Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OP, all I have to say is climate change is very real (very noticeable where I live in the PNW which is why I started researching it and reading all the scientific reports). You may be right about one thing. There is no way to stop it. If we remove CO2 it gets hotter (all the pollution has a "dimming effect"). If we remove the dimming effect we're x'd. If we do we are x'd if we don't we are x'd. As humans it may not matter what the 100 year projections are (or even the 50 year). If it gets too hot and the water situation continues to worsen (which it will due to evaporation) we will not be able to grow food (as far as I know that's a problem). There is no Planet B. Kiss your arse goodbye and that of your little dog (and insert your head in the sand if you have kids and grandkids). Have a nice day.
It's been getting warmer and drier in the PNW for at least 5 centuries...Don't comflate the recent abnormally hot spell you experienced (caused by an unusally long duration blocking high over Alaska) with a change in the climate. While you were boiling in the PNW, we were freezing here in the MidWest...It all averages out.
OK OK I concede-- There IS GW and it IS caused by burning fossil fuels/co2.
Now the question becomes, So What?
Have any biomes changed? Have any species gone extinct?
When the yearly range of temps in the temperate zones is 130degF and the average temp has gone up only 2 deg (that's +1 at night and +1 in the day) can anyone tell?...I rather doubt you can feel a change with any more accuracy than +/-5deg.
Is biodiversity higher or lower with increasing temps? Do people live longer or shorter lives with increasing temps? Is food production higher or lower with increasng temps? Is there more or less photosynthesis with increasing temps? Are there more or fewer weather related deaths with increasing temps?
Even if we are causing a rise in temps, it's good for us and the biosphere, not bad.
Will it become a "runaway warming?"...Well, temps seem to be related to co2 in an exponential way-- doubling period-- a rise of 1 deg as the [co2] went from 200ppm to 400ppm. Now it'll take a rise to 800ppm to get another 1 degC rise....Do an "order of magnitude" estimation of how much the co2 will rise if we mobilize all the known petroleum reserves on the planet-- There ain't enough oil to get the co2 up to 800ppm.
before we change subjects, I wanted to point out one more item from the original link..
Quote:
Since January 2020, there has been no visible effect of
the global COVID-19 lockdown on atmospheric
concentrations
We have seen this bit of information "used" to as part of the fossil fuel industry funded deception marketing to show that siince CO2 dropped during the pandenmic and no impact on rising temperatures or concentrations were noted, humans must not be responsible for the much higher than normal CO2 in the air or that CO2 is not responsible for the warming.
CO2 in the atmosphere has a long lifetime so accumulates each year. I will use the numbers from that link as I think they are accurate and currently the CO2 concentration is 417 PPM and is increasing by 2.6 PPM each year.
So in 2020, the normal 2.6 PPM increase would instead be 6.4 percent less or 2.43 PPM. Ie, the increase for the planet CO2 was 0.166 PPM less than normal because of Covid.
Remember that CO2 accumulates. With the planet CO2 level at 417 PPM, how much difference did the .166 les CO2 make? That change is a miniscule one part in over 2500. Its only a change of 0.039 percent.
So.. the total PPM for the year was only 0.039 percent less in 2020 because of Covid. Yet this was used to try and convince people that humans aren't responsible for CO2 or that CO2 isnt influencing the warming
Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-23-2022 at 08:32 AM..
Your so-called "source" isn't Norwegian at all. It's based in the UK, and is a climate change denial lobby group.
Norway would never deny human-caused climate change. They've been monitoring the slowing of the Gulf Stream for decades, very nervously, as the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt at an accelerated pace. When the Gulf Stream grinds to a halt is when Norway will get plunged into another mini-Ice Age.
You must think we were born yesterday, OP, to expect us to swallow your heavily biased info.
Gulf Stream has increased, Actually, Norway doesn't have to worry, the gulf streams actually been increasing over the last century, so crisis averted there!
I do thing there's a lot of changes going on, but it's more than just CO2. Phys also had an article where atmospheric scientists found they were overstating the effect of CO2 on warming, reason being is that a reduction in soot in the atmosphere from decreased fires over the last 200 years was actually part of the reason the earth was warming.
CO2 is changing things, that being said, there's a lot of other effects out there, like irrigation and mass land use change that's also impacting the climate. Too much focus is given to CO2, not enough to mass land use change. If you look at a map of states that have warmed the most in the US, the ones that warmed the least are where evapotranspiration has increased in the last decades. Clearing 25 percent of the US from forest to farmland definitely negatively impacted temps in the corn belt.
In 2020, the total revenue of the United States’ oil and gas industry came to about 110.7 billion U.S. dollars, a decrease from the previous year due to the coronavirus pandemic impacts in the industry.
Thats a LOT of money and political clout. Its also what feeds and houses a lot of folks working in the industry which should be important to all of us. Do you suppose the fossil fuel industry is just going to sit back and watch this dry up. Or that some politician would exploit this for personal political gain?
During the 2017-2018 midterm election cycle, corporations, individuals, and trade groups in the fossil fuel industry spent $265,773,915 in lobbying and $93,392,002 in contributions to national-level candidates, parties, and outside groups, bringing the total spending by the industry to more than $359 million in two years. That’s nearly $500,000 per day
The fossil fuel industry even funds things like the Heartland institute who is chartered to cast doubt on the validity of what all the scientists are telling us The conspiracy theory AM radio talk show scripts (the ones that are still talking about Al Gore and that sea level rise didnt happen like some guy said 30 years ago) probably comes from these folks https://www.theguardian.com/environm...titute-climate
Seems that a lot of folks must think "the fossil fuel industry wouldn't be deceiving us.. would they?"
And instead all these scientist guys have gotten away with deceiving us for many decades now instead of getting fired for bad work like would happen in the universe I know. And the folks funding these scientist must be real stupid to keep funding this for all these years. And this conspiracy is happening all over the world and many universities, etc.
But the fossil fuel industry wouldn't lie to us, would they?
It's been getting warmer and drier in the PNW for at least 5 centuries...Don't comflate the recent abnormally hot spell you experienced (caused by an unusally long duration blocking high over Alaska) with a change in the climate. While you were boiling in the PNW, we were freezing here in the MidWest...It all averages out.
OK OK I concede-- There IS GW and it IS caused by burning fossil fuels/co2.
Now the question becomes, So What?
Have any biomes changed? Have any species gone extinct?
When the yearly range of temps in the temperate zones is 130degF and the average temp has gone up only 2 deg (that's +1 at night and +1 in the day) can anyone tell?...I rather doubt you can feel a change with any more accuracy than +/-5deg.
Is biodiversity higher or lower with increasing temps? Do people live longer or shorter lives with increasing temps? Is food production higher or lower with increasng temps? Is there more or less photosynthesis with increasing temps? Are there more or fewer weather related deaths with increasing temps?
Even if we are causing a rise in temps, it's good for us and the biosphere, not bad.
Will it become a "runaway warming?"...Well, temps seem to be related to co2 in an exponential way-- doubling period-- a rise of 1 deg as the [co2] went from 200ppm to 400ppm. Now it'll take a rise to 800ppm to get another 1 degC rise....Do an "order of magnitude" estimation of how much the co2 will rise if we mobilize all the known petroleum reserves on the planet-- There ain't enough oil to get the co2 up to 800ppm.
I'm not conflating anything. I've been here 20 years and the changes especially since 2015 are radical. We're F'd; kiss your arse goodbye. The planet is heating; there is no stopping it. We're going to fry; worse is that growing food will be a problem. The habitat for humans is going away (and so are humans).
An evaluation of The State of the Climate from The Global Warming Policy Foundation (from Norway).
Summary-- No evidence of changing storm activity or of snow cover....Minimal sea level change (+1mm/yr)...Small rise in world temps poorly correlated with markedly rising co2 levels, but well corrleated with ocean temp cycles...Arctic sea ice cycles recovering from a low in 2016-- correlates with ocean cycles.
To those who think co2 is so important-- turn to pp 23-25. Pay particular attention to the Figure 20- graphing changes in sea and air temps and co2 levels-- co2 changes lag behind temp changes by 3-4 months. Oceans determine changes in co2 levels.
Ole Humlum is not a reliable person on this subject and has been trying to refute this for many years. He's on a "Deniars" list. He has a position and writes only to support that position, regardless of the evidence. His stance has been debunked legitimately by the experts.
The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earth’s history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century.
He predicted in 2013 that the earth would become colder in the next 10-15 years. The opposite happened, and 2020 was the second-warmest year on record based on NOAA's temperature data, and land areas were record warm.
Climate changes - that's a fact.
Is it a fact that the change is driven by human activity? No, that's the claim - but not a fact.
>> snipping endless arguments <<
Here's the dingo in the kennel :
Consider that outside the atmosphere, the sun's energy is 1300 W / sq meter, whereas at sea level, inside that 'toasty' atmosphere it is only 1000 W/ sq meter. 30% was reflected back by the 'heat trapping' atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere keeps Earth cooler than nearby bodies in a vacuum.
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
● Earth max : (134.33°F)
● Space station max : (250°F)
● Lunar surface max : (242.33°F)
Zero atmosphere = higher maximum temperature
How does a “heat trapping”atmosphere stay colder?
And if heat was being 'trapped,' why hasn't the maximum temperature gone up to a new record level? All they can claim is that the “average” is going up. Yeah, right.
Is the “Greenhouse effect” like a refrigerator “trapping heat”?
There is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.
: : : : : :
Now, the ALARMISTS may heap scorn upon anyone who disagrees with their beliefs, but the fact remains, that they're off the reservation.
... "A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth's surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them.”
WAIT - the Earth with ‘heat trapping’ atmosphere is 108° F cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere (242-134F).
And they are claiming that trace gases are keeping Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer despite the atmosphere keeping us 116°F cooler than the Space Station right outside of Earth’s atmosphere (250-134F).
Some of the so called skeptics want to argue that there is no GHG Effect...That's not true. OTOH, the Alarmists over-estimate the role-- anyone who has ever stepped on the hot sand at beach knows how much energy can be transmitted by direct cunduction...and how little is transferred by radiation-- Your foot burns while touching the sand, but just lifting it a few inches and it quickly cools (while you burn your other foot)....
...The microwave oven is based on the GHG Effect, so to speak. The energy produced in the oven is at the resonant freency of h20. It vibrates in tune with the source and accumulates the energy, heating up the food...but notice how quickly microwaved food cools off-- because when the h2o emtts that absorbed energy, it's at that same resonant frequency and it can't be absorbed by any other molecule in the food except h20...
...same with energy trapped by co2 in the atmosphere-- it can't warm up any other molecule besides another co2....and more importantly-- it's trapped in the VIBRATIONAL mode of the molecule, which everybody seems to forget DOES NOT contribute to temperature of the atm....Ideal gGas Law PV = nRT-- rearranges to
Vibration does not contribute to temperature read by a thermometer.. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law relates Temp to wavelength, and it's only by that the Warmists claim the GHGs have any efffect. That is what's not true...They measure less intense energy waves leaving the atmosphere than went in, concluding that the difference is "trapped" in the atm, ergo the atm must be warmer due to that...Then they measure temperatures with thermometers and correlate the two observations---That does not mean cause & effect, just another correlation.
There is no experimental evidence to support the GHG Effect. Only correlation studies. Try searching "experimental support for GHG Theory" and see what comes up.
Did you really mean to post a link to a web site that supports that humans are part of the reason for global warming?
If you want to verify that you have it all figured out, you should easily find a scientific paper that agrees with your conclusion. If you cant find a paper, maybe what you have figured out is unique and you are the first one in history to figure this out. Is your post just saying that green house gasses actually work to trap energy.. could not tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
