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.
We don't need any input from co2 as a GHG to explain any of the things we've seen over the last couple centuries. Ignoring co2 as a factor in climate is like ignoring air resistance in calculating the trajectory of a bowling ball dropped from the Leaning Tower. Technically, it's a factor, but small enough to ignore from the practical standpoint.
Did you come to this conclusion on your own? If you didnt, some link must agree with you. Please show us so we can examine it. If you made it up, thats OK also... just checking.
Interesting that a fingerprint for an increasing greenhouse concentration is an increasing warming at the surface but also a cooling of the Stratosphere. Simply put, the increasing greenhouse gas is like a blanket that is increasing in insulation. Sunlight mostly goes through the blanket warming the surface and black body radiation is reflected back up. If the blanket gets thicker, heat is trapped under the blanket and it gets warmer under the blanket. But, since the blanket is trapping more heat, it gets COOLER above the blanket.
Well.. we are experiencing exactly what is predicted for increasing green house gas (with links to show where info comes from.. no link, no credibility)
The numbers are in for 2019 and the surface measurements (calculated using GHCN-V4 and HadSST3 and spherical triangulation) show 2019 to the be the second warmest year on record. Satellite data (UAH version 6) shows 2019 coming in as third warmest on record but barely inched out by #2. Reference links http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9304Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD
The surface is warming.. but is the Stratosphere cooling as would be indicated by increasing green house gas? Yes.
Over the long term, rising greenhouse gas concentrations are warming the lower atmosphere, but they are cooling the stratosphere.
Meanwhile, colder-than-usual temperatures in the stratosphere hovered over the polar regions. Last year, the Brewer-Dobson circulation—a large-scale circulation pattern that pumps air from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere over the tropics—slowed down. Usually, the Brewer-Dobson circulation enables the flow of air masses north or south through the stratosphere, away from the tropics toward the poles. During 2011, the slowed circulation impeded the motion of warm air from the tropics to higher latitudes and the poles. Cold temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere may have contributed to the severe decline in ozone levels in the Arctic stratosphere in 2011—severe enough that scientists described it as an ozone hole.
Rising greenhouse gas concentrations are warming the lower atmosphere, but they are cooling the stratosphere. The graph below shows multiple analyses of data from radiosondes that have measured stratospheric temperature for several decades
.
Plenty more links if you wish to read by a simple google search. Here is another.
There is 2000 times more Nitrogen in the atmosphere than there is carbon and up to 100 times more water vapor.
One way that the global warming panic is fed is by using graphs and charts to create a dramatic effect of the problem and generate contrast in a visual for the people to see. You can literally make a mountain out of a mole hill with this technique.
For example most people will not be afraid of a flea as it is barely visible and just looks like a tiny black speck but if you magnify the flea 1 million times it looks like a scary monster. This affect is achieved by shrinking the range to the point that even a slight change looks enormous and thereby causing panic.
This is what I see in most Climate Change charts. They only show a range of maybe 1 degree or 1.5 degrees Celsius. If the range is only 1.5 degrees then .5 degrees looks like a dramatic increase. Now if they panned out the chart and looked at a full range of relative temperatures say 0 degrees to 40 degrees which is more like a normal range of air temperatures then that .5 degree will not even be noticeable and the effect will not cause panic.
Also carbon emissions are shown in an extremely and microscopically small range and are never shown on a scale that includes the entire volume of gasses in the atmosphere. If you charted the atmospheric carbon against the entire volume of the atmosphere it would look like a flat line. You would have to magnify it 1000 times for a tiny blip to be visible.
Another thing they don't tell you is that CO2 does not rise. It is actually denser than the content of the air and any scientist should know that denser molecules will always sink when diluted into a lighter base. In other words CO2 will sink to the bottom not rise to the top of the atmosphere.
Well I know that people have been brainwashed to the point that they will not tolerate any view that opposes their view so I don't expect anyone to listen. Anyway my point is about the panic and fear.
Since about the 1980's several Climate leaders have made projections that did not come true. Projections have always been used to create fear and panic
I think this might be a case of someone not really understanding why CO2 is influencing the climate and then coming to the conclusion that since I dont understand it, it must not be true.
Try and fact check your conclusions above. I bet you can not find any links that agree with you. Can I guess this is what is being marketed on AM radio? If not, you must have a source where you read this stuff? Prove me wrong.. I always enjoy learning new stuff.
Last edited by waltcolorado; 01-18-2020 at 05:52 PM..
I think this might be a case of someone not really understanding why CO2 is influencing the climate and then coming to the conclusion that since I dont understand it, it must not be true.
Try and fact check your conclusions above. I bet you can not find any links that agree with you. Can I guess this is what is being marketed on AM radio? If not, you must have a source where you read this stuff? Prove me wrong.. I always enjoy learning new stuff.
The one thing in common among all climate deniers is lack of research. They hear or read something once and spout it off as truth. He/she still didn't answer how the VAST majority of scientists say man is major contributor of climate change.
I think most people in general dont do any research. The common thing I see with people that think this whole thing is a hoax is being politically conservative. Just an observation, I could be wrong. No other correlation that I can see. Folks are equally intelligent on both sides so its a little odd that this is split along political lines.
Quote:
The wildfires in CA & Australia are good examples: fires occur there naturally and are important to maintaining the biome. There has been drought in both places this past year (not due to "GW" but are cyclic phenomena related to Hadley Cell Circulation and chaotic air mass movement. Warm temps don't cause drought. It's the other way around. Drought keeps temps high. Rain is how the atm "sweats" so to speak. When it rains, temps fall. No rain-- temps remain higher. (Negative feedback system.)
Regarding the fires in Australia (which fortunately I guess they just got some very beneficial rain), there were some interesting plots from Dr Roy Spencer. Source of the plots here Roy Spencer, PhD
You can look at the top plot of temperature and the bottom plot of precipitation and judge for yourself if that is a normal cycle. Looks to me that both high temps and low precipitation were off the historic charts. I dont know enough to say this is specifically due to natural or global warming but I dont even remotely buy that this is "normal" cycles.
Interesting that there is a trend towards more precipitation in general but this last event looks to be drier than any previous period.
Well it certainly is not floating to the top either. Some of it must be settling below the air masses. Air samples have proven that CO2 only comprises about .04% or 4/10,000's of the total atmospheric gasses. I certainly don't think that will make the earth uninhabitable. Not by a long shot.
Does anyone remember the Ice Age? The earth warmed up at least 6 or 7 degrees and there is absolutely no scientific way to prove how much carbon was in the atmosphere during that time.
Most of the human emission of CO2 occurs near ground level, after which it gradually propagates to higher altitudes via diffusion. Measured concentrations of CO2 in the thermosphere are increasing at the rate of ~24 ppm per decade.
Well.. we are experiencing exactly what is predicted for increasing green house gas (with links to show where info comes from.. no link, no credibility)
The surface is warming.. but is the Stratosphere cooling as would be indicated by increasing green house gas? Yes.
Good point. Now answer me this-- which greenhouse gas is causing this? It's well documented that h2o & o3, although each less potent than co2 as a ghg on a molar basis, are each many times more active in toto due to their much higher representation in the atm.
No credibility? Those capable of analytic thinking on their own and having some level of independent knowledge can accept or reject the plausibility of my statements. If one doesn't have the basic knowledge base, then maybe they shouldn't be forming opinions on the subject just yet anyway.
The IPCC assigns a value of 4-6 degC forcing by co2 doubling. Others, by several different methods of calculation, assign 1.7degC. That difference explains the divergence of models from reality seen over the last two decades....Even the IPCC says co2 is responsible for no more than half the latest warming, which would put co2 forcing down to 0.8 degC per doubling-- and the half figure may well be too high.
edited to add: You have to understand how climate modelers do their work. They take the factors they want to consider as important in climate (note-- that's not all the factors that actually are important) and then they "aft-cast" (as opposed to fore-cast), weighting those factors arbitrarily in their computer programs until the program accurately spits out a temp graph identical to the historic record...Then they run the program forward thru time to come up with their predictions. To get it to work right, they had to assign a values from 4-6deg/doubling of co2 ..If they weighted things properly, the forecast should eventually match the new data. ...It hasn't done very well for the past 20 yrs, even after tweaking....Their method is analogous to predicting the stock market based on past performance. In effect, the modelers are trying to force a square peg into a round hole, insisting co2 is a major factor.
The researchers who come up with the 1.7/doubling figure do it based on energy balance considerations, and have to assume all warming is due to co2-- that's almost certainly not true. The real question is how much of the warming is due to co2?
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 01-19-2020 at 02:33 AM..
We have all been in these discussion where someone claims its not CO2 because of their too simple of understanding of how this all works. And. many links could be given, they would not be read and in a month, you would be claiming the same thing again. Been there.. done that. I did a simple google search on the subject. Here are some articles that you wont read but someone actually trying to understand this might find interesting.
The IPCC assigns a value of 4-6 degC forcing by co2 doubling. Others, by several different methods of calculation, assign 1.7degC. That difference explains the divergence of models from reality seen over the last two decades....Even the IPCC says co2 is responsible for no more than half the latest warming, which would put co2 forcing down to 0.8 degC per doubling-- and the half figure may well be too high.
Why not read what the IPCC actually says regarding this instead of some distortion.
CO2 is in section 6.3.1 There are all sorts of forcing discussed in this doc. Interesting for anyone who really wants to understand this to read. FYI, what the IPCC actually says is different that what is quoted above.
Last edited by waltcolorado; 01-19-2020 at 04:43 AM..
Or deduce it yourself: As you can see, h2o absorbs the same wavelengths as co2 and much, much more, with exception of the small spike ~4u. If you can catch all the pennies falling from heaven in 3 baskets, then putting out a 4th basket won't catch any more pennies. We don't even have to argue about how big the baskets are. Cf- extinction of absorption.
Your observation of water vapor's dependency on temp proves my point: deserts (arid regions-- low humidity) are hot during the day when sunlight strikes the surface unimpeded by clouds, and then get cold at night when escaping heat is again unimpeded by clouds. Rain forests (always humid) are hot day & night.-- But the co2 levels are the same there as in desert regions. QED.
edit: the site won't reproduce the graph I stuck in there. Just Search "Absorption spectrum of GHGs." You'll get dozens, all basically the same. You've surely already familiar with it.
Seas ARE rising and what many scientists are now saying..we are already beyond the tipping point. Look around you for God's sake....Australia burning, Amazon burning, coral reefs disappearing, polar caps melting, California on fire...on and on but we are like frogs in a pot of boiling water and cannot see it happening, almost daily now or most likely in denial. Hang on to your hats for 2020, you guys remind me of a cartoon of 4 rednecks in a pickup truck with a bumper sticker saying CLIMATE HOAX....next frame of cartoon, they are stranded in 4 feet of water unable to drive looking for help.
Precisely. Until it happens to them personally, most will call it a hoax. They don't have the mental capacity to understand the scientific data so exposing them to it won't have any effect.
The effects of global warming and the disruption in the usual climate will be different according to where you live- whether it will result in more heat, or cold, drought, crop failure, water shortage, or flooding, etc etc.
Beyond the tipping point already, yes. Major changes are happening much faster than initially predicted. So now we are all fiddling while Rome burns or perhaps I should say while Venice goes irretrievably under water.
I think most people in general dont do any research. The common thing I see with people that think this whole thing is a hoax is being politically conservative. Just an observation, I could be wrong. No other correlation that I can see. Folks are equally intelligent on both sides so its a little odd that this is split along political lines.
One thing, I am not a political conservative. I am a radical leftist. Pretty much everyone concedes that any feasible reduction will have no near-term effect. It seems that the objective is to have billions "mobilized" for the Climate Adjustment Fund. No one can or more likely will say how the money will be spent but based on the Paris agreement gender equity is part of the mix. In other words, it's a tax to fund every progressive's wet dreams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado
We have all been in these discussion where someone claims its not CO2 because of their too simple of understanding of how this all works. And. many links could be given, they would not be read and in a month, you would be claiming the same thing again. Been there.. done that. I did a simple google search on the subject. Here are some articles that you wont read but someone actually trying to understand this might find interesting.
The point is no one really knows how it works. At best it's educated guessing.
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.
