Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're thinking the general public can do math. Believe me they can't do math esp higher math.

Again, simply your opinion. The general public doesn't have to be able to do higher math to know that not all relationships are linear. Understanding that it might not be that simple is all that's necessary.

I have no doubt that a significant proportion of the public don't understand that; I also have no doubt that a significant proportion do understand it - and the proportion will depend on the average level of education of the general population in question.

 

[lordjeff]

Given our lack of critical reasoning skills in our educational approach, the general public is pretty stupid to be blunt--these are the people that believe that their rights came from politicians & were never unalienable; the same people who believe that in a pandemic one should stay 24/7 in a basement without getting some sunlight at some point.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Water vapor is twice as efficient at absorbing heat than CO2. There are 70 times more water vapor molcules in the atmosphere than CO2. Thus water vapor is 140 times more efficient at absorbing heat than CO2.

The urban heat island effect on warming is 2 to 4 degrees average some cities have a 7 degree added heat to global warming.

Alge and fungi decomposing carbon based life forms cause 90 percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere.

Without the small increase in the satellite and land based graphs from NOAA and NASA. We have a twenty year pause in the warming at two and a half degrees.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The sea level rise of 6 Inches this last century is negligable and observed. The higher levels of rise are predicted from computer modles which have been wrong many times in the past, always overstating the actual data.

qa.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Water vapor is twice as efficient at absorbing heat than CO2. There are 70 times more water vapor molcules in the atmosphere than CO2. Thus water vapor is 140 times more efficient at absorbing heat than CO2.

Read back and see what I wrote previously about saturation. (Hint: the water vapor level in the atmosphere saturates regularly.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Alge and fungi decomposing carbon based life forms cause 90 percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere.

Someone tried this with leaves a couple weeks ago. Was that you?

[citation needed]

 

[Hans Blaster]

qa.com

What's this link? It's some sort of "home learning" site for the UK. Not relevant.

 

[greatcloudlives]

the mathmatics of leaf decay.

Over 90 percent of the CO2 produced per year in the atmosphere comes from decomposisition of plants.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT type this in your search engine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

the mathmatics of leaf decay.

Over 90 percent of the CO2 produced per year in the atmosphere comes from decomposisition of plants.

And others already went over this with you. Those same leaves were also grown in that year. I have evidence for this in my yard right now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT type this in your search engine.

If you cared enough, you'd make a working link yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT type this in your search engine.

Why do you need others to do your homework for you? An inability to copy and paste a link belies any claims of being a mathematician. But here is a link to the article that you did not understand:

The mathematics of leaf decay

And yes, it does make the claim that 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from leaf decay. But you forgot one very important point. Leaves also account for roughly 90% of the CO2 absorbed every year from the atmosphere. It is a net zero. That means that there is another source for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

This one quote from the article should have told you that:

" Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide."

(bolding mine)

If you understood that article there is concern that a warming climate may increase the rate that accumulated leaves return their carbon to the atmosphere, but that may not be the case. Some good news.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The fact remains that CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by man is reabsorbed by the ocean and plants. Deforestation also needs to be taken into account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact remains that CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by man is reabsorbed by the ocean and plants. Deforestation also needs to be taken into account.

It is taken into account. And we can tell that the increase comes from fossil fuels. Have you forgotten how?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The fact remains that CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by man is reabsorbed by the ocean and plants. Deforestation also needs to be taken into account.

It's all about the net effect. It's like the tides, they go in and out every day (or more importantly, up and down), but if we want to understand the trends in sea level we measure the average sea level. The same is true for CO2. It is annual averages that are used.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has not gone up as fast as the fossil fuel release because of know absorption in the ocean (and associated acidification).

Why are you debating these things? They are well know, most importantly by the people who monitor climate, CO2 levels, etc. and by those who model climate change.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why are you debating these things? They are well know, most importantly by the people who monitor climate, CO2 levels, etc. and by those who model climate change.

It is my perception that "denialists", on whatever topic, are unaware - to an alarming degree - of the extent and depth and detail of the research on that topic. It is the range and intricacies of the data, and the way in which they interlock coherently to provide clear understanding that is convincing. Ignorance of the wealth of those data encourages cherry picking from secondary and tertiary sources, with the selection favouring pre-existing beliefs.

 

[lordjeff]

Look persons in the sciences know co2 is a greenhouse gas. But they also know that to figure one gas can produce any kind of intense warming-they disagree on that. Perhaps if the planet were devoid of forests & ocean, then it would be a different scenario. But given that we also know the Sun has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation. Theme being--not all scientists are willing to agree that the 1.8 degree warming is 100% anthropogenic given everything else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look persons in the sciences know co2 is a greenhouse gas. But they also know that to figure one gas can produce any kind of intense warming-they disagree on that. Perhaps if the planet were devoid of forests & ocean, then it would be a different scenario. But given that we also know the Sun has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation. Theme being--not all scientists are willing to agree that the 1.8 degree warming is 100% anthropogenic given everything else.

The atmospheric scientists, climatologist, they all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is sufficient to cause the warming seen. The models include forests, oceans, ice pack, and many other things.

The whole statement about the Sun is frankly incoherent and vague. What does "has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation" even mean? Of course the Sun has "properties" and it does yield "different wavelengths of radiation" all day everyday. Do you mean that the flux has changed or the spectrum of the flux has change? Then say it! Even then it doesn't matter, because it *HASN'T* changed. It's been monitored from orbit by satellites.

They knew 30 years ago that the input of CO2 from fossil fuels would change the climate in the early 21st century. So what did you all do? Ignore it! Call it fraud, a scam, a money grabbing plot, a liberal/socialist plot to destroy the economy, etc., etc. And now we can see exactly what has happened and there is no feasible alternative to the origin of our recent climate change -- it is from anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels. (Thanks a lot!)

--------

"Splendid isolation, I don't need one. Splendid isolation." --Warren Zevon

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is my perception that "denialists", on whatever topic, are unaware - to an alarming degree - of the extent and depth and detail of the research on that topic. It is the range and intricacies of the data, and the way in which they interlock coherently to provide clear understanding that is convincing. Ignorance of the wealth of those data encourages cherry picking from secondary and tertiary sources, with the selection favouring pre-existing beliefs.

As you may have gathered from my previous post, I've rather had it with this discussion, this person, and her obstinate ignorance. I really rather wanted to go further, but I also wanted to keep my account.

I learned about this stuff nearly 30 years ago and the mid-line predictions from the early/mid-90s have come true. It's so frustrating to see the same tropes from so long ago still circulating.

 

[lordjeff]

The atmospheric scientists, climatologist, they all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is sufficient to cause the warming seen. The models include forests, oceans, ice pack, and many other things.

The whole statement about the Sun is frankly incoherent and vague. What does "has certain properties & yields different wavelengths of radiation" even mean? Of course the Sun has "properties" and it does yield "different wavelengths of radiation" all day everyday. Do you mean that the flux has changed or the spectrum of the flux has change? Then say it! Even then it doesn't matter, because it *HASN'T* changed. It's been monitored from orbit by satellites.

They knew 30 years ago that the input of CO2 from fossil fuels would change the climate in the early 21st century. So what did you all do? Ignore it! Call it fraud, a scam, a money grabbing plot, a liberal/socialist plot to destroy the economy, etc., etc. And now we can see exactly what has happened and there is no feasible alternative to the origin of our recent climate change -- it is from anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels. (Thanks a lot!)

--------

"Splendid isolation, I don't need one. Splendid isolation." --Warren Zevon