The Atmospheric Physics Behind Net Zero
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лис 2022
- Before net zero, climate policy was all about contraction and convergence of emissions between rich and poor to achieve, in the words of the Rio Convention, “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” at a safe level. But scientists struggled to establish what that “safe” level was, making little progress in over a quarter of a century. And it was not because we were incompetent: for fundamental reasons in physics and probability theory, we were asking the wrong question.
A lecture by Myles Allen
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/a...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
I love that we are asked to answer questions and exercise our noodles instead of merely accepting what is said! Climate sensitivity if equilibrium is maintained equation - higher or lower than lambda? And Angstroms 'mistake'? Great stuff!
If your graphic @ 14:00 is ALL CO2 molecules you should redo it not to scale but to the atmospheric ration 410:1,000,000 (ppm). That's probably the objection Limbaugh had with the slide. if u did that you'd be hard pressed to show 1 CO2 molecules in such a small space.
Excellent.
I'm still a bit confused. There was a lot of mentioning that the outgoing long wave radiation is reduced because it is colder higher up. But isn't the increased absorbtion of incoming short wave radiation equally important, to the point that outgoing longwave radiation will be higher than before humans meddled with the system?
Hello. I think sun energy comes in in the form of visible light also, so CO2 doesn't stop it. Earth whole energy emission is in infrared.
Nice presentation. I wonder if the opposite is true regarding atmospheric density and has this been confirmed in the laboratory? ie does a less dense atmosphere influence the average temperature to be colder?
There are plenty of moons and planets with less dense or no atmosphere. They are cold. But that's a basic fact of gases- less density means fewer particles to interact with each other. Their interaction with each other is what we feel as heat
Will increased temperatures cause changes in cloud cover and counteract daytime heating due to reflectivity of the clouds but decrease nighttime radiation of heat into space? Perhaps easily reversable geoengineering should be considered like aerosols released into the atmosphere and diluted sodium hydroxide into the ocean to restore the PH and absorb CO2 as a short term measure while we transition to net zero at a reasonable rate without setting our people on the path to starvation and suffering.
The experiment he should have done is baking a birthday cake with one of the birthday candles.
They all like to talk about large numbers and moles and the energy of thousands of Hiroshima bombs in attempts to scare everyone but they never boil it down to the fact that there simply will never be enough greenhouse gasses (other than water vapour) to have any actual significant impact on climate.
c02 would need to get to the concentration that we would be passing out to have a measurable effect on climate. And even at that amount swanky erroneous would still be wrong and Angstrom Would be mostly right.
28:31 can you explain why climate science makes such an issue of the Arctic when if you consider the net temperature change over the last 100 years there has been none. The Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 30s as it is now. This is confirmed by written records at the time and multiple temperature records from the area.
Some big names here. Doesn’t surprise me that a statistical mechanic and a spectroscopist came to different conclusions on this. Angstrom is making the basic assumption that all spectroscopists make that you have a single scattering event. Once you get toward band saturation that assumption breaks down and the relationships between incident light, transmitted light and concentration no longer hold. As every scuba diver knows you don’t have to be able to see the bottom to be able to see at the bottom. If you looked at the temperature inside that tube at the end of the experiment you would see something different to looking at transmitted light.
The quality of this lecture is truly excellent, as always with any Gresham lecture.
28:36 water goes turbulent and turbulent is difficult so that’s why they use a viscous fluid to MAKE the experiment work.
So I guess they will need to make the atmosphere viscous to make climate alarm true.
There’s a story about NASA scientists who were responsible for testing the special wing components of the space shuttle. They used a air cannon to blast tiny bits of foam at the components to determine the level of damage and pronounced that there was no problem and the shuttle would be fine.
They forgot to mention that they first used large chunks of foam and utterly destroyed the components but that result didn’t yield the data they were looking for so they ignored it.
The takeaway from this anecdote is that scientists can be so focused on trying to get the results they want they can ignore everything that doesn’t comply with what they want to see and not realise that there’s a problem with doing that.
Looking down from above at the coloured dots makes it look as though they are very crowded together but in fact for every 10000 "balls" only 4 are carbon dioxide so his pictures are a gross distortion of reality. Don't know why he did that.
Uncertainty should not be an escape. If a plane runs out of fuel in mid-flight then it will crash - just because we are uncertain of exactly where, or when -- does not mean we dodge the calamity.
At 50:00 minutes-ish he asks "Why does this matter"? then answers your issue
The issue is sensitivity which as explained requires actual data from measured changes. This much has been explained in this lecture which I commend for its clarity. What has not been explained here is how we eliminate the natural variability, ocean currents, volcanos, and the negative feedbacks that can occur due to H20. Without these the calibration will contain larger error ranges. If we calibrate when measured temperatures rise we also have to expIan why increases in temperature do not always track CO2. H2O still needs much work to establish how it interacts. Also energy in the form of convection and conduction needs to be accurately determined. Another issue is the change in land use, agriculture, deforestation, urban growth which has also changed the albedo since industrialization started.
We are in a natural global cooling era, but the Milankovitch cycles are totally overwhelmed by the increases in green house gases. There were scientific articles published about this in the 70s. See J Imbrie, J Z Imbrie (1980). "Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations". Science 207 (1980/02/29): 943-953.
And you are?
@@philipgriffiths9859 Somebody who has been studying climate change for decades. I generally get ad hominid attacks from ignorant change deniers.
Another thing I note is that Prof Will Happer from Princeton disagrees with what Myles is saying and seriously so.
OK so what? Well, Will is an expert in atmospheric physics where this chap is not and Will has years more experience.
Myles might be an expert in presenting simplified physics to people who don't know very much but I doubt he'd have the courage to be on the same podium as Happer, swapping theories and calculations.
I'd like to see it anyway.
listen to the reasoning provided, FFS?!!!
Important subject. Not helped by Myles's tendency to interrupt himself mid flow. Not a problem for those familiar with the subject but could be for new initiates.
We are still waiting for the catastrophic sea level rise. Thank goodness for green house gases as we would all freeze to death and CO2 comes in handy as well given all carbon based life forms (everything) would not exist without it. He might be a professor but climate is not his best subject.
its not a theory... trust us, we now. its maybe confusing for you but dont worry we now.
In reference to science making progress, academia has never had much courage. Furthermore, science is a very funny word, all you have to do is put the definite article in front of it and it becomes the opposite, “The Science.”
Michael Mann’s hockey stick is a perfect example of how Scientism has become the dogma of universities with opposition to the agenda heavily suppressed. Willie Soon, Richard Linzden, William Harper, Freeman Dyson and John Clauser, would all disagree with his assumptions on radiant forcing, and are far more educated in physics.
Doubling of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 800ppm would only increase the available heat by 3 Watts per metre squared, 0.7 degrees C, notwithstanding, saturation is reached at approximately 120ppm. Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide thermal insulation (greenhouse effect) only acts in 13-16 microns of the Infrared scale, radiates its energy in all directions, holds its energy for less than 0.001 seconds and has to compete with water vapour. As John Clauser Nobel Prize for physics 2023 stated when referring to the IPCC, “those clowns can’t even calculate clouds.
He also assumes a complex system with many variables doesn’t have any negative feed back loops, one such being the Iris effect of high level clouds, theorised by Professor Richard Linzden, Atmospheric physics MIT.
In closing he is simple pushing a narrative his livelihood depends, the impact of political ideas has nothing to do with science.
The guy giving the lecture not only knows much more than you, but he doesn't have to copy-and-paste. Maybe if you'd bother to look at the dismantling of the (silly) claims of Clauser you'd learn something. Also invoking Dyson doesn't help because he does not deny climate change. And Linzden doesn't either. And it is William Happer, not "William Harper" as you wrote, but to you all those names are supposed to be magical anyway as you don't really care or know any different.
I'm going to explain why the cartoon at 9:28 is junk-science rubbish. I've been doing that since 2016 when I decided to take a butcher's at the physics. Physical science is important and shouldn't be a Gong Show. Humans should include a significant portion who understand (based on accepting the understanding, measurement & theory, of experts like "Max Planck", "Albert Einstein" ... innumerable others) and not be excessively just babble. The cartoon is one of the better ones. Its junk science is the word "re-radiated", the correct word is "manufactured". This is not semantics, this is physical science. Photons for sure must be occasionally absorbed & re-radiated but that has nothing to do with the so-called "greenhouse effect" in Earth's troposphere, it is and irrelevant Red Herring. The surface is NOT warmer due to some of its radiation being re-radiated back into it, the surface is warmer because molecules in the troposphere sometimes vibrate when they collide and sometimes while vibrating they spontaneously "thermally relax" and emit a photon and a portion of those photons are headed down rather than up. The "greenhouse effect" is specifically due to the troposphere usually by far being colder near the top than near the bottom. In fact, the "greenhouse effect" does operate backwards and cause surface cooling in winter Antarctica when there's no sunshine & temperature is below -45 degrees, this has been MEASURED from space non stop since 1964 (IRIS-A on Nimbus 1).
-----------------
For simplicity setting aside land, the minor 25% of Earth, and setting aside radiation from the sea bed to the centre of Earth, the LWR radiation is like this: The H2O water molecules manufacture radiation and that's caused by sometimes vibrating when they collide and sometimes emitting a photon. The faster the molecules are moving the more collisions per second and the harder the collisions so the more photons are made. The word for how fast molecules are moving is "temperature" so the warmer the water is the more radiation is manufactured. The H2O molecules also absorb radiation that goes through them if they aren't vibrating, so they both change "heat" (molecule speed) into radiation and change radiation into "heat". A photon travels on average 1-8 microns depending on its wavelength before being absorbed by an H2O molecule so it never really gets anywhere except at the boundary of water with a vacuum or a gas.
-----------------
I hope you the best success. You should research *promosm*!