Losing the Fear of Generating CO2

[OldWiseGuy]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Did you read the linked article?
Most global warming warnings are dire forecasts of catastrophic changes on the earth a few decades from now, if we don't act soon. Trees planted now will sequester more and more carbon as they mature, many reaching their full carbon capacity in 40-50 years, just in time to help head off these disasters. Reforestation and afforestation should begin now, along with other better land use programs. We are standing around with our fingers in our butts waiting for science to come up with some magic bullet fix so we won't have to get our hands dirty.

Planting trees is easy, cheap, and fun. Millions of kids across the world would love to spend a day or two sticking tree seedlings into the ground.

 

[Heissonear]

We can look at the increase in heat content within the oceans to start with.

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

.

My question was for others to furnish observation of Anthropogenic induced Earth warming.

The above about ocean temperature increase was given.

Sorry, but that does not even come close to finger printing signs of Anthropogenic induced warming.



"SUBSURFACE TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

"Ocean heat content is a product of salinity and temperature measurements, and it’s presented in Joules—typically Joules*10^22 and Gigajoules per square meter (GJ/m^2). Let’s put that into perspective with a variable most people can relate to: temperature. For example, ocean heat content (0-700 meters) warmed about 14.5*10^22 Joules for the period of 1955 to 2008. That equates to a warming of about 0.17 degrees C. See Table T1 in Levitus et al (2009)."

Source: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/

.

 

[Heissonear]

It appears the natural heating of the oceans has not been overtaken by the hypothetical CAGW.

What are we to fear again? Man oxidizing carbon, and its detrimental effects?

Why don't you think of the benefits, even towards you in your lifetime much less others.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is EXACTLY where the issue is. I have no doubt about the fact of a warming up earth at the current time (the rock-hard fact: glacial retreating). It is not new and is not a surprise at all. The BIG problem is: what is the MAIN cause of the warming. I am skeptical on that the role of CO2 is as significant as people reported.

Simply look at the tiny abundance of CO2 in the air. It is difficult to believe such a little amount of gas could be so significant. The increase of CO2 in the air might just be the consequence, rather than the cause of the warming.

Oh, we are quite certain about the cause of the increase in the CO2. Its all that coal and oil and gas being burned.

As for the amount, even though the percentage of the air that is CO2 is very small, remember the air is piled up over our heads for miles and miles. If all the CO2 were concentrated into a thin layer, like a blanket, and right over our heads, you would be able to tell it was helping us stay a bit warmer. Well, its still doing the same though it is spread all the way up and down the atmosphere.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is EXACTLY where the issue is. I have no doubt about the fact of a warming up earth at the current time (the rock-hard fact: glacial retreating). It is not new and is not a surprise at all. The BIG problem is: what is the MAIN cause of the warming. I am skeptical on that the role of CO2 is as significant as people reported.

Simply look at the tiny abundance of CO2 in the air. It is difficult to believe such a little amount of gas could be so significant. The increase of CO2 in the air might just be the consequence, rather than the cause of the warming.

Here's a nice link to the actual calculations and formulas used. Feel free to review them and let us know if they got it right or not.

http://globalwarmingequation.info/global warming eqn.pdf

 

[pshun2404]

And we must do all, immediately, as a civilization to stop generating oxidized carbon.

Stop all gas consuming vehicles immediately (the average auto adds around 200 cubic feet of greenhouse gas per day) stop all flights on commercial airlines (around 3000 cf per day) and by any means necessary stop breathing...

After all this the world God created will correct itself....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh, we are quite certain about the cause of the increase in the CO2. Its all that coal and oil and gas being burned.

Plus the fact that other nations are destroying the forests that would help sequester co2.

And we must do all, immediately, as a civilization to stop generating oxidized carbon.

Stop all gas consuming vehicles immediately (the average auto adds around 200 cubic feet of greenhouse gas per day) stop all flights on commercial airlines (around 3000 cf per day) and by any means necessary stop breathing...

After all this the world God created will correct itself....

You're not far off.

"As long as it (the land) lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it." Leviticus 26:35

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, we are quite certain about the cause of the increase in the CO2. Its all that coal and oil and gas being burned.

As for the amount, even though the percentage of the air that is CO2 is very small, remember the air is piled up over our heads for miles and miles. If all the CO2 were concentrated into a thin layer, like a blanket, and right over our heads, you would be able to tell it was helping us stay a bit warmer. Well, its still doing the same though it is spread all the way up and down the atmosphere.

This is not an explanation. Can it explain why did the earth experience ice ages? This warming effect may not work at all at sometime. CO2 is and was there. But is the CO2 the MAIN cause? How do you know?

 

[juvenissun]

Here's a nice link to the actual calculations and formulas used. Feel free to review them and let us know if they got it right or not.

http://globalwarmingequation.info/global warming eqn.pdf

Thanks for the link.

By reading the first few pages, two simple questions appeared immediately: (there are some other questionable assumptions set before the calculation started. I know it is trying to simplify the calculation. So we can put those aside at this time)

Quote: "The effective emission temperature (Te) is the temperature the Earth would have without an atmosphere just taking into account its reflectivity and its distance from the sun."

This is wrong. The temperature of the earth is mostly given by the earth itself, not by the sun. This would lead to a serious underestimation of Te (it would be the (average) temperature on the surface of the moon). As a result, the Ts (surface temperature, equation 5) is seriously underestimated.

Equation 8 gives the vertical opacity of CO2. But the origin of this equation is not explained. Basically, this is where my simple question focused on and this answer is mysterious.

I did not read the rest of it. I doubt it is worthwhile to continue.

 

[Chalnoth]

That is EXACTLY where the issue is. I have no doubt about the fact of a warming up earth at the current time (the rock-hard fact: glacial retreating). It is not new and is not a surprise at all. The BIG problem is: what is the MAIN cause of the warming. I am skeptical on that the role of CO2 is as significant as people reported.

The biggest smoking gun for the greenhouse effect being the primary cause of warming is the cooling of the upper atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect warms by increasing the temperature difference between the lower and upper atmosphere. While the lower atmosphere is still warming, the upper atmosphere ends up colder than it was before. This cooling has been observed:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

The reason why this is so important is because the most-cited (and most plausible) alternative cause of the current warming is the Sun. But an increase in radiation from the Sun would increase the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere at all levels.

Of course, while this cooling is quite good evidence of the greenhouse effect being a major cause of the current warming, it doesn't prove that it's CO2 specifically. To get at that, we have to investigate each greenhouse gas. Here's a plot from the 2007 IPCC report:

This is a list of all of the "forcings" that push the climate in one direction or another. Notice that CO2 has the biggest impact, about 2/3rds of the total greenhouse gas impact. There are also other effects of human activity that are accounted for, with the biggest uncertainties being related to cloud cover.

Simply look at the tiny abundance of CO2 in the air. It is difficult to believe such a little amount of gas could be so significant. The increase of CO2 in the air might just be the consequence, rather than the cause of the warming.

It's definitely weird that such a small amount has a significant impact, but this is fully consistent with lab tests of CO2. It's also consistent with the historical record, as we can look at the distant past to see how CO2 is correlated with temperature.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks for the link.

By reading the first few pages, two simple questions appeared immediately: (there are some other questionable assumptions set before the calculation started. I know it is trying to simplify the calculation. So we can put those aside at this time)

Quote: "The effective emission temperature (Te) is the temperature the Earth would have without an atmosphere just taking into account its reflectivity and its distance from the sun."

This is wrong. The temperature of the earth is mostly given by the earth itself, not by the sun. This would lead to a serious underestimation of Te (it would be the (average) temperature on the surface of the moon). As a result, the Ts (surface temperature, equation 5) is seriously underestimated.

Why do you think this? What about the Earth do you think gives it its temperature?

Equation 8 gives the vertical opacity of CO2. But the origin of this equation is not explained. Basically, this is where my simple question focused on and this answer is mysterious.

The vertical opacity is given by the opacity per molecule of CO2 times the number of CO2 molecules per unit area in a column of air.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thanks for the link.

By reading the first few pages, two simple questions appeared immediately: (there are some other questionable assumptions set before the calculation started. I know it is trying to simplify the calculation. So we can put those aside at this time)

Quote: "The effective emission temperature (Te) is the temperature the Earth would have without an atmosphere just taking into account its reflectivity and its distance from the sun."

This is wrong.

No its not wrong. Its a definition. How can a statement defining the term . . . be "wrong"

You're not making sense here.

The temperature of the earth is mostly given by the earth itself, not by the sun.

With this brilliant insight you are further convincing me you are not very good at putting your logic together.

I did not read the rest of it. I doubt it is worthwhile to continue.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And we must do all, immediately, as a civilization to stop generating oxidized carbon.

Stop all gas consuming vehicles immediately (the average auto adds around 200 cubic feet of greenhouse gas per day) stop all flights on commercial airlines (around 3000 cf per day) and by any means necessary stop breathing...

After all this the world God created will correct itself....

Lets think of some less draconian actions. Replace power plants running on coal with power plants using nuclear power. Add solar and wind power generation as well. Encourage people to avoid burning fossil fuels by making it more expensive through carbon tax, including import taxes on goods manufactured in foreign places with carbon based methods. Encourage development of electric powered vehicles, high MPG vehicles. Encourage bicycle use.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is not an explanation. Can it explain why did the earth experience ice ages? This warming effect may not work at all at sometime. CO2 is and was there. But is the CO2 the MAIN cause? How do you know?

Well, have you looked at charts scientists have constructed showing the relationship between CO2 amounts in the air and average temperature at the same time? Don't they show injections of CO2 lead to warming, and it takes long term reduction of CO2 to bring about cooling?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Le sigh, I have never understood why people seem to think that global warming is the worst impact we could possibly have on the environment in regards to certain activity. What of the metric tons of lead we pump into the air, even with cars now using unleaded gas, as an industrial waste? What bad comes out of reducing our waste and increasing the effectiveness of machines and slowly switching to alternative power sources? If done gradually, no industries should really suffer from it other than those that would inevitably crash when the fuels we currently use run out. And industries centered on the new energy sources would replace them. Reducing CO2 inevitably will reduce the other toxins we constantly are putting in the environment, or do you think acid rain, which we directly can measure and see killing trees today, isn't real either? Because CO2 is never the only waste product, if anything, it is one of the less toxic ones.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We can look at the increase in heat content within the oceans to start with.

As long as we don't look at the heat increase and climate change on all the other planets, right?

Winds Of Venus Getting Faster

Mars Warming

Jupiter Losses A Stripe

Gains A Spot

Stripe comes back

Saturn Storm

 

[PsychoSarah]

As long as we don't look at the heat increase and climate change on all the other planets, right?

Winds Of Venus Getting Faster

Mars Warming

Jupiter Losses A Stripe

Gains A Spot

Stripe comes back

Saturn Storm

those planets have different atmospheric compositions than earth, and different amounts of sunlight, amongst other variables that influence their weather that do not apply to earth either at all or in the same way.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

those planets have different atmospheric compositions than earth, and different amounts of sunlight, amongst other variables that influence their weather that do not apply to earth either at all or in the same way.

"As long as we don't look at the heat increase and climate change on all the other planets, right?"

So the answer is Yes.

So if we continue to ignore that the entire solar system was increasing in temperature during this same time frame, then the only variable must be us. Even though the earth is doing nothing any of the other planets are not doing. So I see no correlation in global warmist's claims at all. The earth is undergoing heating and climate change - just as is every other planet in the solar system. To then single one out of them all and proclaim it's just coincidence, it's really man-made, is sort of like claiming its just missing when it comes to links.

Why does everyone always want to ignore 99% of the data?

The data says every planet in the solar system we looked at also began heating. There is no correlation between CO2 and heating.

http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/Englander 420kyr CO2-T-SL rev.jpg

Yes, one could in the past because the CO2 was controlled by the temperature. And we indeed have broken that correlation so that CO2 is no longer a reliable indicator of temperature. But that increase and decrease has been going on for as far back as we can measure. And even though CO2 has increased dramatically - we are at lower global temperatures than anytime in the past. Because yes - that CO2 is an insulator and has kept the earth from warming as much as in the past. As I have said before. It is not a magic one way mirror.

This is what all the data says. That all the planets are warming - and that the increase in CO2 has insulated us and kept us from reaching the high temperatures of the past. It may also be prolonging the downward cycle that is also inevitable by a few years. But then I guess we don't want to consider ice cores either, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"As long as we don't look at the heat increase and climate change on all the other planets, right?"

So the answer is Yes.

So if we continue to ignore that the entire solar system was increasing in temperature during this same time frame, then the only variable must be us. Even though the earth is doing nothing any of the other planets are not doing. So I see no correlation in global warmist's claims at all. The earth is undergoing heating and climate change - just as is every other planet in the solar system. To then single one out of them all and proclaim it's just coincidence, it's really man-made, is sort of like claiming its just missing when it comes to links.

Citation please. And please not from biased sources. If this is correct you can go to the original sources and see if it is true for all planets. I doubt if you will be able to do so.

Why does everyone always want to ignore 99% of the data?

The data says every planet in the solar system we looked at also began heating. There is no correlation between CO2 and heating.

http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/Englander 420kyr CO2-T-SL rev.jpg

Yes, one could in the past because the CO2 was controlled by the temperature. And we indeed have broken that correlation so that CO2 is no longer a reliable indicator of temperature. But that increase and decrease has been going on for as far back as we can measure. And even though CO2 has increased dramatically - we are at lower global temperatures than anytime in the past. Because yes - that CO2 is an insulator and has kept the earth from warming as much as in the past. As I have said before. It is not a magic one way mirror.

A couple of problems with your graph. First it shows a connection between CO2 levels and temperature. Warming is tied to increasing CO2. Your link had nothing to do with temperatures on other planets. Lastly we are still in an ice age. The makers of your graph should have known that. And lastly I thought your beliefs were rather YECish. How can you use a graph that goes back 400,000 years if you believe things like the Noah's Ark story?

This is what all the data says. That all the planets are warming - and that the increase in CO2 has insulated us and kept us from reaching the high temperatures of the past. It may also be prolonging the downward cycle that is also inevitable by a few years. But then I guess we don't want to consider ice cores either, right?

You supplied no data on other planets. Only an empty claim. And you still don't know how CO2 works to keep heat in. CO2 does not stop most light, it only stops light in the IR bands. In case you did not know high frequency light hits the earth and is partially absorbed. It is turned into heat. That light is reradiated at a lower frequency, in the InfraRed bands. That energy is absorbed by CO2 so yes, it does act like a "one way mirror".[/QUOTE]

 

[Chalnoth]

As long as we don't look at the heat increase and climate change on all the other planets, right?

Winds Of Venus Getting Faster

Mars Warming

Jupiter Losses A Stripe

Gains A Spot

Stripe comes back

Saturn Storm

I don't know quite what you think this means, but it doesn't really say anything about the Earth's climate:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm