Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

Quite the opposite, actually.

Nope, not like that at all.

Earth's surface simply returns to space the energy that it receives from the sun. It does nothing to produce it's own thermal energy. Ergo, NOT a thermal energy source. Put a blanket over a rock and the trapped air underneath the blanket won't get any warmer than the outside air.

A person's body, on the other hand, produces its own thermal energy via converting chemical energy (from food) into other forms of energy, with thermal energy being one of them, and then a person emits that thermal energy. Ergo, a thermal energy source. Put a blanket over a person and the trapped air underneath the blanket will get warmer than the outside air.

No, it reduces heat. Everyone knows this.

<sigh> Gases are not a blanket. Blankets work by REDUCING HEAT. Part of that heat reduction is in the form of less convection (re: trapped air). Part of that heat reduction is in the form of less conduction (re: insulation). Plastic wrap doesn't work as well as a blanket does because, while plastic wrap DOES reduce convection very well, it does NOT reduce conduction very well.

Nope. They use greenhouses to reduce heat, namely heat via convection.

Suuuuuuuuuure.

While there is no 'ideal black body' in nature, Earth IS a black body. Any body in which thermal activity is occurring is a black body.

Your issue, not mine.

 

Earth gets warmth from the sun. Your rock is not a model of Earth, nor is your blanket a model of our atmosphere.

That's already been explained to you.

 

Retreat to conspiracy theory backed by a climate contrarian with an agenda who I note did NOT do an analysis himself on the paper.

 

What average? Compared to what?

And...? Production of thermometers is also massively higher. Does that mean thermometers make it hotter?

Progress at what? Cherry picking and post hoc fallacies?

Sure it does.

And we know why that happens.

I haven't advocated ignoring it -- but it would be better than demonizing it.

 

Garbage.

I.e., someone who knows something about the subject and cares about the truth.

There was no reason to do an analysis, as the criticisms were nothing but political wailing, and had no substance.

 

Pielke is neither a conspiracy theorist nor a contrarian.
But I see you have taken the opportunity to deflect from the papers.

 

Wrong, Washington Post, Warming Hasn’t Harmed African Crop Production
DECEMBER 6, 2023

A recent The Washington Post (The Post) article claims that African farmers, particularly those in Ethiopia, are struggling with crop failures caused by climate change. This is false. While crop failures do occur and have harder impacts on communities that are already poor, there is no data showing that drought or tropical cyclones are happening more frequently or becoming more severe, or that crops production is declining as a result. Worse, the evidence suggests that international organizations climate change efforts undermine the use of technologies proven to increase food production, harming African agricultural progress as a result.

The article, “Farmers race to innovate as climate change threatens African food supply,” begins with a focus on Ethiopia and claims that the Earth’s rising average temperature means “large chunks of Africa are whipsawing between increasingly severe droughts and more frequent and intense cyclones, threatening staple foods for hundreds of millions of people.”

The Post cites claims by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that “each increase of 1 degree Celsius correlates to a three-percentage-point reduction in agricultural output in developing countries,” and predicts that “crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa will decline by 5 to 17 percent by 2050, despite a rapidly growing population.”

Much of the article focuses on organizations that are promoting chicken raising in Ethiopia as a low-emissions, low water-use livestock option, and claims that cereal crops like wheat, rice, and corn (maize) are particularly susceptible to extreme weather.

All of the above claims are false. . . . .

 

Wow! Another poorly referenced hyperbolic blog post from someone who “interned with the heartland institute” a blog post complete with unreferenced graphs from really really badly referenced data - so badly referenced in fact one wonders if that is the point - make it difficult for fact checkers to check the data. It focuses on ONE crop and ignores of other crops are suffering or failing or…….. it also dismisses other factors which may be at play. And talking of playing - that is what this sort of misinformation is designed to do - play into preconceptions

 

I don’t live to answer your posts. I have a life and other interests - they can wait - the Weiambilla incident is more important to me

 

The main problem here is that he is one individual of an enormous number of scientists working in a the field of climate.

Plus, we don't get to see here the response of other noted climatologists who have seriously considered his work.

This is more cherry picking.

 

All the graphs are referenced from the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization. That's clearly shown.
The data are clearly linked within the text.

 

Those things seem conveniently important.

 

A small cabal brought about the retraction. And the paper continues to be cited by other climate scientists; that's how they vote.

 

Yes, the sun heats Earth. Glad we can agree on something.

The only point I'm making with the rock is that it is not a thermal energy source (like a person is). Put a blanket over a rock and the trapped air doesn't get any warmer. Put a blanket over a person and the trapped air DOES get warmer.

The blanket belongs to YOU. YOU are the one who is attempting to claim that there is some magical blanket of greenhouse gas that is cradling Earth in Global Warming.

 

The Earth core temperature is over 9,000 degrees fahrenheit. The Earth is definitely a heat source. The Earth also gets heat from the sun. This is elementary.

 

We're talking about Earth, not persons or rocks, right?

 

NASA says we get 342 watts per square meter each year. One might multiply that by the square meters of Earth's surface for some purposes.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf

The amount we get from Earth's core is far far less.

 

A made-up number. The temperature of Earth's core is unknown. It IS very hot, though.

It really isn't.

Remember, there is A LOT of rock between Earth's core and Earth's surface which acts as a VERY good insulator... to the point where the heat from Earth's core to Earth's surface can be considered irrelevant.

The Earth effectively gets ALL of its heat from the sun.

... yet you don't understand it...

 

This is a common problem they all have in their claims.



There are more people on the planet than ever before, therefore it is people alone and nothing else that causes the rise.

There are more dogs on the planet then ever before, therefore it is dogs that is causing the rise.

There are more roads on the planet then ever before, therefore it is roads that is causing the rise.

Their arguments fall into several of the common logical fallacies on that list, and all at the same time. As has been pointed out Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity. As well as Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Black & White Thinking, False Cause, Cherry Picking, and more. And this is a classic example of False Equivalence.

Because temperatures were also higher in 1500 CE than they were in 10,000 BCE. And it was warmer in 1300 CE than it was in 1500 CE. And they were higher in 115,000 BCE than they are today.

They pick and chose points, and detest when some try to point out these are cycles that have been going on for over 2.5 my. And that based on every glacial period before this one, it is going to get a hell of a lot hotter than it is now. More ice sheets will vanish, the Artic Ocean will eventually be ice free, and most of low lying coastal areas like Florida will vanish. And that will all happen even if every single human on the planet drops dead tomorrow and CO2 emissions dropped to nothing.

Or if we never even advanced to the Copper Age and were still leather wearing spear chuckers wandering the planet where the most advanced thing we had invented was a rock tied to a stick. Even if we had never advanced beyond that, the planet would still be warming.

 

That is a largely made up estimate and is not accurate.

However, it is not the actual source of heat. That is primarily the result of radioactive decay. And it directly has no influence on the temperature of the planet itself. The most influence the core can have is if some volcanic event emits huge amounts of gasses, or large continent sized lakes of lava once again start to cover the planet. But even then, the affect of the temperature from that lava will be insignificant. It is the cooled lava that will operate as a heat sink, absorbing more solar radiation as it would largely be black.

So no, the planet is not a "heat source". No more than the rods of plutonium and uranium used in nuclear reactors are a "heat source".

 

Yes - reasonable list of fallacies!

But, the concern right now is that Earth's temp IS rising unusually and those on Earth are seriously invested in the way things have been - agriculture, fisheries, coastlines, max temps in some areas, water, etc.

These conditions undoubtedly happened in some ancient time, and that's good information. I'm glad climatologists and geologists are working that out.

 

And the amount of heat that does escape is really insignificant. That is why visiting Yellowstone in the winter is no different than visiting any other area of the country at the same time.

And in fact, situations like Hawaii are another great example. Yes, there is active vulcanism going on there right now. And that will cause temperatures to rise, but not from the vulcanism itself. Just as temperatures at Craters of the Moon National Monument are warmer than other nearby areas. What is left behind is mostly basalt, which is black. And it is an excellent heat sink for absorbing solar radiation. That is why a great many homes in the PNW in the 19th and early 20th century would be clad in basalt.



Even indigenous people globally knew of this property and took advantage of it in cold climates.



Plus it helped that it was a very easy stone to work with, based on the crystalline properties of a basalt flow.

 

Well hell Maynard, heat has to go somewhere. And nuclear reactors do heat water to make steam that run turbines. How does the water get hot without
a source of heat?

 

It is, but the relevant heat source is the sun.

The fuel rods in a nuclear reactor are definitely heat sources.

 

Are the turbines hundreds of miles from the radioactive material? And in addition insulated by stone?

And here is some basic physics, the water is not heated by the material itself, but by atomic fission. Any heating by the material itself is relatively tiny.

Go ahead and drop your smoke detector in a container of water, and let me know how long it takes for the temperature of the water to increase.