Why isn't the heat from using electricity included in earth's energy budget?

[Cardinal Carminative]

18 terawatts per second over a concentrated area says otherwise.

Do you think that in the cartoon you provided in the OP that at every point on the earth there is a consistent flux of that exact amount of energy at every point?

 

[ding]

Do you think that in the cartoon you provided in the OP that at every point on the earth there is a consistent flux of that exact amount of energy at every point?

Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a significant portion of the UHI effect is due to waste heat from electricity usage in urban areas and is being attributed to CO2.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that a significant portion of the UHI effect is due to waste heat from electricity usage in urban areas and is being attributed to CO2.

So you have answered your own question here. If you don't believe all points on the earth have exactly the same flux of energy you are still relying on the "normalized" values of your original posting.

And, again, the UHIE doesn't seem to have a statistically significant impact on the overall temperature estimates.

I have now pointed you to the Peterson paper a number of times. If you have a problem with that then you must surely have some information that can provide Peterson's error.

 

[ding]

So you have answered your own question here. If you don't believe all points on the earth have exactly the same flux of energy you are still relying on the "normalized" values of your original posting.

And, again, the UHIE doesn't seem to have a statistically significant impact on the overall temperature estimates.

I have now pointed you to the Peterson paper a number of times. If you have a problem with that then you must surely have some information that can provide Peterson's error.

But it does on temperature. You can't add 18 terawatts per second to urban centers and not expect to see it in the temperature record. And in fact, it has been seen... and attributed to CO2.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But it does on temperature. You can't add 18 terawatts per second to urban centers and not expect to see it in the temperature record.

A couple things:

1. Clearly you are wrong since Peterson did an actual statistical analysis of the data set with and without urban sitings and the values were statistically indifferentiable.

2. The temperature record isn't just the temperature, it is the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY.

That's important here because you can still see a signature for warming by comparing a warm site to a baseline and comparing a cool site to that same baseline and see if they are BOTH increasing.

Years ago Anthony Watt set up the "climate station siting" study in which they photographed poorly sited temperature stations and well-sited temperature stations. Stations where things were close to heat generators etc were given poor grades and those out away from any sort of heat sites were given a good score, etc. NOAA was taken to task for having some poorly sited stations. So NOAA did a study taking Watt's worst sited stations and re-running the temperature anomalies for ONLY well sited stations and compared it with the data set containing the poorly sited stations as well....and they found no difference. (HERE)

So station siting isn't even a problem. It keeps coming up that way no matter who studies it.

 

[ding]

A couple things:

1. Clearly you are wrong since Peterson did an actual statistical analysis of the data set with and without urban sitings and the values were statistically indifferentiable.

2. The temperature record isn't just the temperature, it is the TEMPERATURE ANOMALY.

That's important here because you can still see a signature for warming by comparing a warm site to a baseline and comparing a cool site to that same baseline and see if they are BOTH increasing.

Years ago Anthony Watt set up the "climate station siting" study in which they photographed poorly sited temperature stations and well-sited temperature stations. Stations where things were close to heat generators etc were given poor grades and those out away from any sort of heat sites were given a good score, etc. NOAA was taken to task for having some poorly sited stations. So NOAA did a study taking Watt's worst sited stations and re-running the temperature anomalies for ONLY well sited stations and compared it with the data set containing the poorly sited stations as well....and they found no difference. (HERE)

So station siting isn't even a problem. It keeps coming up that way no matter who studies it.

You can see the difference with your own eyes.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You can see the difference with your own eyes.

View attachment 651021

That is ONE article by Willie Soon et al. We've discussed this.

This article is more focused on solar (which even NASA doesn't feel is appropriate) and this article you keep citing DOES agree that there is evidence for AGW.

Soon is a known skeptic which is fine, there are always a tiny minority in any science that try to go against the bulk of the science. Soon's position is solar. Most experts on solar don't appear to agree with him.

I am uncertain why I have to "disprove" Willie Soon but you are under no obligation to disprove Peterson AND NOAA.

 

[ding]

That is ONE article by Willie Soon et al. We've discussed this.

You should cite the paper in the proper way: Ronan Connolly et al 2021 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21 131

Ronan Connolly1,2 , Willie Soon1 , Michael Connolly2 , Sallie Baliunas3 , Johan Berglund4 , C. John Butler5 , Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7 , Ana G. Elias8,9 , Valery M. Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Luning ¨ 16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik Solheim18, Laszl ´ o Szarka ´ 19, Harry van Loon20, V´ıctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard C. Willson22, Hong Yan (y˜) 23 and Weijia Zhang24,25

1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA; [email protected]
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland
3 Retired, formerly Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
4 Independent researcher, Malmo, Sweden ¨
5 Retired, formerly Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK
6 Comision de Investigaciones Cient ´ ´ıficas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7 Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Tecnologica Nacional, Coløn 332, San Nicol ´ as (2900), Buenos Aires, Argentina ´
8 Laboratorio de F´ısica de la Atmosfera, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnolog ´ ´ıa, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Av. ´ Independencia 1800, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina ´
9 Instituto de F´ısica del Noroeste Argentino (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientficas y Tecnicas - Universidad Nacional de ´ Tucuman), 4000 Tucum ´ an, Argentina ´
10 Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory St. 1, Moscow 119991, Russia
11 Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
12 Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209 USA
13 Independent scientist, Berkeley Springs, WV, USA
14 Emeritus Professor in Physical Geography, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
15 College of Earth, Ocean, and the Environment, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716-2541, USA
16 Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences, Hauptstraβe 47, 6315 Ageri, Switzerland ¨
17 Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources, University of Naples Federico II, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cinthia, 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
18 Retired, formerly Department of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
19 ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, 9400 Sopron, Csatkai utca 6-8, Hungary
20 Retired, formerly National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
21 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de M ´ exico, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoac ´ an, 04510, M ´ exico D.F., M ´ exico ´
22 Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Coronado, CA 92118, USA
23 State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
24 Department of Mathematics and Physics, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
25 Department of AOP Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

 

[ding]

This article is more focused on solar (which even NASA doesn't feel is appropriate) and this article you keep citing DOES agree that there is evidence for AGW.

Actually it focused on reconciling differences between two models; the IPCC's and one that excluded urban temperature stations and used the high variability solar output dataset NASA uses instead of the low variability solar output dataset that NASA doesn't use.

 

[ding]

The IPCC routinely tunes their climate models to not produce natural climate change.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually it focused on reconciling differences between two models; the IPCC's and one that excluded urban temperature stations and used the high variability solar output dataset NASA uses instead of the low variability solar output dataset that NASA doesn't use.

NASA doesn't use something? Well, then it is probably the ONLY thing to use.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The IPCC routinely tunes their climate models to not produce natural climate change.

Incorrect.

First: the IPCC doesn't make ANY models. They utilize the models from the literature.

Second: This is not even close to how these models are generated. Yes, there is parameter tuning for those parts of the sub-models that lack a single suite of physical equations (the empirical descriptors) which often require tuning to fit the data and create an equation for the model.

Don't believe me? Why not listen to more experts in climate:

"Tuning consists of adjusting the values of these parameters to bring the solution as a whole into line with aspects of the observed climate. " (SOURCE)


You should already be more than familiar with modeling in the sciences given your background.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You should cite the paper in the proper way: Ronan Connolly et al 2021 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21 131

Ronan Connolly1,2 , Willie Soon1 , Michael Connolly2 , Sallie Baliunas3 , Johan Berglund4 , C. John Butler5 , Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7 , Ana G. Elias8,9 , Valery M. Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Luning ¨ 16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik Solheim18, Laszl ´ o Szarka ´ 19, Harry van Loon20, V´ıctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard C. Willson22, Hong Yan (y˜) 23 and Weijia Zhang24,25

1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA; [email protected]
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland
3 Retired, formerly Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
4 Independent researcher, Malmo, Sweden ¨
5 Retired, formerly Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK
6 Comision de Investigaciones Cient ´ ´ıficas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7 Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Tecnologica Nacional, Coløn 332, San Nicol ´ as (2900), Buenos Aires, Argentina ´
8 Laboratorio de F´ısica de la Atmosfera, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnolog ´ ´ıa, Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Av. ´ Independencia 1800, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina ´
9 Instituto de F´ısica del Noroeste Argentino (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientficas y Tecnicas - Universidad Nacional de ´ Tucuman), 4000 Tucum ´ an, Argentina ´
10 Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory St. 1, Moscow 119991, Russia
11 Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
12 Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209 USA
13 Independent scientist, Berkeley Springs, WV, USA
14 Emeritus Professor in Physical Geography, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
15 College of Earth, Ocean, and the Environment, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716-2541, USA
16 Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences, Hauptstraβe 47, 6315 Ageri, Switzerland ¨
17 Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources, University of Naples Federico II, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cinthia, 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
18 Retired, formerly Department of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
19 ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, 9400 Sopron, Csatkai utca 6-8, Hungary
20 Retired, formerly National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
21 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de M ´ exico, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoac ´ an, 04510, M ´ exico D.F., M ´ exico ´
22 Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Coronado, CA 92118, USA
23 State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
24 Department of Mathematics and Physics, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
25 Department of AOP Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Yes. As I said, Willie Soon is EXTREMELY well known for his reliance on solar as the primary descriptor of the warming. And if he could find 24 friends that's great. NASA and thousands upon thousands of independent researcher apparently disagree.

Since I'm not a professional in the areas of solar mechanics I believe I will have to stick with the thousands upon thousands as opposed to the 25 you found here. (BTW: how weird is it when someone has 24 co-authors? That just kinda feels like a bunch of people wanted to get their names in print...lol.)

 

[ding]

Incorrect.

First: the IPCC doesn't make ANY models. They utilize the models from the literature.

Second: This is not even close to how these models are generated. Yes, there is parameter tuning for those parts of the sub-models that lack a single suite of physical equations (the empirical descriptors) which often require tuning to fit the data and create an equation for the model.

Don't believe me? Why not listen to more experts in climate:

"Tuning consists of adjusting the values of these parameters to bring the solution as a whole into line with aspects of the observed climate. " (SOURCE)


You should already be more than familiar with modeling in the sciences given your background.

It's not incorrect. The climate models the IPCC rely upon are routinely tuned to not produce natural climate change for the express purpose of isolating the effects of CO2. They call it drift.

 

[ding]

Yes. As I said, Willie Soon is EXTREMELY well known for his reliance on solar as the primary descriptor of the warming. And if he could find 24 friends that's great. NASA and thousands upon thousands of independent researcher apparently disagree.

Since I'm not a professional in the areas of solar mechanics I believe I will have to stick with the thousands upon thousands as opposed to the 25 you found here. (BTW: how weird is it when someone has 24 co-authors? That just kinda feels like a bunch of people wanted to get their names in print...lol.)

It would be super swell if you could challenge the content of their paper. But you can't.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It would be super swell if you could challenge the content of their paper. But you can't.

You don't ever challenge the Peterson paper. I guess I don't understand why I'm supposed to do what you are unwilling to do.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It's not incorrect. The climate models the IPCC rely upon are routinely tuned to not produce natural climate change for the express purpose of isolating the effects of CO2. They call it drift.

Then you should no problem proving this point.

Thanks.

 

[ding]

You don't ever challenge the Peterson paper. I guess I don't understand why I'm supposed to do what you are unwilling to do.

This is really simple. Don't use urban heat stations.

Do you like apples? I like apples.

I found a list of the 123 most populated cities. The total population if those 123 cities is
1,050,748,000 people or roughly 1/7 of the world's population. The surface are of those 123 cities which contains 1/7 of the people on earth is 214,468 km^2 or 2.14468E+11 m^2.

The world wide average continuous heat flow from the use of electricity is 18 tW. So the waste heat of the 1,050,748,000 people living in those 123 cities would be 1/7 of that or 2.5714 tW or 2.5714+12 W. So the radiative forcing from waste heat from electricity usage in the most populated cities is equal to 2.5714+12 W divided by 2.14468E+11 m^2 which is equal to 11.99 W/m^2.

How about dem apples?

 

[ding]

Then you should no problem proving this point.

Thanks.

Just to be clear... you are saying it would be wrong to routinely tune climate models to not produce natural climate change, right?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Just to be clear... you are saying it would be wrong to routinely tune climate models to not produce natural climate change, right?

You made the claim that the IPCC tunes model to make it look like there's warming when there isn't warming or to make it look like it is due to CO2 when they know it is not.

None of these claims are so far supported other than your claim that they do those things.

I will note that:

1. The IPCC doesn't make ANY models
2. The IPCC NEVER said that all warming is due only to CO2
3. No scientist ever said all warming was due only to CO2
4. The tuning of the models is done to make them comport with the observed climate


You need to support your claim of their wrongdoing.