Early on I listened to a doctor from Sweden who was very annoyed about a lack of government response to the situation in nursing homes. The biggest problem was a lack of oxygen because of which, he described, many elderly people had died unnecessarily.
--
As for your reference, I quote from the bottom of page 233 (of the volume in which it was published):
"The energy conservation principle dictates that the sum of the reflected and absorbed parts
of the effective available (or intercepted) solar flux at the TOA must be equal."
No. Energy conservation is for a closed system. You cannot separate the earth into TOA (top of atmosphere) and ignore the rest. Energy can pass through the TOA and be absorbed below. Its to do with what he means by "effective available (or intercepted)". The principle he is working from is solid, treating the whole of the planet as a unit to consider in energy intake (absorption) and reflection (radiation). He claims that Earth is in a stable equilibrium of energy exchange; radiating out the same which is absorbed.
This looks neat and simple. The core problem is that the earth has changed wildly over time. Back in 'snowball Earth' time there were icecaps on the equator. He is working from an assumption which is likely to be false. I'm not sure of the difference in energy output of the sun at this 'snowball' time in the Earth's past. If it was less, then this may account for the different state of the Earth. But, this is sideline.
The dude's core assumption is poor.
In the abstract he says "The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing". He then quotes the following to use it (also on p. 233):
"This then is the basic underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean surface temperature."
The author cannot clearly explain things, makes at least one assumption which is likely poor, and then assumes that which he is claiming to disprove.
"Although the general constraint of the energy conservation principle (1) and Kirchhoff law (2) is valid for any isolated passive celestial object, other planets or moons have entirely different physical environments therefore, we shall not discuss (in details) the relevance of our greenhouse effect related theoretical consideration here"
The dude's book is big, can not be cited here and also he is unlikeable for many, the official narrative is more important.
That is why he said: "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
I too don't tolerate the official narrative (which allways as a patern is otherwise than the reallity) and how the "scientifical' consensus is fabricated and especially the scientific consensus that justifies various attempts to validate climate policies.
Btw, in my opinion, "the lack of government response" in Sweden (being the same as in all the countries) was the only response meant to be in these times. People from sweden are trusting their government more than others, so bad luck, the day "not to trust" came there too.
Our perception of everything is one of the important targets as allways.
I do agree that science, like other human endeavours, can be subject to group-think. One of the reasons is the same as that which occurs in the media, that promotion and other factors of acceptance can be based upon accepting certain positions. I can understand the author you are quoting having difficulty with NASA supervisors.
Another professor, older, at the department at which I was working had differing opinions on the severity of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and of the headlong rush into shifting human energy sources away from fossil fuels. On the CO2 front he would merely state that increased CO2 meant better conditions for plants. Similarly, to some degree, with an increase in temperature, though this was not very relevant to him.
On the energy front, he was quick to point out that fossil fuels amount to the most contentrated energy storage systems we have, and that they are also very easy to transport.
He was not denying the increased CO2 levels, or the increase in the average energy density in the atmosphere, but was disagreeing with the level of panic, the almost religious fervor which the climate 'catastrophe' advocates were displaying. I tend to agree with him on this. But, and its an important but, there are consequences for the increased energy density and those consequences will have quite dramatic effects for humans who are living in the types of ways which post industrial and information processing revolution humans do. Here we get into the "efficient" on-demand cost minimized (profit maximized) supply chains which support fundamental parts of human existence, with food being a very good example.
Sudden disruptions, due to an increase in the frequency and/or severity of extreme weather events will affect these "supply side" inputs to essential "services" made fragile by the capitalist focus on profits. But this is a quibble about political economics. Of more importance will be regions currently densely habited becoming less habitable, which will drive migration. History shows us that a common result of migrations of populations into areas already inhabited by other humans is war. Another issue is that of fresh water availability. Extreme weather events can damaged freshwater storage infrastructure (storms, flooding etc.) or deny the resource (drought etc.). I have almost died, once, due to lack of fresh water. The 4 day limit is pretty hard.
These points come back to the types of research which Hjalte was doing; how can societies plan for the changes which have begun and will continue? How can the worst effects be mitigated?
Thanks for contributing your thoughts on these topics.
https://edberry.com/greenhouse-gas-theories-and-observed-radiative-properties-of-the-earths-atmosphere/
"the elderly did need to take the public health warnings seriously"?....lol, thanks God I didn't and I will never do it.
Early on I listened to a doctor from Sweden who was very annoyed about a lack of government response to the situation in nursing homes. The biggest problem was a lack of oxygen because of which, he described, many elderly people had died unnecessarily.
--
As for your reference, I quote from the bottom of page 233 (of the volume in which it was published):
"The energy conservation principle dictates that the sum of the reflected and absorbed parts
of the effective available (or intercepted) solar flux at the TOA must be equal."
No. Energy conservation is for a closed system. You cannot separate the earth into TOA (top of atmosphere) and ignore the rest. Energy can pass through the TOA and be absorbed below. Its to do with what he means by "effective available (or intercepted)". The principle he is working from is solid, treating the whole of the planet as a unit to consider in energy intake (absorption) and reflection (radiation). He claims that Earth is in a stable equilibrium of energy exchange; radiating out the same which is absorbed.
This looks neat and simple. The core problem is that the earth has changed wildly over time. Back in 'snowball Earth' time there were icecaps on the equator. He is working from an assumption which is likely to be false. I'm not sure of the difference in energy output of the sun at this 'snowball' time in the Earth's past. If it was less, then this may account for the different state of the Earth. But, this is sideline.
The dude's core assumption is poor.
In the abstract he says "The greenhouse effect itself and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is a politically motivated dangerous artifact without any theoretical or empirical footing". He then quotes the following to use it (also on p. 233):
"This then is the basic underlying physics that explains the close coupling that exists between TOA radiative fluxes, the greenhouse effect, and the global mean surface temperature."
The author cannot clearly explain things, makes at least one assumption which is likely poor, and then assumes that which he is claiming to disprove.
"Although the general constraint of the energy conservation principle (1) and Kirchhoff law (2) is valid for any isolated passive celestial object, other planets or moons have entirely different physical environments therefore, we shall not discuss (in details) the relevance of our greenhouse effect related theoretical consideration here"
The dude's book is big, can not be cited here and also he is unlikeable for many, the official narrative is more important.
That is why he said: "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
I too don't tolerate the official narrative (which allways as a patern is otherwise than the reallity) and how the "scientifical' consensus is fabricated and especially the scientific consensus that justifies various attempts to validate climate policies.
Btw, in my opinion, "the lack of government response" in Sweden (being the same as in all the countries) was the only response meant to be in these times. People from sweden are trusting their government more than others, so bad luck, the day "not to trust" came there too.
Our perception of everything is one of the important targets as allways.
I do agree that science, like other human endeavours, can be subject to group-think. One of the reasons is the same as that which occurs in the media, that promotion and other factors of acceptance can be based upon accepting certain positions. I can understand the author you are quoting having difficulty with NASA supervisors.
Another professor, older, at the department at which I was working had differing opinions on the severity of the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and of the headlong rush into shifting human energy sources away from fossil fuels. On the CO2 front he would merely state that increased CO2 meant better conditions for plants. Similarly, to some degree, with an increase in temperature, though this was not very relevant to him.
On the energy front, he was quick to point out that fossil fuels amount to the most contentrated energy storage systems we have, and that they are also very easy to transport.
He was not denying the increased CO2 levels, or the increase in the average energy density in the atmosphere, but was disagreeing with the level of panic, the almost religious fervor which the climate 'catastrophe' advocates were displaying. I tend to agree with him on this. But, and its an important but, there are consequences for the increased energy density and those consequences will have quite dramatic effects for humans who are living in the types of ways which post industrial and information processing revolution humans do. Here we get into the "efficient" on-demand cost minimized (profit maximized) supply chains which support fundamental parts of human existence, with food being a very good example.
Sudden disruptions, due to an increase in the frequency and/or severity of extreme weather events will affect these "supply side" inputs to essential "services" made fragile by the capitalist focus on profits. But this is a quibble about political economics. Of more importance will be regions currently densely habited becoming less habitable, which will drive migration. History shows us that a common result of migrations of populations into areas already inhabited by other humans is war. Another issue is that of fresh water availability. Extreme weather events can damaged freshwater storage infrastructure (storms, flooding etc.) or deny the resource (drought etc.). I have almost died, once, due to lack of fresh water. The 4 day limit is pretty hard.
These points come back to the types of research which Hjalte was doing; how can societies plan for the changes which have begun and will continue? How can the worst effects be mitigated?
Thanks for contributing your thoughts on these topics.