet, with them trying like heck to shift to survive, etc., maybe a 4 ppm bump does more damage at this particular juncture than at any before or, perhaps, after. I'm not convinced we won't see a mid-2.0's ppm rise in '17, 18, 19, but it's not something I'd put even a dollar on. Thanks for taking up this work. I had grown tired of doing it some time ago, but I think it helps keep rates of change in the forefront of people's minds.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 06:13:23 +0000@ Silk 78, I believe you made the mistake of taking an analogy a bit farther than it applies in the real world. CO2 is largely transparent to visible light from the sun, but largely opaque to infrared light radiating back out to space. So any infrared absorbed by CO2 excites it temporarily and then gets re-emitted back in a random direction. So yes some does head back into space, but some heads back to the surface. This means the greenhouse is not really a perfect analogy. Similar in that it helps keep it warm, but not at all due to your explanation of "Let’s be clear here. There is no “radiation from the atmosphere”, in that the atmosphere isn’t /generating/ radiation." Yes the CO2 is radiating, but randomly in every direction, including back down to the surface. Eventually as the air warms, the infrared radiation in every direction increases. So at some point the % radiating up and out to space reaches a new stable equilibrium with the sunlight reaching and absorbed by the earth. That's when global warming will finally stop. For now though, because CO2 is increasing so fast, warming will increase and continue to increase until it catches up to equilibrium. So the net result may be similar to a curtain or a blanket or a greenhouse, but the physics is very different. There is no physical barrier like a blanket preventing the mixing of warm air with cold air, but rather it is caused by CO2 being transparent to certain wavelengths of light but absorbing other wavelengths of light.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 04:46:24 +0000Jim Eager @85,86 BPL @87 Well, I prefer to accept the constant and real readings of what the satellites actually tell us is the amount of solar radiation arriving at the TOA ie. a YEARLY global AVERAGE of about 1360w/sq.m. The satellite that sits stationary in space, constantly interposed between us and the sun....measuring the variations of the flickering fireball..and coming up with a reading of about 1360w/sq.m. averaged PER YEAR. A bulk load, not to be divided down..like a 1 YEAR thickness of a coat of paint covering the whole globe at the TOA. You guys prefer to go to blackboard, draw a one dimensional MODEL of the sun and earth ie.straight lines coming from the sun to earth, and then GEOMETRICALLY CALCULATE what you, think??, is the solar radiation arriving at the TOA. You've just picked one instant in time, not a yearly global average. You've got Fourier's, Trenberth's,and the all the science academie's figure of about 340w/sq.m. yearly global average arriving at the TOA. AT THE TOA.!! AT THE TOA.!! No, the 340w/sq.m. yearly solar global average arrives at the earth's SURFACE. At the surface of the EARTH. You can see how it averages out over one year at earth's surface..here.. http://www.roebuckclasses.com/maps/physicmap/earthsun/insolationchart.GIF Just eyeballing this chart you can see that the yearly global average at the EARTH'S SURFACE is about 340w/sq.m. NOT 168w/sq.m., as in Trenberth's looney Earth energy budget cartoons.
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 04:20:05 +0000Mike Roberts says: 23 Sep 2016 at 12:10 AM Chuck, “If the world population is increasing at 1% per year, what’s 1% of 7.5 Billion or whatever the number ends up being in 10 more years?” About 8.3 billion in 10 years. “How long will it take Greenland to add a foot or two of SLR at the rate it’s currently melting? Any rough estimates?” Very roughly, about 3 centuries for 1 foot, if the rate stays the same (unlikely). I could be wrong, though. :) Thanks Mike! I've been saying that I don't think the human population will reach 9 billion due to food shortages, disease, famine and the like. But, if we're increasing our population that quickly I guess it could happen. And I really can't see how it would take 300 years for Greenland to add a foot of SLR. I'm pretty sure the IPCC estimates for SLR by the end of this century are off by quite a bit. Professor James White points out some 'chilling' possibilities for 'Rapid Climate Change'. I haven't heard too many talking about this but I would like to hear a few opinions from anyone here at RC who knows more about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vWNDNW4BA
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:20:56 +0000For Simon Edwards: Yes; it's small.
the climate effect of burning fossil fuels is 100,000 times greater than the amount of heat given off while burning the fuel.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/fossil-fuels-heat-climate-dramatically-19062
Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:18:19 +0000You can look this stuff up. http://www.infraredtraininginstitute.com/emissivity-of-various-materials/ > silk Nope. Too simple; fails to distinguish which components of the atmosphere absorb and radiate at which wavelengths.