Int'l. Study: IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement

[thackney]

But the changes on earth is not a static 'system'.  The presumption appears to being made is heat and energy does not enter or leave the earth, when there are certainly affects from outside the earth, either positive or negative.

All true.  But that wasn't the topic of my posts.  It was only addressing changes inside the earth system.  How the specific item of wind turbines does not effect net system energy.

The sun, radiation, etc were not the topic of my posts.

[Smokin Joe]

Am just reminding people that this earth is decidedly not a static system where we can look just at it to seek equilibrium.  It is subject to tremendous effects from outside the earth system, which must be taken into account.

Oh, I fully agree. My original point about sapping energy from prevailing winds (to convert into electricity and well lined pockets) was a point about altering the efficiency of atmospheric mixing mechanisms and the possible effect on storm systems when more strongly contrasting air masses come into contact. (That more severe storms might be the result of 'green' energy, not fossil fuels). The greater the difference in the properties of the air masses, the more severe the mixing along the boundaries, the more severe the storm. It's what makes the barometric pressure in the eye of the hurricane relevant.

Virtually the entire planet is a series of interrelated dynamic systems, and the thought of preserving those as a static snapshot of themselves is folly, but an out growth of the 'environmental' movement.

When Conservationists and ecologists sat down together, they could discuss maintaining the balance within those systems so they continued to function, whether that be deer herd size versus available food, whether a fishery was being harvested to the point that it was in decline and what optimum harvest levels would be to retain the industry and let the resource recover, or how many trees should be cut (and which ones) to retain sufficient habitat and still optimize the harvesting of a resource with a finite lifespan to preclude waste and protect the resource from wildfires. Those were far more sane days than the environmental dirt-worship going on now, and a lot better science was being done by people who understood the systems they regulated.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

All true.  But that wasn't the topic of my posts.  It was only addressing changes inside the earth system.  How the specific item of wind turbines does not effect net system energy.

The sun, radiation, etc were not the topic of my posts.

once again, the system is not enclosed, so there are effects from external forces.

My point is your assumption of no energy/heat loss is true only for a system that has no external forces interfacing with it.

[LateForLunch]

These are interesting discussions for sure. The central points remain, which are:

1) There is no evidence that any "normative" view of average global temperature can be scientifically established because the question is unwieldy and cannot even be framed except in terms of the needs/preferences of Humanity, which occupies only about 5% of the planet's livable surface area. An even great exclusionary point would likely be that we understand very little about the long-term mechanisms which determine average global temperature over time and so cannot possibly assess the significance of changes in any meaningful context. What may seem like unwanted warming could very easily have positive value over a longer view. In other words, by seeking to end warming today, we may well be facilitating the advent of an ice age tomorrow.  Acting without understanding has a technical term "foolishness".

2) The total energy (black body radiation aka heat) in global climate is spoken of by physicists as being radiated, reflected/absorbed, mediated, transported, retained, subducted, stored and disbursed. Average global atmospheric temperature is affected by all of these elements. Until the dynamics of all of these factors is fully understood along with the dynamics of solar radiation cycles and the effects of cosmic rays on upper atmospheric cloud formation, no complete workable technical description of average atmospheric temperature can be established. This is because the one thing we DO know is that most of the previously mentioned elements are heavily interrelated and to some degree synergistic, not discrete effects - which means that when the value of one effect changes so do some or all of the others.

Michael Crichton lamented the enduring hubris of human beings in assuming that we can both understand and safely manipulate unfathomably complex systems like weather/climate, genetics or organic homeostatic (living) systems the way we control simple machinery or computers.

The "programming" of living things is almost inconceivably more sophisticated and elegant than any linear or computational synthesis we could devise to represent it conceptually in order to "control" it. This means that by the time we "model" any such system, by the time we could formulate any action based on that model, the elementary values would have changed so much that the previous model would be useless (or worse).

The massive size of the total energy making up the dynamics of  average global climatic temperature dwarf humanity by many orders of magnitude. Whatever conceits we may have regarding our significance in regard to planetary matters (such as climate) more closely resemble the self deception of ignorant children pretending to each other that we, "know everything," than enlightened, mature stewards of the world making wise, responsible judgments.
   

Anyone who tells you that we do "know practically everything" about climate is either a liar, badly misinformed or an ignoramus.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Regardless of that it is still here on this planet!

I believe what you mean to say that 'it'  may not be water, but it's compositional atoms.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

These are interesting discussions for sure. The central points remain, which are:

1) There is no evidence that any "normative" view of average global temperature can be scientifically established because the question is unwieldy and cannot even be framed except in terms of the needs/preferences of Humanity, which occupies only about 5% of the planet's livable surface area. An even great exclusionary point would likely be that we understand very little about the long-term mechanisms which determine average global temperature over time and so cannot possibly assess the significance of changes in any meaningful context. What may seem like unwanted warming could very easily have positive value over a longer view. In other words, by seeking to end warming today, we may well be facilitating the advent of an ice age tomorrow.  Acting without understanding has a technical term "foolishness".

2) The total energy (black body radiation aka heat) in global climate is spoken of by physicists as being radiated, reflected/absorbed, mediated, transported, retained, subducted, stored and disbursed. Average global atmospheric temperature is affected by all of these elements. Until the dynamics of all of these factors is fully understood along with the dynamics of solar radiation cycles and the effects of cosmic rays on upper atmospheric cloud formation, no complete workable technical description of average atmospheric temperature can be established because the one thing we DO know is that most of them they are heavily interrelated and to some degree synergistic, not discrete effects - which means that when the total value of one effect changes, others change significantly as well.

Michael Crichton lamented the enduring hubris of human beings in assuming that we can both understand and safely manipulate unfathomably complex systems like weather/climate, genetics or organic homeostatic (living) systems the way we control simple machinery or computers.

The "programming" of living things is almost inconceivably more sophisticated and elegant than any linear or computational synthesis we could devise to represent it conceptually in order to "control" it.

The massive size of the total energy making up the dynamics of  average global climatic temperature dwarf humanity by many orders of magnitude. Whatever conceits we may have regarding our significance in regard to planetary matters (such as climate) more closely resemble the self deception of ignorant children pretending to each other that we, "know everything," than enlightened, mature stewards of the world making wise, responsible judgments.
   

Anyone who tells you that it can is either a liar, badly misinformed or an ignoramus.

an excellent post

We need to practice humility

[Bigun]

I believe what you mean to say that 'it'  may not be water, but it's compositional atoms.

Yes!  It is still here although perhaps not in its original form.

[LateForLunch]

Yes!  It is still here although perhaps not in its original form.

A significant amount of atmospheric gases (including suspended frozen water micro-particulates) vent to space every second. That may be how Mars lost much of the water oceans and atmosphere it once had billions of years ago. Gravity and rotational force hold most but not all of Terra's atmosphere close to the planet's surface. Planets create tails as they orbit around the sun, just like comets. So some heat/water vapor is lost to space in this way. Obviously the amount of water loss is negligible, and the amount of heat loss is balanced to some degree by solar radiation or the planet would either freeze or fry.

[thackney]

once again, the system is not enclosed, so there are effects from external forces.

My point is your assumption of no energy/heat loss is true only for a system that has no external forces interfacing with it.

You continue to discuss a topic that was outside the original discussion.  We agree it is not a closed system.  But modifying inside only components is not changing the outside components.

I'm done. 

[Smokin Joe]

You continue to discuss a topic that was outside the original discussion.  We agree it is not a closed system.  But modifying inside only components is not changing the outside components.

I'm done.

@thackney @IsailedawayfromFR Two different discussions got tangled up there, the total global warming and planetary energy budget, and one on effects of energy conversion by windmills and solar on weather systems. My bad, I introduced that latter element which contributed to the confusion.

[Bigun]

A significant amount of atmospheric gases (including suspended frozen water micro-particulates) vent to space every second. That may be how Mars lost much of the water oceans and atmosphere it once had billions of years ago. Gravity and rotational force hold most but not all of Terra's atmosphere close to the planet's surface. Planets create tails as they orbit around the sun, just like comets. So some heat/water vapor is lost to space in this way. Obviously the amount of water loss is negligible, and the amount of heat loss is balanced to some degree by solar radiation or the planet would either freeze or fry.

Well yeah!  There is that but that has been occurring since the beginning of time so I don't think we really need to consider that.

[LateForLunch]

Well yeah!  There is that but that has been occurring since the beginning of time so I don't think we really need to consider that.

 No question that is true. At least not in terms of the central points being discussed. The point was directed to the tangential discussion about how or if the planet is a closed system regarding water or energy. It is in a practical sense in most regards that relate to climate temperature but not in the larger long-term sense.

[Bigun]

No question that is true. At least not in terms of the central points being discussed. The point was directed to the tangential discussion about how or if the planet is a closed system regarding water or energy. It is in a practical sense in most regards that relate to climate temperature but not in the larger long-term sense.

Maybe I should go back and modify my original comment to read "save that amount which has been lost in space" and leave it at that.

[Smokin Joe]

Maybe I should go back and modify my original comment to read "save that amount which has been lost in space" and leave it at that.

Every little ice chip from space brings in more (water and mass), and at some point we have to figure that is somewhere near equilibrium or gaining or losing overall, but for the next 50 years, barring some large contribution or cosmic event, it will remain a negligible change. I don't think we need to nit pick that many decimal places out, although the gain/loss is noted to exist.

[Suppressed]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
I think you may find this interesting, and it will answer many of your questions without me typing a lot.

Spencer's work is why I put the caveat on the isotope statement.

You might be interested to know that I've cited part of that page in the past: "This is the trouble with model simulations. The ones that get published are usually the ones that support the modeler’s preconceived notions, while alternative model solutions are ignored."  The bias in research funding and publication is a huge problem.

Reformatting your words for ease and clarity of response...

I believe we are still at the questions:
Does CO₂ force temperature change,

High-school chemistry describes that it would.  One could postulate that the temperature is changing faster than our CO₂ inputs affect it, but the fact is, in an equilibrium, the fulcrum will shift when an input is made to one side of an equation.

temperature increase push CO₂ out of solution (especially in the oceans),

Again, does anyone doubt high-school chemistry?  Yes, temperature would push it out of solution, given the ocean conditions.  It's one of the feedback mechanisms that can exacerbate a temperature increase.

and thus make CO₂ an indicator of temperature change rather than a forcing agent, or does man-produced and naturally released CO₂ affect the temperature.

Why can't it be both?

In cases where there's been no major input of CO₂, then a change in temperature--perhaps from a change of insolation, or even local perturbations, or transport mechanisms (e.g., change in ocean currents leading to warming in areas that had permafrost)--could lead to a change in atmospheric CO₂ to restore equilibrium.  Conversely, a change in CO₂ could lead to a change in temperature, to restore equilibrium.  And we have been adding CO₂ rapidly... how many years of sequestered carbon have we released to the atmosphere every year for the past several decades?

If so, how much, or are there other factors involved? (Is anthropogenic CO₂ of negligible effect?)

The ice core data show that it's not negligible in amount.  As for effect, it would be rather odd for such an input not to have a corresponding output.

Before that can be decided, note that the temperature measurements since the industrial revolution occur in areas where there is industrialization and urban growth. It is well enough documented that poorly sited, or changes in the siting of measuring equipment can cause changes in temperature readings which are not necessarily reflected in the climate, but are actually an artifact of that development--especially paving, HVAC exhaust, jet aircraft exhaust plumes, and the like. It has been stated that a significant portion of us temperature measuring stations are in locations which compromise the validity of that data, and in almost every case, in a way which would cause those stations to record higher temperatures than would be accurate outside of the microclimate caused by the development.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
and then, there are other risks....
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/12/technology/security/weather-system-hacked/index.html

I am aware of these concerns.  Contrary to what the peanut gallery might think, I'm actually rather skeptical of much that is claimed by the alarmists.   But I believe my assertions fall within the envelope of a good evaluation of available knowledge.

But beneath it all there is a hysteria level stirred by the MSM we don't trust, fostered on university campuses which have become hotbeds of lunacy and catered to by a class of politicians who do things like: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/16/new-york-announces-nuclear-shutdown-to-fight-climate-change/

Hear, hear!!   

One encouraging note... millennials seem to be very pro-nuclear.

It is time to take a deep breath and determine if there is really a change in global temperature (which requires accurate measurements), is so is it one which is unprecedented, if so, what should the target (optimum) temperature be, and whether we are having a meaningful effect on that system which has operated with virtually (or actually) no human input in the past.

I'm with you there.

If the four answers aren't all "yes", let nature take its course, and continue to develop the technology which will permit us to deal with any problems, rather than abandon that capability in a fit of hubris only to die off because we threw away the means to survive.

Sounds like a pretty good answer, very similar to my view.  Crippling our economy is not a smart response, as this change might be far beyond what we can affect, and if so, we'll need a strong economy to manage any response, especially if we get into a runaway situation.  (I say "we", knowing full well it will be suckers in the future...)

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You continue to discuss a topic that was outside the original discussion.  We agree it is not a closed system.  But modifying inside only components is not changing the outside components.

I'm done.

Ok, I am as well.

Your original post said that energy is not removed from the total earth system and I believe that to be a fallacious comment.

[thackney]

Ok, I am as well.

Your original post said that energy is not removed from the total earth system and I believe that to be a fallacious comment.

The post wasn't in isolation, it was in response to the text I included as quoted:

I'd question the amount of energy being removed from prevailing winds by windmills

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,235145.msg1200130.html#msg1200130

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The post wasn't in isolation, it was in response to the text I included as quoted:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,235145.msg1200130.html#msg1200130

Yep, and, as my dad the meteorologist taught me,  the properties of wind are derived from temperature, pressure and humidity, some of which affect more than the earth itself.

E.G. - The sun's effect is seen in the winds.  All the effects of the wind and its departure from norm by windmills do not necessarily stay on this planet.

[Smokin Joe]

Yep, and, as my dad the meteorologist taught me,  the properties of wind are derived from temperature, pressure and humidity, some of which affect more than the earth itself.

E.G. - The sun's effect is seen in the winds.  All the effects of the wind and its departure from norm by windmills do not necessarily stay on this planet.

If I might intervene here, since I brought the topic of windmills up...

My concern with the windmills has nothing to do with the source of that energy, something I believe we can agree is solar. That solar energy absorbed by those air masses is distributed in our atmosphere by air currents, including areas where the wind is nearly constant.
Which makes those areas prime real estate for windmills for power generation.

However that energy harnessed by the windmills (i.e., the wind) is powered by differences in temperature and humidity (which affect density which directly affects barometric pressure), and is commonly along prevailing wind corridors where atmospheric mixing is strong. (Otherwise, there would not be a strong, prevailing wind that is considered usable for wind energy).

My question is one of whether removing energy from the prevailing winds using windmills, , interferes with the transfer of solar energy through wind currents and air mass mixing, to the degree that the transitions between air masses are more distinct in terms of temperature and humidity (and, thus, barometric pressure). Additionally, whether those interfaces (often storms) actually become more violent as a result of that sharper boundary, contributed to by the absence of mixing promoted by energy removal from the prevailing wind currents, which would mean that the 'green' energy solution to "global warming" actually contributed to more severe storms--those severe storms being something blamed on the 'global warming' the windmills were supposed to alleviate.

[LateForLunch]

If I might intervene here, since I brought the topic of windmills up...

My concern with the windmills has nothing to do with the source of that energy, something I believe we can agree is solar. That solar energy absorbed by those air masses is distributed in our atmosphere by air currents, including areas where the wind is nearly constant.
Which makes those areas prime real estate for windmills for power generation.

However that energy harnessed by the windmills (i.e., the wind) is powered by differences in temperature and humidity (which affect density which directly affects barometric pressure), and is commonly along prevailing wind corridors where atmospheric mixing is strong. (Otherwise, there would not be a strong, prevailing wind that is considered usable for wind energy).

My question is one of whether removing energy from the prevailing winds using windmills, , interferes with the transfer of solar energy through wind currents and air mass mixing, to the degree that the transitions between air masses are more distinct in terms of temperature and humidity (and, thus, barometric pressure). Additionally, whether those interfaces (often storms) actually become more violent as a result of that sharper boundary, contributed to by the absence of mixing promoted by energy removal from the prevailing wind currents, which would mean that the 'green' energy solution to "global warming" actually contributed to more severe storms--those severe storms being something blamed on the 'global warming' the windmills were supposed to alleviate.

That was very nicely elucidated. That being said, I understood all of that without you having to explain it a second time since your initial post was just as clear (if a little less-detailed). What is more difficult to understand is why on this thread we are constantly having to repeat ourselves and explain things that are fairly obvious (to only one poster in particular). I can't quite determine whether this is a demonstration of inability or unwillingness to harmonize but in either case it has gotten so tiresome that it may be that we need to consider moving forward without their participation so that the central discussion may proceed apace.

Maybe we can refer laggards whose ability to keep up is suppressed, to remedial reference text in order to get up to speed and join the discussion on the same line of the same page as everyone else.

[Smokin Joe]

That was very nicely elucidated. That being said, I understood all of that without you having to explain it a second time since your initial post was just as clear (if a little less-detailed). What is more difficult to understand is why on this thread we are constantly having to repeat ourselves and explain things that are fairly obvious (to only one poster in particular). I can't quite determine whether this is a demonstration of inability or unwillingness to harmonize but in either case it has gotten so tiresome that it may be that we need to consider moving forward without their participation so that the central discussion may proceed apace.

Maybe we can refer laggards whose ability to keep up is suppressed, to remedial reference text in order to get up to speed and join the discussion on the same line of the same page as everyone else.

Actually, my intent was to point out that there are two different discussions going on here, one of them my fault, and for which the conditions of the system are different for those of the other. Because I interjected that other discussion, the two can get cross threaded, and a comment made about the one would be incorrect under the other circumstances.
There are some knowledgeable people who have been tripped up in the discussion here, and I am taking responsibility for that. If I had stayed on track this would not be happening. Please consider removing comments which might be construed as snark, because those add nothing to the discussion.

[LateForLunch]

Ah. Of course. With all due respect (and that is great) this thread seems to have run its course and I cannot frankly see that I personally have anything more to add that could possibly be worthwhile. That includes any retraction, which would be a defacto addition.

I have nothing personally against anyone who posted in this thread. That being said I think its clear that some added to the discussion more than others. Selah!

[Bigun]

[Just_Victor]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16387289_10158294505535515_3660903389870462931_n.jpg?oh=49f23a9431e44edcb4786d4e1c032a2d&oe=59420944

That's actually quite incorrect.  Volcanic CO2 output is estimated at just under 600million tons/year. http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

All human activity is estimated to produce ~35billion tons/year http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html


Just the truth.

[LateForLunch]

That's actually quite incorrect.  Volcanic CO2 output is estimated at just under 600million tons/year. http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

All human activity is estimated to produce ~35billion tons/year http://www.livescience.com/14591-carbon-dioxide-emissions-humans-volcanoes.html


Just the truth.

Thank you VERY MUCH!!

 I posted a similar link waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the start of the thread. At least a couple of our more AGW-friendly posters found it convenient to ignore that link and the facts contained in it. Gee, what a surprise.   

I am frankly getting sick and tired of AGW proponents (not that the very noble Bigun is one of those, he was merely misinformed) making the same bogus statements, claims and declarations over and over and over again.

It's high time we put our foot on the throats of the AGW proponent's fallacious arguments and choke the life out of their mendacious, destructive movement permanently. If there was even a scintilla of legitimacy to the AGW conjecture I would tolerate discussing it seriously, but there isn't so I don't. 

This thread has been no different from a hundred or a thousand like them. The AGW proponents lose every substantive argument supporting their conjecture. Even after having their heads handed to them, they usually add derisive vituperations/insults along the way, and then declare themselves the winners. Every. Friggin'. Time.

If I were Emperor, the punishment for making a demonstrably false AGW argument, (and failing to defend it substantively with stipulated objective information) then emphatically claiming victory nonetheless would be defenestration or flaying, with the choice going to the client.