How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[ding]

 

[ding]

Ice age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Lower albedo means it's warmer at the panel. If 100 watts hits the earth, about 30 watts is bounced back to space. If 100 watts hits a panel, only about 5 watts is bounced back. 25 fewer watts.

If the panel is 20% efficient, 19 watts is converted to electricity.
Even if you don't understand conservation of energy or entropy,,...76 watts of heat is more than 70.

Yeah, I get what lower and higher albedo means.

 

[abu afak]

The ice age began three million years ago. Or if you prefer you can say the earth transition to an icehouse planet from a green house planet 3 million years ago. Some people - you apparently being one of the - mistakenly call a glacial cycle and ice age.

View attachment 600066

D-O events - of which there were many - warmed and cooled from near glacial to near interglacial temperatures (5C swings) in as few as several decades. So, no, the claim that the recent warming trend is unprecedented is false.

You have mistakenly attributed increased climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated planet with CO2.

Disingenuous and Useless as usual.
You have to look at whether we are breaking a shorter term cycle than millions of years to get at the AGW issue.
I'd say disingenuous as well as obtuse.
Always repeating your fallacious nonsense posts and graphics.

(probably to be followed by idiotic one line multi-posts)
`

 

[ding]

Don't forget that virtually everything we might do with that electricity will eventually culminate in the production of heat.

Sure and that's in all cases of electrical generation, right? So no difference there. The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet and the other technologies don't.

 

[ding]

Ding was ignoring that half of the equation.

Actually I am relying on a more recent published paper by a reputable source.

 

[ding]

Disingenuous and Useless as usual.
You have to look at whether we are breaking a shorter term cycle than millions of years to get at the AGW issue.
I'd say disingenuous as well as obtuse.
Always repeating your fallacious nonsense posts and graphics.

(probably to be followed by idiotic one line multi-posts)
`

The transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented and understood. The same conditions which led to that transition still exist today and should be the starting point for any discussion concerning earth's climate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, I get what lower and higher albedo means.

Apparently, you don't understand the result of lower albedo.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually I am relying on a more recent published paper by a reputable source.

If that guy actually believes that solar power results in net cooling, he must be ignoring albedo and entropy. Doesn't sound very reputable.

Any follow up papers that claim cooling, or is he all by himself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet

By increasing albedo and reducing the energy immediately reflected back into space. LOL!

 

[Crick]

The ice age began three million years ago. Or if you prefer you can say the earth transitioned to an icehouse planet from a green house planet 3 million years ago. Some people - you apparently being one of the - mistakenly call a glacial cycle an ice age.

View attachment 600066

D-O events - of which there were many - warmed and cooled from near glacial to near interglacial temperatures (5C swings) in as few as several decades. So, no, the claim that the recent warming trend is unprecedented is false.

You have mistakenly attributed increased climate fluctuations of a bipolar glaciated planet with CO2.

Do you reject the accepted absorption spectra of CO2?

 

[Crick]

Sure and that's in all cases of electrical generation, right? So no difference there. The difference is only solar reduces the solar radiation warming the surface of the planet and the other technologies don't.

The difference is that solar PV doesn't produce CO2 that would otherwise warm the planet's surface by slowing the escape of IR from the atmosphere to space. Or do you reject the standard absorption spectra of CO2?

 

[ding]

Apparently, you don't understand the result of lower albedo.

I think it's more likely that you are having a hard time comprehending what I have already told you.

 

[ding]

If that guy actually believes that solar power results in net cooling, he must be ignoring albedo and entropy. Doesn't sound very reputable.

Any follow up papers that claim cooling, or is he all by himself?

So you believe the authors, Aixue Hu, Samuel Levis and Gerald A. Meehl - who work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and SLevis Consulting LLC - fubar'd their modeling?

You do realize their paper was published after the paper you linked to was published, right? Is it also your belief they didn't know about that paper?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it's more likely that you are having a hard time comprehending what I have already told you.

You told me that you don't understand conservation of energy.

Or that lower albedo means more heat at the Earth's surface.

 

[ding]

By increasing albedo and reducing the energy immediately reflected back into space. LOL!

No. Try again. I've only explained it about a dozen times.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you believe the authors, Aixue Hu, Samuel Levis and Gerald A. Meehl - who work at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and SLevis Consulting LLC - fubar'd their modeling?

You do realize their paper was published after the paper you linked to was published, right? Is it also your belief they didn't know about that paper?

You mean the error filled theoretical work was published after the one with actual measurements?

Maybe you can explain why power moved from A to B would be anything better than a wash?

 

[ding]

You told me that you don't understand conservation of energy.

Or that lower albedo means more heat at the Earth's surface.

Nope. Can you show me that quote?

 

[ding]

You mean the error filled theoretical work was published after the one with actual measurements?

Maybe you can explain why power moved from A to B would be anything better than a wash?

You should write a rebuttal paper and get that published. It might make you feel a little bit better about this.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Try again. I've only explained it about a dozen times.

Yes, I've seen your humorous attempts to back up your silly claim.