Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 13 Dec 2015 05:55

What does "legally binding" mean in this scenario? What happens if some entity (or a nation) doesn't abide by the rules?


Unfortunately nothing (IMHO).

What can *anyone* do if a nation were not to follow what they signed up for? NK? In the 80s Indiana (steel mills) and Illinois (mostly traffic) created a lot of pollution and many a times the air quality in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was bad. Everyone was aware of the dynamics, but what could Wisconsin do, even with substantial proof. Nothing. The feds kept barking at Milwaukee and everyone went dancing around the bush. So, tell me what will the UN do to "punish" any nation? IMHO nothing beyond barking.

In 20 years try stopping India. Who is going to? Good luck.

To a great extent I agree that the science behind all this is not reliable, but *only* because of the complexity of understanding it - something that posters here have addressed.

Having said that we have been able to prove certain things are rather granular levels. Major SMSA levels, perhaps at smaller state levels, etc. Mobile source emissions have positively impacted life styles - that is for sure. BTW, moving to electricity based autos, etc is BAD, because all you are doing is moving the pollution from mobile source to point sources. We said that in 1981 !!!!!!

But globally, no way one can model all factors. BTW, NOAA gathers 17 TB of data A DAY (take a course on coursera.com on machine learning and they should direct you to use NOAA's data).

I agree that trying to keep temp change to a degree or two seems stupid, but then what else do we have on hand to reverse what we are experiencing? Could all this fail - we get rid of green house gases and the temp still keeps climbing - sure it can. But not attempting it is suicidal. There is no choice. If it works great, else try something else.

It is a chance we have to take. No Plan B.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 13 Dec 2015 06:02

If the global temperature rises, no easy way to cool it off. Putting up shields (solar reflectors) in the outer layers in orbits is not feasible economically.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 13 Dec 2015 06:08

This kind of hyperbole about "man is the stupidest creature, every other species follows its duties" is - well, hyperbole


From the Upanishads. Granted it is in ref to attaining Moksha. : ). But it does apply to other wordly things too. Sadly.

I don't believe it took the USA 50 years to clean up her rivers. The wake-up moment for the USA was when the Cuyahoga river in Ohio caught fire in 1969. Did it take till 2009 to clean up that river?


There are more rivers than one in Ohio.

The single Chicago effort itself took 15-20 years. BTW, the US had a ton of NRIs working on these projects.

Cleaning rivers is NOT about cleaning them, it is far more about getting companies to add anti polluting measures to their manufacturing processes (Ganges it is a lot of tanneries and other industrial waste), cities processing the water before returning it to the river (a lot of them dumped everything into a river), or overflow during high rains, etc (which is what Chicago was about). Then there is the effort about native plants and animals, marshes, etc, etc, etc. Cleaning has a lot of facets.

By 70's we had mature models, but at a granular level. The problem has always been politics. It took years to force gasoline companies to remove the lead in gas. Guess how we found that out - that lead was a bad additive?

I don't believe it took the USA 50 years


The US was not rich enough to spend trillions in 20-30 years. Now if you do not want to believe they spent that, then up to you to figure it out.
Last edited by NRao on 13 Dec 2015 06:11, edited 1 time in total.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 13 Dec 2015 06:11

NRao garu: The advantage of point source is that cleaning/scrubbing/sequestration technology can also be concentrated at the point source. Is there some economies of scale argument for co-locating the sequestration technology? On the face of it it seems to be the case. Monitoring and oversight/inspections and measurements are also easier. Mobile polluting sources will lead to breaking the rules in the small which is harder to monitor and curb. VW case is a case in point, no?
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 13 Dec 2015 10:57, edited 1 time in total.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 13 Dec 2015 06:12

Chesapeake Bay still has a failing grade from EPA as of now. So more cleaning required and ongoing. Water quality monitoring is a big item in the US agenda which the Republicans want to shut down too.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 13 Dec 2015 06:16

vayu tuvan wrote:NRao: The advantage of point source is that cleaning/scrubbing/sequestration technology can also be concentrated at the point source. Is there some economies of scale argument for co-locating the sequestration technology? On the face of it it seems to be the case. Monitoring and oversight/inspections and measurements are also easier. Mobile polluting sources will lead to breaking the rules in the small which is harder to monitor and curb. VW case is a case in point, no?


COST is THE issue (emphasis, not shouting).

Who is going to absorb the cost for such things? THAT has always been the issue.

check out the way the US treated nuclear waste and what France did and let me know if either was a wise way to do it.

On monitoring, check out Hanford site in WA state. *mess* in caps.

Not an easy task. Politics rules. Does not really matter democrat or republican or any other party across the world. Politics has always ruled - because businesses make less money when they follow EPA guidlines and cannot pass the buck to consumers.

See how the elec companies behave when you want to install solar panels - they try and tax you one that!!!!!!

Pure case of simple economics.

See what impacts cleaning of Ganges will have on teh industry upstream. That should be a good indicator of if that river gets cleaned and when.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 13 Dec 2015 06:39

(Please do not mind for my putting this in a question (I am skeptic) form) USD 100 billion/yr should go a long way, no?

Heck, that kind of money can advance very many areas of science and technology. Decoding of human genome costed, what, a grand total of USD 3 billion spread over several years. USD 100 billion YoY, by any metric, is an obscenely large amount for development of new technology. Mind you, we are not even talking about fundamental science research here.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2015 07:24

Sudarshnji - I am not an expert though I do understand black-body radiation. Stefan–Boltzmann law, is after all, taught in basic physics course. Sorry but I find numbers given by you - without explaining any of your assumptions (for you model) are quite strange and sort of missing some fundamental understanding. (IMO, of course!)

So forgive me but ...

To me it seems that - On one hand you give values up to 3 significant figures (as if there is some very exact science and precise calculation - without even telling us what formula you are using). You sort of omit other important things. Let me just take a small example. (see below quote - and the line I put in bold)

sudarshan wrote:On a serious note:

For planets which have no atmosphere, these are the calculated maximum temperatures on parts of the planet which are directly exposed to solar radiation:

Mercury: 697 K, or 424 C
Venus: 460 K, or 187 C (Note: this is in the hypothetical case that Venus had no atmosphere)
Moon: 385 K, or 112 C
Mars: 304 K, or 31 C

The maximum temperature measured by probes on the moon was around 106 C, and on Mercury around 427 C. So this agrees well with the numbers above. These numbers are instructive for two reasons.

1. The earth is the same distance from the sun as the moon. This means that if the earth had no atmosphere, the earth would also heat up to about 110 C. So the effect of the atmosphere on the earth is to cool it down drastically, bringing the temperature to more like what is on the surface of Mars when it is directly exposed to the sun.
<snip>


It seems to me that you are using Stefan–Boltzmann law - assuming Earth -without atmosphere - is a black body at the same distance from sun as moon - but I think it is important to note -

- A. It assumes that the planet does not 'generate' any energy, and all energy it gets is from Sun. For Earth it is not true, of course. (About 50% of the heat given off by the Earth is generated by the radioactive decay). (Heat flows from Earth's interior into space at a rate of about 4x 10^13 W - so all the heat coming is not due to solar radiation only and one can not neglect this) -

B. As you do not say anything I think you are assuming (Earth/Moon at the same distance hence == ) albedo (or reflectance of the planet in the UV-Vis range.) is same for earth and moon.. This is not valid. (Albedo for moon is about .1 while for earth it is about .3)

C. You are also assuming emissivity (in IR spectrum, particularly) is same or equal. Earth and moon (or all planets), even if they have no atmosphere need not have the same e. (The Earth if, I am not mistaken, radiates significantly differently than a perfect black body in infrared )

It might be fun to estimate/calculate/understand things from the first principle (as I often do :) ) but, I think one should understand the limitation posed by those assumptions.

(For those who are interested in physics - Interestingly if one assumes a spherical planet and sun system the temperature of the planet (without any atmosphere and no internal energy source) and uses SB law only one finds the temperature - as a first order of approximation - depends only on the distance, radius of sun, surface-temperature of sun, albedo, and emissivity.)

***

Coming to Venus - IIRC Carl Sagan's PhD thesis was doing such a calculation.. and calculated that they were much higher than anyone else proposed. Virtually no one really believed those numbers then. (Remember in 60-70's, when no one can see the surface, there were people, seriously proposing that there is ocean under Venus atmosphere)..Only after first probe to Venus data proved that Carl Sagan's numbers were correct.

Climate science and calculations using model is serious science and involves complex mathematics.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 13 Dec 2015 07:44

AmberG, thanks for the critical analysis. Briefly - your point about internal heat generation is perfectly valid. Your point about emissivity and albedo - not so much, at least not for solid radiation. For gas radiation, your points about emissivity are all-important, and I will come to that. I didn't think anybody here was so interested in the details of what I presented, which is why I didn't elaborate on assumptions. I should have anyway, it's just good scientific practice.

Just one question for now. I didn't even consider the notions of "albedo" or "emissivity" for Mercury and the Moon, and I still got so close to the temperature values actually measured by probes on both planets. Why do you think this is? In the answer lies the essential difference between solid and gas radiation. Sorry to tantalize, I'll elaborate on this soon.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2015 07:45

vayu tuvan wrote:AmberG ji: The deniers are those who are most at risk of having to cut down on their conspicuous consumption. No wonder they are denying in spite of the scietific data pointing otherwise.
.

VTji - From what I have seen, about 97.6% of all deniers, I have met - are those who are anti-science in the most basic sense. Virtually 100% of republican presidential candidates are deniers - they also vocally and openly oppose evolution being taught in school - Oppose vaccines (Trump, Carson). Most are also convinced that like Obama's birth certificate, all climate data is forged. Let us not assign other motives when ignorance can explain that.

Just my opinion, take it for what ever it's worth.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2015 08:18

sudarshan wrote:AmberG, thanks for the critical analysis. Briefly - your point about internal heat generation is perfectly valid. Your point about emissivity and albedo - not so much, at least not for solid radiation. For gas radiation, your points about emissivity are all-important, and I will come to that. I didn't think anybody here was so interested in the details of what I presented, which is why I didn't elaborate on assumptions. I should have anyway, it's just good scientific practice.

Just one question for now. I didn't even consider the notions of "albedo" or "emissivity" for Mercury and the Moon, and I still got so close to the temperature values actually measured by probes on both planets. Why do you think this is? In the answer lies the essential difference between solid and gas radiation. Sorry to tantalize, I'll elaborate on this soon.


Sudarshan - Thanks. What I was pointing at, as you say above, for one to lay out the assumptions clearly. This way one can have some idea about how valid the result will be. As the audience may not have all the background information. I was only giving one example just to illustrate the point.
***
It may turn out that ignoring albedo(a) and emissivity(e) may be okay for rough estimations. Actually if I just use basic "back of the envelop" type calculation, I get a factor of (1-a)/e so if e happens to be very close to (1-a) - in case of moon, or mercury it is -- then the factor is (1-a)/e=1, so even a "gray" comes to the same temperature as a black body - no matter even if the planet is not perfectly black..etc

But this is more of a calculation coincidence, rather than fundamental physics, and IMO not much of a difference between solid or gas.

BTW, in college days, I put an Al foil (very high albedo) over my room windows which were facing the sun and my steady state temperature of my room was considerably lower....
(In space probes, to cool some times, thin reflective shielding is employed for the same reason).

***
Also some may find the same physics principles regarding this interesting while I discussed the temperature in side Chandrayaan-I (Link: https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=582863#p582863
(please see a few post below that too)

***

KLP Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1310
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby KLP Dubey » 13 Dec 2015 11:52

It appears that Minister Javadekar has done an effective job of ensuring Indian interests are protected at COP21 unlike the INC nitwits Jairam Ramesh and Jayanti Natarajan. It looks like he has been camping in Paris since Nov 28. That morning I was on a Delhi-Paris flight....noticed a guy with a muffler-covered head sitting a couple of rows ahead of me and the flight attendants constantly fussing over him. At first I was sure it was Khujliwal, but I when I walked past him to the restroom I found it was Javadekar. :rotfl:

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 13 Dec 2015 15:44

vayu tuvan wrote: Is there some economies of scale argument for co-locating the sequestration technology?


This is assuming we are trying to sequestrate the exact cause of the climate change. There is no clear understanding of the cause of climate change. Anthropogenic changes like pollution produced by fossil fuel is one. But is it the only one and is it the main cause? We seem to be coming back to the same square number 1.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 13 Dec 2015 15:52

Why are certain posts here still connecting climate change and evolution stuff.

Image

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 13 Dec 2015 22:57

Modi's tweets:
Narendra Modi ‏@narendramodi 12h12 hours ago
Outcome of #ParisAgreement has no winners or losers. Climate justice has won & we are all working towards a greener future. @COP21 @COP21en

#ClimateChange remains a challenge but #ParisAgreement demonstrates how every nation rose to the challenge, working towards a solution.

Deliberations at #COP21 & #ParisAgreement demonstrates the collective wisdom of world leaders to mitigate #ClimateChange. @COP21 @COP21en

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby NRao » 14 Dec 2015 02:56

A nice way of saying that India has neither promised or given away anything.

Kicked that can as far as possible.

But like it or not, that is the way nations behave. About time after 68 years.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 14 Dec 2015 05:51

Amber G. wrote:VTji - From what I have seen, about 97.6% of all deniers, I have met - are those who are anti-science in the most basic sense. Virtually 100% of republican presidential candidates are deniers - they also vocally and openly oppose evolution being taught in school - Oppose vaccines (Trump, Carson). Most are also convinced that like Obama's birth certificate, all climate data is forged. Let us not assign other motives when ignorance can explain that.

Just my opinion, take it for what ever it's worth.

Guru ji, that is a :lol: inducing figure. Don't mind lekin you are giving a three digit accuracy for your anecdotal observations. (Well, I figured out out that what you are saying above is all tongue-in-cheek. Still ...)

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 14 Dec 2015 06:32

^^^ I am sure you know that 87.6% of those 3 digit accuracy numbers are all made up. :mrgreen:

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby TSJones » 14 Dec 2015 13:52

NRao wrote:A nice way of saying that India has neither promised or given away anything.

Kicked that can as far as possible.

But like it or not, that is the way nations behave. About time after 68 years.


the agreement was entirely voluntary. no force involved. if you make it, fine. if not, regroup and blame America. :D

but I'm willing to bet that India will take advantage of tech advances where ever it is feasible to do so.

fossil fuel dependence is on a slow, but ever assured death march.

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Haresh » 14 Dec 2015 15:05

Solar power

Australian newspaper cartoon depicting Indians eating solar panels attacked as racist

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ked-racist

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 15 Dec 2015 09:05

AmberG, the sum total of absorptance (a), reflectance (r) and transmittance (t) at any given frequency or wavelength has to equal 1. This is simply energy balance.

a(frequency) + r(f) + t(f) = 1

Now Kirchchoff's law says (from the notion of radiative equilibrium) that at any given frequency or wavelength, the emittance (e) has to exactly equal the absorptance (a).

e(f) = a(f)

When radiation is incident on a medium, this radiation is usually not monochromatic, and has a distribution of energy over frequency (wavelength). So the absorptivity, reflectivity, and transmissivity (note - these are different from a(f), t(f), and r(f)) depend not just on the medium, but also on the characteristics of the incident radiation.

Whereas the emissivity (again - different from spectral emittance, e(f)) depends on the characteristics of the outgoing radiation, which is in turn dependent on the temperature that the medium attains. So even though at any given wavelength,

a(f) = e(f),

the total absorptivity can be different from the total emissivity (since the spectral dependence of the incident radiation can be different from that of outgoing radiation).

If the body is a gray solid, then transmittance basically goes to zero, and a and r are independent of frequency. Thus the absorptivity is identically equal to the gray absorptance, the reflectivity is identically equal to the gray reflectance, and the emissivity is identically equal to the gray emittance (which is also the gray absorptance).

So if you assume that a planet is a gray solid without an atmosphere, you will have A (total absorptivity) = E (total emissivity).

So, at steady state,

A*I(w) (where I is the incident radiation) = E*(sigma)*T^4, where sigma is Stefan's constant, and T is the temperature that the body attains. A and E simply cancel out, and the final temperature attained by the body is independent of emissivity.

So then what difference does the emissivity make? Since the emissivity reduces the total incident heat flux absorbed by the body, the time taken to reach steady state will be increased as the emissivity is reduced.

This is why the temperature values I got for Mercury and the Moon were very close to those measured by probes, even though I completely ignored the emissivity of the media.

So to answer your question about assumptions - I assumed that the rock material on both Mercury and the Moon are gray emitters (absorbers). I'll state my assumptions more clearly from now on :).

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 15 Dec 2015 09:13

If the medium is not gray, then the medium will have different absorptance (and emittance) in different spectral regions.

For example - I read somewhere that polar bear fur, which seems so snowy white to our eyes, will actually appear very black in the ultraviolet. This means that the fur is a very efficient absorber of the sun's UV radiation - the sun, whose surface temperature is like 5500 C, emits a lot of UV radiation. However, when the fur absorbs this UV and heats up, it only reaches temperatures around 250 to 350 K (-23 to 77 C). So it emits in the near and mid infrared. In this region, its emissivity is so low, that it is a very poor radiator - so that means it absorbs energy and is unable to efficiently dissipate it, so it has to attain a higher temperature to get rid of the incident energy.

Coming to your point about the aluminum reflector. Aluminum foil has an emissivity of 4% (0.04) in the visible and IR regions. So it reflects most of the incident sunlight, and very little energy enters your room. This foil is also very inefficient at dissipating this heat, and so will eventually attain about the same temperature as a more absorbing (but gray) body. However, your room has other modes of heat dissipation - conduction and convection - and these modes are unaffected by the poor emission characteristics of your foil. So overall, your room is cooler. And your room also reaches its peak temperature much slower.

You don't even need foil. Any heat shield in the path of energy transfer - be it convective or radiative - will reduce the heat flux. The rule of thumb is that if you have N heat shields between a hot and cold medium, your heat transfer will be reduced by a factor of 1/(N+1).

So one heat shield will reduce heat transfer to a half of what it would be without the shield; two shields to one third; and so on. You can imagine what happens when there is a shield between a hot and cold medium, exchanging heat by radiation. The shield absorbs the hot-side radiation on one face, but radiates off of both faces. So much of the hot-side radiation is dissipated to the hot side itself, and only about half of the radiation reaches the cold side.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 15 Dec 2015 09:19

With gases, the differences from solids are:

1. Gases absorb and transmit, solids absorb and reflect. So a gaseous atmosphere around earth will transmit much of the solar radiation to the surface - a solid barrier will reflect it back.

2. Solids can often be approximated as gray bodies, since the spectral dependence of absorptance (and emittance) is weak. But gases have freakishly complicated spectral variation of absorptance.

But some solids do have absorption bands, like gases. Plastics and glass are examples. The original greenhouse effect is of course the effect of a glass (or plastic) shield around an enclosure, with the glass transmitting radiation to the interior but blocking radiative flow back to the outside world. This is also what greenhouse gases do. I'll come to that.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 15 Dec 2015 11:13

Sudarshanji - Just some quick comments.. , I still found a few things just a little odd in your explanations :) - at least some things are not made clear (at least to me it seems that way) and can be misunderstood. But I will not interrupt and side-track you. I will just make one point -- just so that the basic physics is clear(er)...

1- Wrt to albedo(a) and emissivity(e) [.. can be ignored? ].. strictly speaking, of course *not*. A planet surrounded by mirrors will have different temperature than one without mirrors. (Even in first year physics problems people routinely gives value of (a) and (e) for planets and ask students to calculate steady-state temperature - the calculation is not hard.

( Should be emphasized more clearly the (a) and (e) can, and do, depend on the wave-length...As we know inside of a closed car (window glass does NOT reflect but let the light go in.. for IR the glass is not transparent) things get hot.)

***

BTW, an old formula, I remember from my young days, involving holy number 108 (this is the angular diameter of Sun from earth see note below) is all you need to get into right ball park for average temperature of an airless rocky planet. Just take square root of this and multiply by 2, you get about 20.
Just divide Sun's temperature (~6000K) by 20 and you get ~300 K almost right!
.. around the right ball park.


(This happens to be true for any Sun/Planet system - just divide Sun's temperature (surface) by 2 and divide it again by square root of holy number for the planet -- Sun's angular diameter as seen from the planet)

Note: for 108, for example see https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1443569#p1443569
Yajnavalka talked about 108 times of sun diameter as the distance between Sun and Earth which is very close to modern calculations.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36404
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby SaiK » 15 Dec 2015 17:19

Bade wrote:If the global temperature rises, no easy way to cool it off. Putting up shields (solar reflectors) in the outer layers in orbits is not feasible economically.

how about doubling the forest covers in the tropical regions?

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 16 Dec 2015 02:47

KLP Dubey wrote:It appears that Minister Javadekar has done an effective job of..

I agree. There are quite a few reports in US papers, and people are impressed by Javadekar. Here is one article from an Indian Newspaper..
COP21: How PM Modi steered India’s elevation from spoiler to facilitator
On Saturday, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi was about to board his official plane — Air India One — to visit his parliamentary constituency Varanasi along with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he got a call from France’s President Francois Hollande.

“Let me call you back the moment I reach Varanasi,” Modi responded when he learnt Hollande was eager to share the content of the draft prepared by the Paris climate summit, better known as COP-21 (21st session of conference of parties).

Though Modi played a critical role in setting the tone of the conference by speaking on behalf of the developing nations, he didn’t allow his curiosity over the call to take precedence over his immediate task at hand: Abe’s visit.

Knowing the pressure under which Hollande had been working in Paris where representatives of 195-odd nations were putting their heads together to chart a course for a less polluted world and better future, Modi called him on reaching Varanasi and got briefed about the draft.

Hollande was emphatic in his assurance that the concerns raised by the Indian PM were taken care of. The draft mentions “climate justice and lifestyle” issues at the insistence of India. It has also been left open-ended deliberately to accommodate the “carbon space” as demanded by Modi on behalf of the developing world.

Though Modi was seen conducting a guided tour for Abe along the ghats of Varanasi, his mind was equally clued in to the Paris summit where there was a consistent attempt to paint India as the spoiler. Given his own commitment to environmental issues, Modi was quite concerned about the fate of the conference.

In fact, Hollande’s call to Modi was preceded by a long telephonic conversation that the Indian Prime Minister had with US President Barrack Obama at the peak of the summit. Obama dwelt at length on the necessity of forging an international consensus on limiting global warming to 2°C from the pre-industrial epoch. In their talks, the broad contours of the draft were agreed upon.

Just as there was jubilation in Paris following the adoption of the draft, Modi and his guest Abe seemed quite at ease with each other, sharing relaxed moments while performing rituals at Varanasi’s ghats. Given the acrimonious background against which the Paris conference was held there were enough reasons for India to be wary of the approach of the developed nations in general and the US in particular. But these hardly reflected in the Prime Minister’s interaction with Abe.

In fact, the stage for confrontation was set much before the conference when US Secretary of State John Kerry insinuated that India’s intransigence to reduction of green house gases (GHGs) would derail the summit. This provoked sharp reaction from Minister of Environment Prakash Javdekar.

Highly placed sources in the government admit that just before the COP-21 summit was about to begin, there was more pressure on India than China. But what appears to have eased the tension is the manner in which Modi articulated his position in Paris and made it clear that though he was genuinely committed to environment protection, it could not be attained without conceding carbon space to developing nations and looking into the “lifestyle” of the rich nations.

Like in the past when climate conferences collapsed for want of consensus, the issue of per capita GHG emission by developed nation was once again raised to highlight distortion in ongoing discourse on climate.

“The energy consumed by the African continent will barely be able to sustain the power consumption of New York,” pointed one of the participants in the conference. Hence the “lifestyle” issue in developed countries is eminently relevant in the context of the climate debate, the Indian side persisted.

Apparently, the eruption of joy in Paris over the conclusion of the draft had an echo in Delhi where the future energy requirement is heavily hinged on alternative source of energy.

By 2021, the government has committed itself to shifting considerably from fossil fuel and generating over 1 lakh MW through alternative sources like wind, solar and nuclear energy to reduce the country’s carbon footprint.

From the Indian perspective, the biggest takeaway from the Paris climate conference was to make the developed world conscious of their greater responsibility in making the planet less polluted. The developed nations’ commitment to invest in technological innovation to reduce dependence on fossil fuel for energy source has mitigated the concerns of the developing and under-developed nations.

The long telephonic conversations between Obama, Hollande and Modi before the Paris climate draft concluded was recognition of the critical role played by India at the international forum. Within less than a month’s time, the suspicion about India being a spoiler was replaced by India being a great facilitator in evolving the consensus draft.

And that indeed is a great achievement.


Last edited by Amber G. on 16 Dec 2015 03:03, edited 1 time in total.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 16 Dec 2015 02:57

SaiK wrote:
Bade wrote:If the global temperature rises, no easy way to cool it off. Putting up shields (solar reflectors) in the outer layers in orbits is not feasible economically.

how about doubling the forest covers in the tropical regions?


Per my guru Freeman Dyson, who is quoted quite often..(of the project Orion fame) about a trillion " genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” (which will be there "within twenty years, and almost certainly within fifty years") can do the trick..
(Just do wiki for more details or see, for example http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/27/co2-freeman-dyson-magic-trees/


BTW, per his estimate, you don't have to double, just replace 1/4 of the world’s trees with the carbon-eating variety. :!:

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 16 Dec 2015 07:40

SaiK, trees alone cannot do the carbon sequestration for good like it happened during the long geological history of earth. What fraction of trees release carbon back into the atmosphere, as fuel by humans, forest fires, or simple natural decay. I am sure specialists in each discipline of science has looked at these and quantified them already...if one knows where to look for the numbers.

So the difference in rate at which trees can store carbon and rate at which humans add carbon to the atmosphere via fossil fuels or burning trees and all other natural processes is your answer. The consensus as of now is we do a better(or worse) job than nature in releasing carbon...at least in this epoch in the life of earth. The natural sequestration processes happens over a long period of thousands of years, but if we want with our technology we could release a good amount of Carbon (as CO2) out today itself. That is the worry.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 16 Dec 2015 07:46

“Climate Science, 50 Years Later”
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8153
This is the 50-yr old report itself...check out the section on CO2....page 10 or so...referenced in the above article.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf
Last edited by Bade on 16 Dec 2015 17:40, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 16 Dec 2015 09:11

Amber G. wrote:Sudarshanji - Just some quick comments.. , I still found a few things just a little odd in your explanations :) - at least some things are not made clear (at least to me it seems that way) and can be misunderstood. But I will not interrupt and side-track you. I will just make one point -- just so that the basic physics is clear(er)...

1- Wrt to albedo(a) and emissivity(e) [.. can be ignored? ].. strictly speaking, of course *not*. A planet surrounded by mirrors will have different temperature than one without mirrors. (Even in first year physics problems people routinely gives value of (a) and (e) for planets and ask students to calculate steady-state temperature - the calculation is not hard.


I can try and make things clearer. I suggest, though, that we move away from this notion of "albedo," which is a subjective measure of a planet's brightness. This albedo is simply the total reflectivity that I talked about earlier (with the caveat that the albedo is averaged over the visible part of the spectrum, not the entire spectrum), which depends on the spectral distribution of the incident radiation (except when the object is a gray body). The albedo is subjective because it is a measure of how bright the planet will appear to human eyes, so it is the weighted reflectivity over the visible and maybe UV parts of the solar spectrum. Why is it subjective, because different people may have different spectral ranges that they are sensitive to, and also, different eyes may be more sensitive to different colors - for example, some eyes may perceive red as brighter, others might see green or blue as brighter - but even without this, the spectral distribution of energy in sunlight is not necessarily the same as the sensitivity curve of the human eye to various parts of the spectrum.

These first year physics problems you talk about - you can try the calculations yourself, so long as 1-albedo (or actually, 1 - (total reflectivity) - albedo is not quite the same thing) is the same as the total emissivity of the planet, the planet's temperature will always come out to be the same. 1-R will be identically equal to E for a gray planet, without an atmosphere, which, further, does not transmit any radiation. But 1-R can also be equal to E for non-gray planets in certain situations. However, if you set up your problem in such a way that 1-albedo is not the same as the emissivity, then you've already moved away from the "gray body" assumption. Then you get into the kind of behavior exhibited by the polar-bear fur, which I talked about earlier.

As for your statement that a planet surrounded by mirrors will have a different temperature than a planet without these mirrors - nope, not necessarily. I will elaborate further, this will need pictures to make clear.

( Should be emphasized more clearly the (a) and (e) can, and do, depend on the wave-length...As we know inside of a closed car (window glass does NOT reflect but let the light go in.. for IR the glass is not transparent) things get hot.)

***


Yes, this is the greenhouse effect. I'll try and make things as clear as I can :).

BTW, an old formula, I remember from my young days, involving holy number 108 (this is the angular diameter of Sun from earth see note below) is all you need to get into right ball park for average temperature of an airless rocky planet. Just take square root of this and multiply by 2, you get about 20.
Just divide Sun's temperature (~6000K) by 20 and you get ~300 K almost right!
.. around the right ball park.


(This happens to be true for any Sun/Planet system - just divide Sun's temperature (surface) by 2 and divide it again by square root of holy number for the planet -- Sun's angular diameter as seen from the planet)

Note: for 108, for example see https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1443569#p1443569
Yajnavalka talked about 108 times of sun diameter as the distance between Sun and Earth which is very close to modern calculations.


Several issues here. First, 300K is the temperature of the earth with its atmosphere, and with the heat generation that you talked about. Like I said, the moon, which is thought to be geologically dead (which means no internal heat generation), and which has no atmosphere, has a peak temperature due to solar radiation more like 400K (385K, to be precise).

Secondly, the square-root dependence on diameter to distance of the planet's temperature is not at all surprising, since the heat flux reduces as the square of the distance to diameter, while the temperature goes with a fourth power dependence. In fact, you take f=distance of planet to sun's radius, which is twice the value of distance to diameter. You divide the sun's temperature by the square-root of this factor f. You will get the maximum temperature of a gray planet with no atmosphere, which is directly exposed to radiation from this sun.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 16 Dec 2015 09:26

Oh, just to make clear - I said you don't have to bother with total reflectivity and total emissivity (in calculations of the max. temperature of an atmosphere-less planet, directly exposed to radiation, say from a sun), if the planet is a gray body. For a non-gray body, you of course have to consider these factors. And albedo is simply a half-way decent proxy for total reflectivity - though we'd do better to go with the latter.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby AbhiJ » 16 Dec 2015 09:48

Indian response at COP21 --> http://www.justclimateaction.org/

Paris is saving Green of Green

Recently, it was revealed that Volkswagen had been duping diesel-emissions tests on some of its high-end environmentally friendly cars. People were outraged. The CEO resigned.

About the same time, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley told the Alberta Chambers of Commerce that her province had better get its environmental house in order or it would have measures imposed upon it. She also said that Alberta has “bad air.”

Really? I challenge that statement. In 2011, Canada’s air was judged to be the third highest quality in the world. In 2006, Environment Canada reported that Red Deer was an unusual hot spot for poor air quality related to fine particulate matter, but this was said to be due to the transportation corridor emissions, nothing else. Nav Canada’s handbook on weather conditions for flying around Alberta confirms that weather and terrain play a big role in air quality.

Likewise, transportation emissions, stagnant air and humidity are factors in making Paris, France — the site of the upcoming UN climate change talks — one of the dirtiest cities in Europe in terms of air quality.

Episodes of stagnant, damp air led to Paris air quality pollution levels as high as 180 micrograms of particulate matter 10 microns or smaller per cubic metre — more than double the safe limit of 80. This spring, during such an episode, the French government forced people not to drive. (Albertans only experience levels like that during wildfire smoke or weather inversions.)

But what is the real reason for this terrible pollution? Faulty climate policy, of course. As Bloomberg View explains in Climate politics and the Volkswagen scandal on Sept. 23, Europe made a push for diesel on the claim that it uses less fuel overall, but diesel emits more smog-inducing soot and more nitrogen oxides. Preferential tax rates led to Europe now having more than half its cars on diesel, and in France, now more than 80 per cent, thus creating a much larger public health risk and not saving the planet.

Does it not strike you as hypocritical that 50,000 people, intent on saving the planet, will be flying, driving, taking a fossil-fuelled boat, train or car to Paris in December to reduce emissions?

Shall Canada impose solutions upon them? Economist Ross McKitrick pointed out to me that Canada never gets credit for the advances we have made in addressing real pollution.

From 1985 to 2011, our industrial carbon-monoxide emissions are down 26 per cent; industrial carbon particulate emissions are down 44 per cent; and, industrial sulphur dioxide emissions are down 69 per cent. Total economic output: up by 89 per cent.

When we go to Paris, we should demand that every other nation meets these standards and, until they do, they should have nothing to say to Canada on emissions.

The UN is based on the principle of equal sovereignty. This is probably why Saudi Arabia can be elected to be head of the UN Human Rights Commission even though it has reportedly beheaded more people this year than ISIS. Point that out, if someone tries to impose environmental standards on us. :rotfl:

As Google engineers recently revealed, renewable is not doable, so let’s stop promoting it. Global warming has stagnated for over 18 years and eight months, with temperature rise being at values “very close to zero,” to quote German climate scientist Hans von Storch.

The real push behind the Paris conference is related to carbon trading — not climate change, not air quality, not saving the planet, but rather saving the financial backside of those who made rush-to-renewables investments and, like Volkswagen, have been caught out. They’re hoping to impose a global carbon trading system on us. Their bad investment decisions should not require us to pay their piper.

There’s lots of foggy, smoggy hot air emitted by the whole climate change circus.

Let’s clear the air in Paris.


The head of Euracoal - the European Coal Association went on record to say that:

Coal lobby boss says industry 'will be hated like slave-traders' after COP21
Al-Guardian

n his letter, Brian Ricketts, Euracoal’s secretary-general, lashed out at what he called “mob rule” by a cabal of world governments and protesters at the Paris climate summit which posed a threat to democracy itself.

“The world is being sold a lie, yet most people seem to accept the lie, even if they do not believe it,” Ricketts warned. “The UN has successfully brainwashed most of the world’s population such that scientific evidence, rational analysis, enlightened thinking and common sense no longer matter.

“You might be relieved that the agreement is weak,” he went on. “Don’t be. The words and legal basis no longer matter. Fossil fuels are [being] portrayed by the UN as public enemy number one. We are witnessing a power bid by people who see the democratic process as part of the problem and have worked out ways to bypass it.”

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 16 Dec 2015 11:19

sudarshan wrote:
BTW, an old formula, I remember from my young days, involving holy number 108 (this is the angular diameter of Sun from earth see note below) is all you need to get into right ball park for average temperature of an airless rocky planet. Just take square root of this and multiply by 2, you get about 20.
Just divide Sun's temperature (~6000K) by 20 and you get ~300 K almost right! .. around the right ball park.


(This happens to be true for any Sun/Planet system - just divide Sun's temperature (surface) by 2 and divide it again by square root of holy number for the planet -- Sun's angular diameter as seen from the planet)


Several issues here. First, 300K is the temperature of the earth with its atmosphere, and with the heat generation that you talked about. Like I said, the moon, which is thought to be geologically dead (which means no internal heat generation), and which has no atmosphere, has apeaktemperature due to solar radiation more like 400K (385K, to be precise).
.


I was careful to say AVERAGE.. (not peak). And value for moon, is in right ball park per my formula.

BTW I am surprised. Any physicist would have recognized that the formula I gave is nothing but the STANDARD formula given in any physics book. :) (just written differently for fun)..
(if you want to be more accurate, just multiply the result by (sqrt(1-a)/e) which is about 1 for most rocks anyway..:)

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby AbhiJ » 16 Dec 2015 11:26

At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence. Alarmists who propose to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and go entirely to renewables are misleading the public about what is practical or feasible even with batteries.

Watch the video from 10:00 onwards where he busts the renewable energy

http://climateconference.heartland.org/ ... ng-muller/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzOIOXmbRcw#t=842

The amount of billions in form of capital expenditure, subsidies, carbon or "green" tax levied on traditional so called 'polluting' basic industries like steel, mining, automobile, etc. is not getting any results as was prophesied by the "Green of Green".

Europe is fast loosing its steel industry. Assessment

The Anti-diesel (which happens to be the most economical mode of transportation) and Anti-Coal (which happens to be the cheapest and most readily available source of energy in abundance) tirade will screw up the Modern age.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2184
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby sudarshan » 16 Dec 2015 18:17

I was careful to say AVERAGE.. (not peak). And value for moon, is in right ball park per my formula.

BTW I am surprised. Any physicist would have recognized that the formula I gave is nothing but the STANDARD formula given in any physics book. :) (just written differently for fun)..
(if you want to be more accurate, just multiply the result by (sqrt(1-a)/e) which is about 1 for most rocks anyway..:)


Not sure if this was a test for me :). I did say this (that this is just the standard formula, rewritten) in my post also, above:

Secondly, the square-root dependence on diameter to distance of the planet's temperature is not at all surprising, since the heat flux reduces as the square of the distance to diameter, while the temperature goes with a fourth power dependence. In fact, you take f=distance of planet to sun's radius, which is twice the value of distance to diameter. You divide the sun's temperature by the square-root of this factor f. You will get the maximum temperature of a gray planet with no atmosphere, which is directly exposed to radiation from this sun.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby TSJones » 16 Dec 2015 19:52

AbhiJ wrote:At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence. Alarmists who propose to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and go entirely to renewables are misleading the public about what is practical or feasible even with batteries.

Watch the video from 10:00 onwards where he busts the renewable energy

http://climateconference.heartland.org/ ... ng-muller/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzOIOXmbRcw#t=842

The amount of billions in form of capital expenditure, subsidies, carbon or "green" tax levied on traditional so called 'polluting' basic industries like steel, mining, automobile, etc. is not getting any results as was prophesied by the "Green of Green".

Europe is fast loosing its steel industry. Assessment

The Anti-diesel (which happens to be the most economical mode of transportation) and Anti-Coal (which happens to be the cheapest and most readily available source of energy in abundance) tirade will screw up the Modern age.


please keep in mind where the Germans are coming from: they are export driven heavily leaning on the machinery industry.

anything that touches upon that to them is controversial.

at the same time they saw an avenue to achieve some energy independence and they went whole hog at it.

I'm not sure they weighed the feasibility of of some of their projects.

But then they were goaded by the fact of perceived Russian stability issues of their imported energy chain as well as the middle east. So some of their lack of economic assessment studies can be understood.

For instance they are trying desperately to shut down their nuke power. Why is that? That already have a sunk cost in it and they need to maximize their return on it.

For example the US is in no rush to shut down nuke power, although we haven't built any more nuke plants in decades and probably never will. What's the rush?

I just don't think the Germans were completely sane in their rush to adopt alternative energy.

I was watching "This Old House" on PBS a few weeks ago and they did a special on German houses.

German obsessiveness on energy usage to heat and power their homes is nothing short of amazing. They will practically stop at nothing to minimize its usage.

Sometimes you have to question the practicality of it.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Amber G. » 17 Dec 2015 03:40

Giving credit where it is due:
Obama thanks PM Modi, says his leadership ensured success of climate summit
Obama: "India played a critical role in making climate change Paris summit an historic success"

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3761
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby panduranghari » 17 Dec 2015 11:44

:roll: :roll: ^^

Ecological Panic: The New Rationale For Globalist Cultism

The issue is one of transparency. Without transparency of experimental data, climate scientists and think tank operatives become immune to examination. That is to say, if climate scientists and organizations, many of which are funded by public tax dollars, are not required to reveal the raw data behind their claims on global warming, then their claims are no longer a matter of “fact” or scientific process. Rather, the assertions of climate scientists now become edicts from on high, messages from high priests with a private line to the god of science — a god that no one is allowed to question. Their words become gospel: carbon footprints in the sand.

Climate research institutions like the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have refused for decades to release the raw data behind their experiments, which they say prove the existence of man-made global warming. For many years the CRU refused to release any data that was not first processed to reflect its own desired outcomes and still refuses to release emails that might prove that climate scientists had rigged data in their warming models.

Professor Phil Jones of the CRU in charge of maintaining data sets famously told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:

“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
When opposition became more intense in reaction to the CRU’s secretive data, the organization had this to say:

“We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

Whenever the data issue becomes mainstream and pressure builds, climate scientists simply "lose" the original raw data, and once again we are asked to take them at their word.

Now think about that for a moment. Only in the past few years have climate scientists been pushed to give up raw data to the public, as well as to other unaffiliated scientists, for review. They have enjoyed almost complete immunity from scrutiny since the global warming farce began while acting as the CORE drivers of political and economic policy models by international organizations like the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Future laws and taxes that could affect the entire globe are being written and established on the word of a handful of unaccountable scientists who see their claims as sacrosanct and above investigation.

Despite the assertions of some global warming enthusiasts, little has changed since the release of the hacked “climategate” data and emails or public pressure on climate research institutions. These organizations continue to dismiss data requests made through the Freedom Of Information Act.

Recently, the NOAA released studies which it conveniently claims refutes satellite data proving that there has actually been NO global warming for at least 19 years. When asked by lawmakers to release research papers pertaining to the experiments that supposedly back the assertions of the NOAA, the NOAA refused.

Eventually, apologists for the climate cartel are forced to admit that the raw data is not available to the public.


etc...

I have come across another think tank elitist peddling a similar propaganda mechanism called “Ecological Panic.” Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations and the writer of “Black Earth: The Holocaust As History And Warning.” I highly suggest readers listen to this interview with Snyder on Reuters to get a sense of what I mean by “propaganda.”


So, if you were wondering where the root source was for the argument that climate change skeptics are the same as “holocaust deniers,” this kind of thinking is it.


Global warming becomes a catch-all bogeyman, a Frankenstein monstrosity created by humanity and plaguing humanity. Those who deny the existence of global warming or who question the legitimacy of its high priests (climate scientists) are not exercising their right to skepticism; they are contributing to inevitable genocide. Therefore, climate denial would have to be punished by governments, as climate scientists have been publicly suggesting.

Climate change and Snyder’s world of ecological panic would naturally facilitate the development of population controls and institutionalized eugenics. I have no idea if Snyder is aware of the irony that his ideology is actually more closely related to Hitler’s ideology than free markets ever will be. Being that he is a member of the CFR, I suspect he is aware indeed.

If you want to know why internationalists and collectivists have been force-feeding the climate change agenda to the world despite considerable opposition and well-publicized incidences of exposed fraud on the part of climate scientists, consider the prize at the end of the game. If climate change and ecological panic become ingrained “truths” within our social framework, literally any horror can be justified.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby Bade » 17 Dec 2015 21:38

The bogey of "no free data" again. wtf are ISRO and their counterparts in China doing, not publishing their data if they have the maximum to lose. The number of publications coming out of Chinese universities as well as their collaborative work with worldwide institutes both US and elsewhere dwarfs the Indian ones. Yet, they are not complaining either that all this is fraud.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Climate Change: Propaganda Vs Reality

Postby RoyG » 17 Dec 2015 21:40

How is climate change going to effect India's food security? ?I've been searching for some papers but can't seem to find anything substantial.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests