Deleting A Few Lines Of Code Can Yield "Significant" Power Savings On Some Linux Systems

[Djhg2000]

Sorry, this post got lost in my inbox pile. Better late than never, eh?

How do you figure 1% would result in 0.1W / square meter when the incoming energy for the cross-section is around 1000 W / square meter?

That number is indeed wrong. It should be 1% of 85 W/m^2, which is of course 0,85 W/m^2. I'm quite surprised I arrived at 0,1 W/m^2 because it should be immediately obvious it can't be right.

173,000 terawatts hits earth. 173000E12 or 173E15 or 1.73E17 W.
Figure from MIT: http://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026
Notice also the additional note "That's more than 10,000 times the world's total energy use."
But when I talking about energy production, I'm including losses so the world energy production is higher than the total energy use.


1% reflection is about 1.7E15 W.

The total surface of earth is about 510 million km^2.
Would you believe Wikipedia for this? You can of course do a rough calculation yourself if you find a radius/diameter source that you trust.

1.7E15 / 510E6 is 3.3 MW / km^2 or 3.3 W / m^2.
3.3 W / m^2 is more than your estimated 0.1W / m^2. Quite a lot more.

It would have been around 10 W (1% of 1000 W) if earth had been a flat disk but earth's surface area is significantly larger than the cross-section area - you know where to find the formulas for area of circle and area of sphere.

But this is where you should instantly have seen that 1% could never, ever, get even close to your claim of 0.1W / m^2.

1.7E15 W times 24 hours times 365 days is around 1.5E19 Wh.

2017, we produced around 162,494 TWh or 1.6E17 Wh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

So 1% difference in how much is reflected is about 100 times the energy we are currently producing.

0.01% difference in how much the atmosphere reflects is about the same as the heat produced from the human civilization.

See, this is the kind of response I was looking for. Good reasoning and sources. A few things to note:

* The sun hits our cross section, so that 3,3 W/m^2 needs to be divided by 4. This is actually quite close to the number I calculated; 0,83 W/m^2 vs 0,85 W/m^2.
* I'd prefer we stick to instantaneous units like W instead of time integrals like Wh, but the end result is the same so I won't make too much of a fuzz over it.
* I don't use the consolidated numbers because I want to see the exact effect of each contributor. Consolidated numbers have an inherent risk of large errors disappearing in the sheer amount of data and summing numbers with vastly different confidence is asking for trouble in general.

So you not only proved me wrong but you did it in a proper manner. Kudos to you!

I can get away with an accuracy of 1 significant digit.

And it shows that 1% change in how much is reflected is 100% times our civilizations energy production. 0.01% change in reflection gives similar change in total heat on earth as the heat produced by our energy production (if we ignore the small part of energy production that is solar energy and actually reusing the heat that hits earth).

So why are you still convinced it's the amount of energy we produce that is the big problem, instead of how we produce the energy - and perform other activities. And how that affects the atmosphere? Because we have already seen the atmosphere changing reflection way more than 0.01% several times in history. We know that dust from volcanic eruptions results in much larger changes. But we don't really know exactly how much the carbon dioxide changes affects the reflection - which is why the researchers are so worried because carbon dioxide is a green house gas - something that reduces the reflection and keeps more heat locked in.

All good points except you still haven't backed up that 1% figure. Where does it come from? Did you just make up an arbitrary number or is it based on an actual change in reflected energy?

Show you the math? Are you saying that you haven't spent any time looking at this before you went into this debate with a fixed view on things?

That's like saying "show me the math" when you don't believe someone says iron is heavier than wood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-2019

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/bu...ull-report.pdf

I've looked into lots of data on climate change, which is why I was skeptical of the CO2 theory in the first place. The quality of proof accepted in climate change isn't the same as in other fields. There are of course practical issues with conclusive evidence with so many variables but that just makes it so much important to have rigorous proof.

But I'm getting sidetracked again. Consolidated numbers are the bane of numerical analysis. On this scale they need to be accompanied by an error range or a condition of some sort, things like "least this much" or "definitely less than".

This is why I summed them together with the condition that our waste heat is at least the end result of the sum.

Good question. But exactly what does it matter? I haven't made a claim on how much 1 ton of CO2 is affecting the atmosphere reflection - so then I don't need to show how the height matters.

What matters is that we have already managed to measure a change in reflection - exactly how large part that is caused by greenhouse gases at ground level and how large part is greenhouse gases at airplane height is a completely different debate. The change in reflection itself is quite significant.

If you have a bleeding cut in your leg - should the debate be if it the knife was held in left or right hand? Or should the first step be to tend to the wound?

This link shows you our knowledge of how the composition of the atmosphere have changed over time - ignoring short-term events like dust from volcanos:

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/606

But this is the missing link that needs to be conclusively proven for that 1% figure to be more than an arbitrary number. Measuring the reflection delta only proves that there is a change, not a change we can do something about.

Foil hat?

The graphs shows how human consumption changes. So that match is just for a specific year - and I think you got that match somewhere around 2014.

Are you saying that the physicians are incapable of measuring the amount of energy hitting earth?
Or are you saying that all energy companies are spreading false numbers about how much energy they are producing?

I'm saying energy companies only report what they contribute. What about the things they don't contribute? You need to look at the complete picture.

Forest fires add heat, but they are not included. Conversely, there are oil spills the likes that skew numbers in the other direction (although not as much). There are so many complicating factors that you can't simply sum everything together and get a representative number.

You are claiming that it's bad IPCC research that figured out the dinosaurs died because of a change in the reflection of solar energy?

This particular one is new and stinks of IPCC. So does that mean the asteroid theory up for discussion now?

And it's bad IPCC research that made false claims that ozone affected the amount of UVB and UVC ratiation being reflected?

And it's bad IPCC research that make you think it's warmer or colder depending on amount of clouds? Where I live, the winter mornings are scorching cold if the night sky was clear, because all heat reflected out.

Look at this picture, and you can see that there are very many heat vectors to take into consideration. And there is much research still needed to try to figure out the actual implications of changes of the relations of gases in the atmosphere.

https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy

But reflection is just one of the multiple factors. You have absorbtion and reflection - and both for energy from ground and energy from the sun.

It's well known that ozone blocks (absorbs and reflects) UVC, it has been proven time and time again by independent researchers. You can even do it yourself if you have a UVC source, a confined space and a banana.

In the much of the same way you don't need the IPCC to tell you clouds aren't 100% transparent. Verifying the entire thing in a makeshift home lab is a bit more difficult but hardly impossible as long as you can replicate the pressure and composition.

What the IPCC had the potential to do without their political ties was to prove every intermediate result and apply those to other fields. Let me ask you this then; how much research coming out of IPCC does not support climate change? There's bound to be something going wrong, like a half cooked initial theory disproven during research or low quality data leading to inconclusive results. If they truly were unbiased it would be very common.

Note that our eyes operates in a narrow window of wavelengths. View the world in a wider perspective that includes IR and UV and transmitted and reflected suddenly isn't the same. If you could see UV, then you would notice that the UV gets through the clouds while the visible light doesn't. So don't lock yourself into thinking red, green, blue when considering spectra.

UVA goes right through, UVB gets absorbed a bit and UVC doesn't even get that far because of the ozone. IR should mostly just get reflected by the clouds but is relatively low energy per photon, the sheer amount of photons is a much bigger issue. I'm hardly a stranger to the light spectrum either, I do infrared hobby experiments on almost a monthly basis. Speaking of which, emissivity is something that might interest you.

[zyxxel]

* The sun hits our cross section, so that 3,3 W/m^2 needs to be divided by 4. This is actually quite close to the number I calculated; 0,83 W/m^2 vs 0,85 W/m^2.
* I'd prefer we stick to instantaneous units like W instead of time integrals like Wh, but the end result is the same so I won't make too much of a fuzz over it.
* I don't use the consolidated numbers because I want to see the exact effect of each contributor. Consolidated numbers have an inherent risk of large errors disappearing in the sheer amount of data and summing numbers with vastly different confidence is asking for trouble in general.

The 3.3W /m^2 was based on total surface area of the sphere earth - not on the cross-section flat circle. So no additional factor 4 division. Switching from full area to cross-section area, then the power density for the cross-section area would instead have been 13W /m^2.

All good points except you still haven't backed up that 1% figure. Where does it come from? Did you just make up an arbitrary number or is it based on an actual change in reflected energy?

It should be obvious if you look closer, that I started with a 1% change as a example to show where it would lead to.

Then I showed that 1% actually represents a huge change - about 100 times larger than our human-created heat production on earth - i.e. if atmosphere changes are around 0.01%, then the change in retained solar heat would match the human heat production. So anything (let's not fight about "what") changing the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere with 0.01% would give a change of the same scale as all human heat produced (usable heat + waste heat from inefficiencies).

0.01% is one in ten thousand. So our climate is extremely much affected by how the atmosphere is reflecting/transmitting heat - that is the main factor for what temperatures we get on earth. Which means it isn't how much heat we produce (at the current scale) that is the big problem - it's if the way we are living (and producing heat) are changing the physical properties of the atmosphere as "isolator".

And there we are back to clouds or not. At day, we always gets more energy from the sun than what is reflected and transmitted out so the part of earth facing the sun will get warmer. At night, earth loses more energy than it gets in. And these losses are very greatly affected by clouds. The clouds are similar to having clothes on. For a winter night in the colder parts of earth, it makes a number of degrees of difference in the morning temperature if the night sky have been cloudy or clear. Which means that the clouds have changed the heat transfer properties of the atmosphere a lot - the clouds makes more radiated surface heat reflect down again instead of getting through the atmosphere and out into space.

Clouds are good during the day to reduce heat reaching the surface. While bad during the night by blocking heat from leaving earth. But "good" or "bad" here isn't the important thing. The main part here is that clouds are one - of multiple - factors that affects how warm earth will be. And it's a factor that matters hugely.

The following are articles (not part of any environmental debate) focusing on clouds and energy:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.2432

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds

Anything that changes the atmosphere so we get more or less clouds will affect us a lot. Even a tiny change in amounts of clouds will matter more than the heat from all human activity.

But clouds are what we can see. A large part of the energy from the sun that gets reflected away is reflected away by parts of the atmosphere we can't see. Which means we can't see with our eyes much of the greenhouse effects of the atmosphere because it isn't happening in the visible wavelength of our eyes. But it's there and instruments can see it.

We would have below freezing temperatures on earth without the atmosphere. This follows from energy equilibrium - the balance where amount of energy received from the sun and the amount of energy radiated out gets in balance.

The additional heat kept on the earth surface by the atmosphere compared an atmosphere-free earth, comes from the following factors:
- Carbon dioxide stands for about 20% of the greenhouse effect.
- Water vapor stands for 50%
- Clouds stands for 25%
- Methane, aerosoles, ... stands for 5%

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

Notice from the article, that they mention that we would have -18°C or 0°F without atmosphere. And several hundred degrees centigrade if more greenhouse gases similar to Venus.

Now look closer at the first graph - actually measured amounts (no theory, no guesses, but actual measurements) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 1960 until now.

I've looked into lots of data on climate change, which is why I was skeptical of the CO2 theory in the first place. The quality of proof accepted in climate change isn't the same as in other fields. There are of course practical issues with conclusive evidence with so many variables but that just makes it so much important to have rigorous proof.

But I'm getting sidetracked again. Consolidated numbers are the bane of numerical analysis. On this scale they need to be accompanied by an error range or a condition of some sort, things like "least this much" or "definitely less than".

This is why I summed them together with the condition that our waste heat is at least the end result of the sum.

But this is the missing link that needs to be conclusively proven for that 1% figure to be more than an arbitrary number. Measuring the reflection delta only proves that there is a change, not a change we can do something about.

But we can make a change on how much carbon dioxide we are releasing. At least yet - until we start to melt the permafrost.

We already have proof, that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising - actual measurements for the last 50 years are quite clear on that. And we already have very good measurements showing how carbon dioxide is affecting the temperature on earth.

I'm saying energy companies only report what they contribute. What about the things they don't contribute? You need to look at the complete picture.

They are reporting not just amount of sold energy, but also amount of produced energy before losses.

With a nuclear power plant, they know how much heat the power plant produces, and how much of that heat that gets converted to electricity. And how much of that electricity that can be delivered to consumers and payed for. Same for power plants using coal or oil.

With a hydroelectric power plant, the energy produced as electricity is the conversion of falling water into electricity. So we aren't adding any heat to the process - we are just converting energy into a more human-friendly variant - electricity. So we are basically moving heat - not creating new heat.

Forest fires add heat, but they are not included. Conversely, there are oil spills the likes that skew numbers in the other direction (although not as much). There are so many complicating factors that you can't simply sum everything together and get a representative number.

Yes you can. There is no need to sum different components to compute the value 1.0 with ten decimals. In most cases, two value digits are good enough. And it's quite easy to figure out with reasonable numeric quality the amount of heat from forest fires. But the bigger problem isn't the heat from the fire but the smoke, dust and released carbon dioxide.

This particular one is new and stinks of IPCC. So does that mean the asteroid theory up for discussion now?

Basically the same theory - dust in the atmosphere from an asteroid or from a big volcano eruption reducing the temperature on earth. And no IPCC involved. Dust from big volcano eruptions have already been shown to affect the temperature in modern time, and we know that there have been much bigger volcanic eruptions earlier in Earth's history.

In the case of additional dust in the atmosphere, we get a lowering of the temperature on earth.
In the case of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we get a rise in temperatures.

And as always - we are talking at a global scale. Not a local scale. I noticed you thought very cold local temperatures would prove that we don't have a global warming. But that is a flawed view. Higher temperatures leads to more aggressive weather. More heat energy will result in stronger storms, because it's temperature differences that creates the wind. And one out come of that is that hot is getting hotter while cold can become colder - a bigger temperature span between "good" weather and "bad" weather. So on the local scale, you can have a new cold record. But view Earth with a thermal camera and integrate and the outcome is that the total temperature is going up. And this has already been proven again and again and again. There is no IPCC stink that the average temperature is on the way up. Just a debate of how well we can predict the temperature 10 years, 50 years or 200 years from now.

It's well known that ozone blocks (absorbs and reflects) UVC, it has been proven time and time again by independent researchers. You can even do it yourself if you have a UVC source, a confined space and a banana.

In the much of the same way you don't need the IPCC to tell you clouds aren't 100% transparent. Verifying the entire thing in a makeshift home lab is a bit more difficult but hardly impossible as long as you can replicate the pressure and composition.

What the IPCC had the potential to do without their political ties was to prove every intermediate result and apply those to other fields. Let me ask you this then; how much research coming out of IPCC does not support climate change? There's bound to be something going wrong, like a half cooked initial theory disproven during research or low quality data leading to inconclusive results. If they truly were unbiased it would be very common.

Not sure were this thread would lead.

I don't need to play with a lab to prove that ozone affects amount of UVC reflected/transmitted. You argue as if I claim the different, while in actually I claimed ozone does affect reflection/transmission (and hence temperature).

UVA goes right through, UVB gets absorbed a bit and UVC doesn't even get that far because of the ozone. IR should mostly just get reflected by the clouds but is relatively low energy per photon, the sheer amount of photons is a much bigger issue. I'm hardly a stranger to the light spectrum either, I do infrared hobby experiments on almost a monthly basis. Speaking of which, emissivity is something that might interest you.

Unclear why you think "the sheer amount of photons is a much bigger issue".

The much bigger issue isn't the number of photons, it's the amount of energy coming in and the amount of energy going out. The balance between these two factors is deciding the earth temperature.

What you - over all - seems to fail to notice is that there are already overwhelming proofs of climate changes. The debate isn't if we have a climate change - the debate is exactly how large percentages we can contribute from different factors. And exactly how fast the climate change can escalate as we activate other factors - melting permafrost, conversion of rain forest to savanna etc. And how changes we are doing may improve things - and the possible time scales for any improvements.

So it's "20 years" or "50 years" or "200 years" that is what is debated. Not if we have a climate change.

And it's "does 100000 km^2 of removed rain forest really matter?" that is debated.

And it's "at what temperature will enough permafrost melt and release so much carbon dioxide that we can't stop the rest of the permafrost from melting" that is debated.

What is debated, is the projections and the numeric qualities of the simulations. But that is something completely different from thinking that the scientists can't figure out if we are creating a climate change.

[Azrael5]

12 years to fix this stupid issue?

[zyxxel]

12 years to fix this stupid issue?

No. Probably months to fix with all testing and sign-offs etc. The calendar time is because someone must first figure out that there is something wrong.

[Djhg2000]

The 3.3W /m^2 was based on total surface area of the sphere earth - not on the cross-section flat circle. So no additional factor 4 division. Switching from full area to cross-section area, then the power density for the cross-section area would instead have been 13W /m^2.

But the number you are quoting as the equivalent area for incoming radiation (which for such large distances would be very close to equal to a plane coincident with the center of the earth with a normal axis towards the radiation source, confined by the earth perimeter - i.e. the cross section) is 510 * 10^9 m^2. This is the surface area, not the cross section area. If you use this number without dividing by 4 then mathematically you're saying the sun surrounds us.

It should be obvious if you look closer, that I started with a 1% change as a example to show where it would lead to.

Then I showed that 1% actually represents a huge change - about 100 times larger than our human-created heat production on earth - i.e. if atmosphere changes are around 0.01%, then the change in retained solar heat would match the human heat production. So anything (let's not fight about "what") changing the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere with 0.01% would give a change of the same scale as all human heat produced (usable heat + waste heat from inefficiencies).

Right, but why is 1% a good example?

I could say a 100000% increase in waste heat production would scorch the earth surface, but the likelihood of that happening is approaching approaching 0. You need to show what this 1% is supposed to represent.

0.01% is one in ten thousand. So our climate is extremely much affected by how the atmosphere is reflecting/transmitting heat - that is the main factor for what temperatures we get on earth. Which means it isn't how much heat we produce (at the current scale) that is the big problem - it's if the way we are living (and producing heat) are changing the physical properties of the atmosphere as "isolator".

And there we are back to clouds or not. At day, we always gets more energy from the sun than what is reflected and transmitted out so the part of earth facing the sun will get warmer. At night, earth loses more energy than it gets in. And these losses are very greatly affected by clouds. The clouds are similar to having clothes on. For a winter night in the colder parts of earth, it makes a number of degrees of difference in the morning temperature if the night sky have been cloudy or clear. Which means that the clouds have changed the heat transfer properties of the atmosphere a lot - the clouds makes more radiated surface heat reflect down again instead of getting through the atmosphere and out into space.

Clouds are good during the day to reduce heat reaching the surface. While bad during the night by blocking heat from leaving earth. But "good" or "bad" here isn't the important thing. The main part here is that clouds are one - of multiple - factors that affects how warm earth will be. And it's a factor that matters hugely.

The following are articles (not part of any environmental debate) focusing on clouds and energy:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.2432

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds

Anything that changes the atmosphere so we get more or less clouds will affect us a lot. Even a tiny change in amounts of clouds will matter more than the heat from all human activity.

But clouds are what we can see. A large part of the energy from the sun that gets reflected away is reflected away by parts of the atmosphere we can't see. Which means we can't see with our eyes much of the greenhouse effects of the atmosphere because it isn't happening in the visible wavelength of our eyes. But it's there and instruments can see it.

We would have below freezing temperatures on earth without the atmosphere. This follows from energy equilibrium - the balance where amount of energy received from the sun and the amount of energy radiated out gets in balance.

The additional heat kept on the earth surface by the atmosphere compared an atmosphere-free earth, comes from the following factors:
- Carbon dioxide stands for about 20% of the greenhouse effect.
- Water vapor stands for 50%
- Clouds stands for 25%
- Methane, aerosoles, ... stands for 5%

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

Notice from the article, that they mention that we would have -18°C or 0°F without atmosphere. And several hundred degrees centigrade if more greenhouse gases similar to Venus.

Now look closer at the first graph - actually measured amounts (no theory, no guesses, but actual measurements) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 1960 until now.

But this still doesn't explain why you picked 1% as an example. Let me put it like this then; are you suggesting our CO2 emissions are definitely causing 1% less radiated energy?

But we can make a change on how much carbon dioxide we are releasing. At least yet - until we start to melt the permafrost.

We already have proof, that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising - actual measurements for the last 50 years are quite clear on that. And we already have very good measurements showing how carbon dioxide is affecting the temperature on earth.

We can always change our CO2 emissions, the more important question is what we could reasonably expect to gain from it. It's a bit of a tangent but this is exactly the kind of trap people fall into; correlation doesn't equal causation. From an evolutionary perspective equating the two served us well in avoiding imminent death but it's terrible as a scientific principle.

They are reporting not just amount of sold energy, but also amount of produced energy before losses.

With a nuclear power plant, they know how much heat the power plant produces, and how much of that heat that gets converted to electricity. And how much of that electricity that can be delivered to consumers and payed for. Same for power plants using coal or oil.

With a hydroelectric power plant, the energy produced as electricity is the conversion of falling water into electricity. So we aren't adding any heat to the process - we are just converting energy into a more human-friendly variant - electricity. So we are basically moving heat - not creating new heat.

Power plants report their electric output and efficiency. Any waste heat not directly from conversion losses is not accounted for.

But as for hydroelectric power plants there's definitely heat involved. Just because we're not intentionally adding heat doesn't mean we're not converting some potential energy into heat by means of non-unity efficient generators.

Yes you can. There is no need to sum different components to compute the value 1.0 with ten decimals. In most cases, two value digits are good enough. And it's quite easy to figure out with reasonable numeric quality the amount of heat from forest fires. But the bigger problem isn't the heat from the fire but the smoke, dust and released carbon dioxide.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out you need more significant digits before you sum them together either, especially with so many variables. With this large of a data set and variance, some of them are pretty much guaranteed to be smaller than the error margin of another variable as well.

Basically the same theory - dust in the atmosphere from an asteroid or from a big volcano eruption reducing the temperature on earth. And no IPCC involved. Dust from big volcano eruptions have already been shown to affect the temperature in modern time, and we know that there have been much bigger volcanic eruptions earlier in Earth's history.

In the case of additional dust in the atmosphere, we get a lowering of the temperature on earth.
In the case of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we get a rise in temperatures.

Sure, let's ignore the massive heat from dissipating the kinetic energy of two celestial bodies colliding, the suffocating effect of dust in lungs, worldwide tsunamis, the shockwave reaching a quarter of the continent, secondary impacts from ejected matter verified to have reached at least half across the same continent, and so forth.

They were definitely all cooked by increased CO2 leading to climate change, right? Are you nuts?

And as always - we are talking at a global scale. Not a local scale. I noticed you thought very cold local temperatures would prove that we don't have a global warming.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that the change in CO2 couldn't explain the rapid change in climate for a couple of months. If you interpret that as a sign of denying climate change then that's your own delusional extrapolation. Or possibly parroting of conspiracy theories of another certain forum member. I don't really care which to be honest.

But that is a flawed view. Higher temperatures leads to more aggressive weather. More heat energy will result in stronger storms, because it's temperature differences that creates the wind. And one out come of that is that hot is getting hotter while cold can become colder - a bigger temperature span between "good" weather and "bad" weather. So on the local scale, you can have a new cold record. But view Earth with a thermal camera and integrate and the outcome is that the total temperature is going up. And this has already been proven again and again and again. There is no IPCC stink that the average temperature is on the way up. Just a debate of how well we can predict the temperature 10 years, 50 years or 200 years from now.

Yes, the average temperature is going up. Yes, the local variations are getting uncertain. If you could perhaps take a moment and actually read what I'm writing it would be obvious I'm not denying climate change. I know you're brighter than this, don't fall to the depths of the forum participant who shall not be named.

The problem here is that the IPCC is hellbent on proving it's because of CO2. The jury is still out on that, no matter how much the IPCC is screaming heresy at their critics.

Not sure were this thread would lead.

I don't need to play with a lab to prove that ozone affects amount of UVC reflected/transmitted. You argue as if I claim the different, while in actually I claimed ozone does affect reflection/transmission (and hence temperature).

Well the point was that you don't need the IPCC to tell you ozone blocks UVC...

And it's bad IPCC research that made false claims that ozone affected the amount of UVB and UVC ratiation being reflected?

This is the point you interjected, remember?

Unclear why you think "the sheer amount of photons is a much bigger issue".

The much bigger issue isn't the number of photons, it's the amount of energy coming in and the amount of energy going out. The balance between these two factors is deciding the earth temperature.

I don't think I was being that unclear. Anyway the problem with IR not being reflected is that there's so much of it. IR is a very wide band and if you integrate the incoming IR and incoming visible light they should be of comparable magnitude. Not only that, black body radiation occurs in the IR spectrum, meaning IR radiates from literally everything not at absolute zero.

What you - over all - seems to fail to notice is that there are already overwhelming proofs of climate changes. The debate isn't if we have a climate change - the debate is exactly how large percentages we can contribute from different factors. And exactly how fast the climate change can escalate as we activate other factors - melting permafrost, conversion of rain forest to savanna etc. And how changes we are doing may improve things - and the possible time scales for any improvements.

Oh you are so close to hitting the nail, but alas you missed again. The debate you're talking about is pretty much the same as the one I'm talking about. The discussion is a lot broader than you think though, it's not just about how CO2 contributes but all sorts of things. For instance, did you know there's a theory that states methane is the leading cause of climate change? I find the reasoning dubious but it does have a non-insignificant following and holds more merit than some of the other theories, like the (according to me infinitesimally credible) theory of 4G causing climate change. Yes, 4G as in the collection of mobile communication standards. We can't definitively prove it's not 4G (since you can't prove a negative) but there's zero credible evidence supporting it.

But it's very likely not just one thing causing climate change either. As you know the IPCC et al has presented their CO2 theory over and over again with what they think is an ever growing pile of evidence that they were right all along. Then their followers absorb it with their confirmation bias. Except their evidence only support their claims if you adopt their assertions, which is bad science to begin with. You can't just assert the steps you don't have evidence for with the motivation that it works in theory. CO2 is likely a contributing factor but claiming it's the sole cause is, as far as conclusive evidence is concerned, hogwash.

So it's "20 years" or "50 years" or "200 years" that is what is debated. Not if we have a climate change.

And it's "does 100000 km^2 of removed rain forest really matter?" that is debated.

And it's "at what temperature will enough permafrost melt and release so much carbon dioxide that we can't stop the rest of the permafrost from melting" that is debated.

What is debated, is the projections and the numeric qualities of the simulations. But that is something completely different from thinking that the scientists can't figure out if we are creating a climate change.

You need to widen your perspective. As mentioned above there's a lot more debate than that happening.

[zyxxel]

But the number you are quoting as the equivalent area for incoming radiation (which for such large distances would be very close to equal to a plane coincident with the center of the earth with a normal axis towards the radiation source, confined by the earth perimeter - i.e. the cross section) is 510 * 10^9 m^2. This is the surface area, not the cross section area. If you use this number without dividing by 4 then mathematically you're saying the sun surrounds us.

Correct. I computed incoming energy divided by the full earth surface area, to show what it means on average. Remember that Earth is rotating - it isn't like some planets that always have the same side facing the sun. So looking at average energy is more useful if we also want to look at average heat per area produced by power production.

Right, but why is 1% a good example?

I could say a 100000% increase in waste heat production would scorch the earth surface, but the likelihood of that happening is approaching approaching 0. You need to show what this 1% is supposed to represent.

Did you really think before you asked the question? I haven't said 1% is a good example. I have given the outcome if there was a change of 1%. And shown that 1% would represent a huge difference. And I have shown that a change of only 0.01% would be of the same magnitude to the heat we are producing ourselves. That should have been rather obvious.

And it should then have been rather obvious to you, that if a 0.01% change in how much of the amount of the incoming heat from the sun that stays then it means that changes to the atmosphere are critical. A 0.01% change is one in ten thousand.

You claim the problem is waste heat from power production. I show that we should worry way more that we change the temperature transfer/reflection properties of the atmosphere - just because a change of one in ten thousand equals our own heat production.

But this still doesn't explain why you picked 1% as an example. Let me put it like this then; are you suggesting our CO2 emissions are definitely causing 1% less radiated energy?

I'll let you think a bit more about this. And this time - invest some actual time pondering the meaning of what I'm saying.

We can always change our CO2 emissions, the more important question is what we could reasonably expect to gain from it. It's a bit of a tangent but this is exactly the kind of trap people fall into; correlation doesn't equal causation. From an evolutionary perspective equating the two served us well in avoiding imminent death but it's terrible as a scientific principle.

No trap - scientists can actually play with gases in a laboratory. There isn't a problem with correlation contra causation when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere - it is already proven that more CO2 gives more retained heat. That's why CO2 is labelled a greenhouse gas. The only problem is to predict exactly how much change you get for a specific change in proportions of the gases.

This has been covered before. When the scientists fights, it's about the percentages, and the time lines, and the actual temperature changes.

And this is where everything blows over your head. You have decided something. So you don't want to hear or believe arguments that says something else. Your in lock-down mode where new input is constantly rejected.

Power plants report their electric output and efficiency. Any waste heat not directly from conversion losses is not accounted for.

Wrong.

But as for hydroelectric power plants there's definitely heat involved. Just because we're not intentionally adding heat doesn't mean we're not converting some potential energy into heat by means of non-unity efficient generators.

And what do you think happens when the water falls down? You think it would not be converted to heat when it hits the bottom of the fall? If so - exactly what energy conversion happens?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out you need more significant digits before you sum them together either, especially with so many variables. With this large of a data set and variance, some of them are pretty much guaranteed to be smaller than the error margin of another variable as well.

Also an incorrect assumption. You don't care to sum the small components, because their contribution is smaller than the precision you are computing with. The bigger components are good enough to compute on - and they do indicate problematic outcomes for our climate.

Sure, let's ignore the massive heat from dissipating the kinetic energy of two celestial bodies colliding, the suffocating effect of dust in lungs, worldwide tsunamis, the shockwave reaching a quarter of the continent, secondary impacts from ejected matter verified to have reached at least half across the same continent, and so forth.

They were definitely all cooked by increased CO2 leading to climate change, right? Are you nuts?

You aren't good at reading. I mentioned that we have seen changes for our atmosphere affect the climate before. On one hand, because the proportion of gases have varied over time. But in the case of the dinosaurs, it was most probably dust. I did mention it earlier - but once more it wasn't something you were interested in picking up because in output-only mode you had to assume I must mean CO2 even when I did write about dust.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was that the change in CO2 couldn't explain the rapid change in climate for a couple of months. If you interpret that as a sign of denying climate change then that's your own delusional extrapolation. Or possibly parroting of conspiracy theories of another certain forum member. I don't really care which to be honest.

There has been no two-month rapid change in climate. You are still mixing climate with weather. The climate doesn't change with such short time constant. But a slowly increasing global temperature will create stronger local variations in weather.

So you are doing a strawman, when you claim that I'm interpreting any rapid two-month climate change. Please don't do that!

Yes, the average temperature is going up. Yes, the local variations are getting uncertain. If you could perhaps take a moment and actually read what I'm writing it would be obvious I'm not denying climate change. I know you're brighter than this, don't fall to the depths of the forum participant who shall not be named.

The problem here is that the IPCC is hellbent on proving it's because of CO2. The jury is still out on that, no matter how much the IPCC is screaming heresy at their critics.

No - the huge majority of all climate scientists have identified CO2 as the main culprit. The fight isn't if this is true or false. The fight is how much it affects the temperature. And how fast. And at what points in time we'll get further actions cascading - like melting permafrost.

Well the point was that you don't need the IPCC to tell you ozone blocks UVC...

Well the point was that no one have ever claimed you need IPCC to tell you that. Busy kicking in open doors again?

The point was that the ozone layer thickness have already been scientifically proven to greatly affect the amount of energy that reaches the earth surface. Just as the amount of CO2 has been scientifically proven to greatly affect the amount of energy that reaches the earth surface.

And I have shown that a change of 0.01% - ONE IN TEN THOUSAND - of the amount of retained heat incoming from the sun matches the total heat produced by humanity power production.

This is the point you interjected, remember?

No, this is the part where you decided to irrelevantly bring in IPCC into the debate. All because you are so stressed about IPCC and so convinced that everything they say must be wrong. So all us others must be fools - even when all the other climate researchers predicts similar outcome.



[/quote]I don't think I was being that unclear. Anyway the problem with IR not being reflected is that there's so much of it. IR is a very wide band and if you integrate the incoming IR and incoming visible light they should be of comparable magnitude. Not only that, black body radiation occurs in the IR spectrum, meaning IR radiates from literally everything not at absolute zero.[/quote]
You were very unclear. You think the temperature on earth is given by number of incoming photons minus number of outgoing photons?

Next thing - what is your actual point with bringing in black-body radiation? What is your take on how that relates to CO2 in the atmosphere?

Oh you are so close to hitting the nail, but alas you missed again. The debate you're talking about is pretty much the same as the one I'm talking about. The discussion is a lot broader than you think though, it's not just about how CO2 contributes but all sorts of things. For instance, did you know there's a theory that states methane is the leading cause of climate change? I find the reasoning dubious but it does have a non-insignificant following and holds more merit than some of the other theories, like the (according to me infinitesimally credible) theory of 4G causing climate change. Yes, 4G as in the collection of mobile communication standards. We can't definitively prove it's not 4G (since you can't prove a negative) but there's zero credible evidence supporting it.

1 - we already know that methane is a greenhouse gas. That isn't something the scientists have any problem understanding. They even have quite good computer models for how much the methane affects the atmosphere and how much CO2 affects it. But the problematic part is that it's CO2 that we are significantly changing the percentage of in the atmosphere - not methane.

Next thing - we have no problem proving anything about 4G. There isn't any "since you can't prove a negative". And besides - it's actually 5G that the foil hats are getting mad about. All because a very specific town in China (feel free to guess) happened to be one of the first cities with 5G. 4G have been with us for a good many years. The thing here is that the radio waves doesn't affect the reflective properties of the atmosphere. And the amount of energy - the actual heat - from the radio waves are a small part of the total energy consumed in the world.

But it's very likely not just one thing causing climate change either. As you know the IPCC et al has presented their CO2 theory over and over again with what they think is an ever growing pile of evidence that they were right all along. Then their followers absorb it with their confirmation bias. Except their evidence only support their claims if you adopt their assertions, which is bad science to begin with. You can't just assert the steps you don't have evidence for with the motivation that it works in theory. CO2 is likely a contributing factor but claiming it's the sole cause is, as far as conclusive evidence is concerned, hogwash.

The hogwash is what you have sitting between your ears, and need to wash away.

If ten thousand climate researchers gets one result, and you (not a researcher) gets a different result - then there is an almost zero probability that you happens to be the one that are correct. Even the energy companies agrees and believes in the climate researchers reports - so most big energy companies are working very actively on moving into other parts of the energy production chain because they know that fossil fuels aren't the future. They can continue with fossil fuels and die. Or they can use their profits to do research and move into other areas - we will still need energy.

You need to widen your perspective. As mentioned above there's a lot more debate than that happening.

The pot calling the kettle black... You argue from a very narrow perspective.

[coder]

No you didn't figure it comes from their propaganda.

You can be influenced by propaganda, indirectly, without realizing it. Or, you might have a point of view that's consistent with it, which you somehow arrived at by other means.

I've said repeatedly that I'm not denying climate change and it would be obvious to even a 5 year old that waste heat from power plants and the like isn't a natural phenomena.

There are a lot of things which aren't natural that don't necessarily cause a massive change in the global climate system.

You don't seem to grasp the importance of models and data, in validating theories. A nice idea without supporting evidence is just that - an idea.

it would help if so many people weren't hellbent on turning vegan and driving E85 cars, further increasing the need for farm land.

This is absurdly wrong. It takes far more land to grow grain to feed livestock than to feed someone on a plant-based diet. The prevalence of vegetarian diets in indigenous communities (most notably much of India) is an implicit recognition of this fact.

We can agree that burning ethanol is a stupid idea, though mainly because it has fueled massive deforestation and peat bog destruction, in order to grow more crops for it.

wood as a building material is having a relatively stable decrease.

In the US, it's going the opposite direction. Ever larger buildings are being constructed with wood. There's also a new trend of wood-based composites, enabling its use in tall buildings.

So who do you suggest might be financing that project then? Do you have any idea how much work goes into producing a scientific paper? It's like you're expecting anyone with a different opinion to take years of their life without income just to prove a point on a forum with a scientific paper. It's absolutely delusional to suggest something like that.

If you were serious about developing your ideas, there are several steps you'd go through, before that point. Most likely, you'd find your hypothesis has already been disproven or isn't remotely supported by the data. But, unless and until you approach the matter seriously, you can't know whether there's any merit to your ideas.

You clearly have no idea how science works anyway, but I'll give you a quick hint; most of our significant scientific advancements throughout history have stemmed either from accidents or trying to explain data points that don't fit with the existing models. Very few have actually been small incremental discoveries.

Source? There are well-known anecdotes from antiquity, but you confuse those with modern science at your peril.

The scientific order is not changed by people who don't even understand the theories they're trying to disprove.

You can disagree all you want. Fortunately for the rest of us, science doesn't care about which cherry picked parts of it you think defines science.

The scientific method is the only way to know your ideas have merit. Take it or leave it, but you can't argue your way around it.

Yet unlike you they're open to different ideas. You know why? It's because real scientists care more about about the answer than being flawless.

Being open to credible ideas and being open to crackpot theories that are demonstrably false are two different things. If you go to the most open-minded paleontologist and start talking about humans and dinosaurs co-existing, they're going to shoot you down right away.

Your stance suggests there's a strong authoritative component to science and that free thought should be left to the people higher up in the hierarchy.

No, that wasn't it. It's not anything to do with some hierarchy, rather it has to do with being equipped with the proper knowledge and tools for the job. Much as you wouldn't trust a guy with only a hammer and chisel to fix a fluid leak in your car, or trust someone with only woodworking tools to perform brain surgery, or a kid who just learned the basics of Python programming to fix a bug in your Linux kernel, someone without a working understanding of climate science is simply ill-equipped to hold court on it. The climate is an extremely complex system, where data, simulation, and analysis are everything. The idea that you can credibly disprove anything without those tools is what I'm objecting to.

This is not just an insult to scientific processes but it very clearly threatens freedom of thought. If only the top of the hierarchy is allowed to use science then you take the science out of it.

You can't pile on fake outrage and anti-elitism to boost your bad theories. That won't get you anywhere, except with people who have even crazier ideas.

But this is what you're refusing to understand; I'm not trying to disprove the CO2 theory, in fact I'm not trying that hard to prove anything, I'm trying to argue waste heat is a viable alternate theory.

They can't both be right. There's a dominant cause for the warming, and in order to support your hypothesis that it's caused by waste heat, you simultaneously need to show that the effect of CO2 is negligible. If you don't have a model which fits all of the data, then your model is broken and worthless.

What, you didn't go though this in science class or something?

I was trying to pick a simple example that was easy to grasp. The underlying point was the majority of accepted scientific fact is impractical for any individual to prove. One problem you're stumbling into is that of hindsight. When we accept something to be true, we also accept all alternate explanations to be false. In order to accept a hypothesis, you have to disprove all plausible competing theories.

So, you can read about something like quantum mechanics and the seminal discoveries and experiments and how the different pieces fit together, and it makes sense in hindsight, but we only got there by navigating through a maze of all possible alternate explanations, which is far more daunting. When you read about it, you're not seeing a lot of other theories that seemed to make a lot of sense, but for some fatal blow delivered in the form of experimental data.

In the case of climate science, there's the further complication of probably hundreds of plausible variables and potentially-significant feedbacks. It's very much a data-oriented affair.

he even go so far as to have a somewhat working model of the old geocentric theory in which almost everything seemed to fit. Except Mars didn't appear to orbit around Earth, but that was simply glossed over as insignificant.

Yes, your model has to fit all of the data.

You're seriously still going with this?

Yes. There are vast fortunes tied up in the fossil fuel industry, and it's naive to think they're not working on all fronts to beat back climate science and climate action. We know the Saudis, Russians, Iranians, and others are keen social media manipulators, but there are firms doubtlessly employed by big industry players and other countries who are working on all fronts to create FUD.

So I'm both trying to prove climate change and denying it simultaneously? Do you even hear yourself?

Sadly, that's not inconsistent with their aims. They want to plant seeds of doubt in the established science. Ideally, they want to create a sense that the science is unclear. Failing that, they want to promote a sense that there's nothing realistic to be done about it, so why bother trying? Your alternate hypothesis serves both ends.

According to me, the model is some mumbo jumbo and the supporting data is written in the sky.

If it's mumbo jumbo, it shouldn't be hard to disprove. Go for it!

I can't be arsed to type out something sensible to refute this bullshit anymore, you've already proved you're going to read it anyway (hint; I've already explained the basics earlier in this thread).

More like you're in so far above your head that you cannot even see the waves on the surface. You confuse random ideas with plausible, data-supported, peer-reviewed scientific theories. You've convinced yourself that expertise is somehow a vice, and summarily dismissed the work of all experts on the matter, without so much as lifting a finger to show why it's wrong.

Is this the fabled "Trump Derangement Syndrome" I've been hearing about from the right wing?

That sounds like exactly the sort of thing they'd propagate to inoculate their followers against truth, fact, and reason. If you've been hearing about it, that proves you travel in their circles and does a lot to explain your views.

I'm not a fucking anti-vaxer.

Good to hear.

That's not right either. It gets colder at night because the local outgoing energy is larger than the local incoming energy. In your model, at least as you explain it, the entire Earth gets colder when you can't see the sun.

No, don't be so obtuse. I was trying to simply explain why the "swimming pool analogy" doesn't hold for waste heat, the way it does for CO2.

So what you're saying is since now that we've opened up factories in China and people are moving out to the streets the temperature has gone back up on a global scale. Except it has very little relevance to the discussion. At this point it's no surprise you don't understand why.

Where do you even get that? First, the data is what it is - I offered no such explanation. You were trying to claim the world was cooling off, so it was a counter-point to that false claim.

Second, the data does not support your hypothesis, as world economic output, travel, shipping, etc. were all still way down.

I guess I'll end with this as my response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-calvsGLRfs

I do not watch random youtube videos. That place is a breeding ground for conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, anti-vaxers, and crazies from all parts of the political spectrum, with credible evidence the flat earth movement got its foothold there.

The longer you watch youtube, the more likely it is that you end up seeing some crazy shit that will erode your grasp on truth, fact, and reality.

So what's your point? That neither of those aren't a part of climate change?

Just that the perception of emissions reduction is far greater than the reality, because it's been the most visible forms of pollution, in precisely the places where it's normally most concentrated.

Further proving my point that it has been discussed in the media.

That point is a dead-end. It doesn't get you anywhere. You were claiming the CO2 reductions were so great as to somehow invalidate the CO2 hypothesis, but you're way off on both points - the emission reductions were not terribly substantial and certainly not great enough or sustained for long enough to impact atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Well at least we share the pessimism. For vastly different reasons, but it's probably the best I could hope for.

The difference might be that I'm not letting my pessimism lull me into inaction. We're all stewards of this incredible and irreplaceable planet, that took many billions of years to reach its current state. We can't idly stand by and let allow this destruction of the climate.

So, if you want to push for energy-efficiency, go for it.

They are, you're just not understanding my claim.

I understood your claim, but the articles just don't support it.

But that's fine, as explained earlier I've run out of fucks to give trying to make you understand what I'm talking about.

I understand what you're saying, but that's different than saying I accept your hypothesis. You have a lot of work to do, if you're serious about it.

[Djhg2000]

Correct. I computed incoming energy divided by the full earth surface area, to show what it means on average. Remember that Earth is rotating - it isn't like some planets that always have the same side facing the sun. So looking at average energy is more useful if we also want to look at average heat per area produced by power production.

That's not how incoming radiation works. A surface area unit doesn't care if it's moving or not, it's receiving the same instantaneous amount of energy regardless.

Did you really think before you asked the question? I haven't said 1% is a good example. I have given the outcome if there was a change of 1%. And shown that 1% would represent a huge difference. And I have shown that a change of only 0.01% would be of the same magnitude to the heat we are producing ourselves. That should have been rather obvious.

And it should then have been rather obvious to you, that if a 0.01% change in how much of the amount of the incoming heat from the sun that stays then it means that changes to the atmosphere are critical. A 0.01% change is one in ten thousand.

You claim the problem is waste heat from power production. I show that we should worry way more that we change the temperature transfer/reflection properties of the atmosphere - just because a change of one in ten thousand equals our own heat production.

You haven't explicitly said 1% is a good example but you keep using it like it is.

I also don't understand your obsession with trying to explain what percentages are, it's not like we're in elementary school. Repeating a point doesn't make it better. Repeating a point doesn't make it better.

I claim the main problem is waste heat, not just from power production but that's of course one of the contributing factors. I would also like to point out the inefficiency of writing things like the number one divided by the number one concatenated number zero concatenated number zero concatenated number zero concatenated number zero concatenated number zero (0.01%) is increasingly redundant and unnecessarily roundabout ways is just wasteful. Use percentages. We have used them before, I know you know how they work.

I'll let you think a bit more about this. And this time - invest some actual time pondering the meaning of what I'm saying.

Alright, I'll let you in on the secret that I don't think you have any idea what number is relevant, so you just pulled 1% out of thin air to make a point without any backing data.

No trap - scientists can actually play with gases in a laboratory. There isn't a problem with correlation contra causation when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere - it is already proven that more CO2 gives more retained heat. That's why CO2 is labelled a greenhouse gas. The only problem is to predict exactly how much change you get for a specific change in proportions of the gases.

This has been covered before. When the scientists fights, it's about the percentages, and the time lines, and the actual temperature changes.

And this is where everything blows over your head. You have decided something. So you don't want to hear or believe arguments that says something else. Your in lock-down mode where new input is constantly rejected.

Just because CO2 decreases IR transmission doesn't mean it will have the same effect of raising the emperature as a component of a larger system. It's like saying an opto isolator will make a room hotter because it can be proven that adding energy into the system must make it hotter. Except that opto isolator might be in an air conditioning system and controls the compressor duty cycle, making the room colder by establishing a temperature delta between the room and its surroundings. You can't just look at one variable and say "this is definitely what happens" without testing the complete system.

Weren't you the one talking about "armchair science"?

Anyway I haven't "decided" my theory is definitely correct and anyone opposing it must be talking out of their ass. You on the other hand do show signs of that exact line of thought. Unless I bow down to the overlord zyxxel and renounce my heresy of disbelieving the CO2 theory I shall be condemned to eternity in hell or whatever.

Wrong.

Very elaborate.

And what do you think happens when the water falls down? You think it would not be converted to heat when it hits the bottom of the fall? If so - exactly what energy conversion happens?

I'll let you argue yourself here:

With a hydroelectric power plant, the energy produced as electricity is the conversion of falling water into electricity. So we aren't adding any heat to the process - we are just converting energy into a more human-friendly variant - electricity. So we are basically moving heat - not creating new heat.

You don't seem to differentiate between heat and energy here, which I think is the main issue you're facing. Heat is a specific form of energy. In thermodynamics it's also considered the lowest form of energy since it's a byproduct in pretty much all processes, exceptions being simplified theoretical models and processes where heat is the end goal (or in thermodynamic terms, heat is the form of exergy).

Also an incorrect assumption. You don't care to sum the small components, because their contribution is smaller than the precision you are computing with. The bigger components are good enough to compute on - and they do indicate problematic outcomes for our climate.

You're actually incorrect here. Just because the variables are small doesn't mean you can exclude them from the equations. They're still independent variables. They can be any arbitrary scalar in a scientifically correct model. Your only chance of eliminating them is when you do the final sum with actual numbers, and even then you have to motivate every elimination.

You aren't good at reading. I mentioned that we have seen changes for our atmosphere affect the climate before. On one hand, because the proportion of gases have varied over time. But in the case of the dinosaurs, it was most probably dust. I did mention it earlier - but once more it wasn't something you were interested in picking up because in output-only mode you had to assume I must mean CO2 even when I did write about dust.

Well, here's what you said:

You are claiming that it's bad IPCC research that figured out the dinosaurs died because of a change in the reflection of solar energy?

Your point still seems to be that the dinosaurs died slowly from tetriary effects instead of the very large and devastating primary and secondary effects. I.e. not the asteroid or the effect of the impact, it was climate change. You can strike CO2 out of that one without it making any more sense.

There has been no two-month rapid change in climate. You are still mixing climate with weather. The climate doesn't change with such short time constant. But a slowly increasing global temperature will create stronger local variations in weather.

So you are doing a strawman, when you claim that I'm interpreting any rapid two-month climate change. Please don't do that!

Wait so now the changes from COVID-19 never happened? You might want to look into history further back than your social media feed.

No - the huge majority of all climate scientists have identified CO2 as the main culprit. The fight isn't if this is true or false. The fight is how much it affects the temperature. And how fast. And at what points in time we'll get further actions cascading - like melting permafrost.

No they haven't. The ones who are given attention by the media have. Even the mainstream ones can't agree on how much we're doing to affect it.

Well the point was that no one have ever claimed you need IPCC to tell you that. Busy kicking in open doors again?

The point was that the ozone layer thickness have already been scientifically proven to greatly affect the amount of energy that reaches the earth surface. Just as the amount of CO2 has been scientifically proven to greatly affect the amount of energy that reaches the earth surface.

And I have shown that a change of 0.01% - ONE IN TEN THOUSAND - of the amount of retained heat incoming from the sun matches the total heat produced by humanity power production.

Alright, let's take this one more time. This is what you said:

And it's bad IPCC research that made false claims that ozone affected the amount of UVB and UVC ratiation being reflected?

This is what I replied:

It's well known that ozone blocks (absorbs and reflects) UVC, it has been proven time and time again by independent researchers. You can even do it yourself if you have a UVC source, a confined space and a banana.

I don't know what compelled you to bring it up in the first place and you have yet to try taking this point anywhere. The ozone layer is important for many reasons and I've never claimed otherwise, yet you cling on to this like you've found a smoking gun or something.

Also, repeating a point doesn't make it better.

No, this is the part where you decided to irrelevantly bring in IPCC into the debate. All because you are so stressed about IPCC and so convinced that everything they say must be wrong. So all us others must be fools - even when all the other climate researchers predicts similar outcome.

This is a concealed straw man. Everything the IPCC says isn't wrong, in fact a lot of it is right. It's their cherry picking of data, conclusions and reasoning that is faulty. Their motivations are inherently counter productive as well, but that point seems to be too complex for you.

You were very unclear. You think the temperature on earth is given by number of incoming photons minus number of outgoing photons?

Next thing - what is your actual point with bringing in black-body radiation? What is your take on how that relates to CO2 in the atmosphere?

To a large extent yes. Photons and the thermal inertia of the earths crust are the biggest variables for the average surface temperature of the earth. This is also why atmosphere reflectivity is a critical variable in the CO2 theory, remember? There are some radiation outside of the light spectrum absorbed at the surface and there's evidence to suggest a substantial fission reaction at the earth core, but as for the surface temperature the 2 previously stated variables are the dominant factors as far as we know.

The relevance of black body radiation in terms of climate change is probably zero aside from the sun, because nothing else is both hot enough and close enough to have any significant impact beyond the sun. What, you thought you could make another straw man here?

1 - we already know that methane is a greenhouse gas. That isn't something the scientists have any problem understanding. They even have quite good computer models for how much the methane affects the atmosphere and how much CO2 affects it. But the problematic part is that it's CO2 that we are significantly changing the percentage of in the atmosphere - not methane.

So what's your point here? That you agree with me on that methane is unlikely to be the primary cause of climate change? Or did you just want to argue another point?

Next thing - we have no problem proving anything about 4G. There isn't any "since you can't prove a negative". And besides - it's actually 5G that the foil hats are getting mad about. All because a very specific town in China (feel free to guess) happened to be one of the first cities with 5G. 4G have been with us for a good many years. The thing here is that the radio waves doesn't affect the reflective properties of the atmosphere. And the amount of energy - the actual heat - from the radio waves are a small part of the total energy consumed in the world.

That's not a very scientific way of going about things. You literally can't prove a negative. You can prove that it's unlikely but you can't definitively prove it. Just like you can't prove an alien won't teleport next to you within the next decade you can't prove 4G doesn't affect the climate.

The 5G conspiracy is different in cause, it seems 5G attracted the government spying conspiracies rather than the climate change conspiracies. There are a few theories that surround the production of 5G equipment, but that's just the CO2 theory in disguise. Feel free to correct me on this though, it sounds like it could be an entertaining piece of pseudoscience.

The hogwash is what you have sitting between your ears, and need to wash away.

If ten thousand climate researchers gets one result, and you (not a researcher) gets a different result - then there is an almost zero probability that you happens to be the one that are correct. Even the energy companies agrees and believes in the climate researchers reports - so most big energy companies are working very actively on moving into other parts of the energy production chain because they know that fossil fuels aren't the future. They can continue with fossil fuels and die. Or they can use their profits to do research and move into other areas - we will still need energy.

Here we go making up numbers and referring to credentials again. May I remind you that science doesn't provide you with an answer, only the tools to find answers? Besides, scientists are wrong all the time. If they weren't we wouldn't have any scientific progression and terrible scientific methods.

If you want examples of cases where the majority of scientists are wrong just look at quantum mechanics. The jury is still out on which models fit reality but there's still plenty of scientists using the one they think is right. A lot still even adopt the Copenhagen interpretation from the late 1920s, despite the problems and ambiguities.

The pot calling the kettle black... You argue from a very narrow perspective.

I really wish you'd drop this superiority complex. You're not infallible and you're hardly seeing the entire picture. Plato's Cave comes to mind.