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.
The climate has been changing, ever since this planet was 'born', and it will continue to change until such time as the Sun reaches the end of its life.
The condition of the climate depends on a variety of factors, none of which are controllable with our current level of knowledge and technical ability- axial tilt, variations in our orbit around the Sun, and other factors.
Currently, the best and most effective way to reduce/eliminate any [alleged] influences of 'Man' on the climate, would be to destroy and plow under all of the cities on the planet and return to an agrarian and hunter/gatherer society. Cities are huge generators and holders of heat, even a city of 30,000 can retain a temperature several degrees above the countryside even a very short distance away.
Who wants to go there?
Knock down all the cities, tear up and bury all of the asphalt of the roads and highways. Get rid of all of the people who consume so many of the resources and generate so much heat by their existence. Come on, step right up, volunteer for the gallows and firing squads, let your bodies fertilize the fields of those who are left.
Come on, step right up, put your money where your mouth is.
We see that, in this unusual year, now 3/4ths completed, there has been a continuation of the rising co2 levels following the same seasonal trends of the past many years, and apparently unaffected by an 8% fall in coal consumption and 10% fall in gasoline consumption.
The COVID-induced declines in CO2 emissions were more than offset by large amounts of CO2 emitted by unprecedented wildfires in Australia, California and Siberia over the last 12 months or so. This points to what makes AGW so dangerous: manmade emissions trigger natural feedback loops that accelerate global warming. These include wildfires and Arctic methane releases. Loss of Arctic sea ice makes the north pole region darker and the sea absorbs more heat instead of reflecting it. So no, we're not going to see atmospheric CO2 going down because some people are working from home instead of driving to work.
Funny this comes up over and over again and its one of those little tricks misinformation folks use to fool people.
...and funny how The Warmists always ignore one really basic fact about Temperature: The Kinetic Theory of Gases says that T is a measure of the average KE of all the molecules in the sample....KE = mv^2. ...A monoatomic molecule (inert gases) can only absorb a photon in such a way that it increases v (translational energy)...A diatomic molecule can also absorb a photon so that it adds to v and to rotational energy...while tri-atomic molecules (GHGs) can be caused to increase v, increase rotation or increase vibration--hence the concept of resonance-- the principle on which the microwave oven is based.
One problem-- the resonant frequency is characteristic of and limited to the particular species of molecule. Once absorbed, the photon is immediately re-emitted at the same wavelength and can be re-absorbed only by another molecule of that species-- and since it doesn't contribute to translational energy, it doesn't affect T.
Have you ever wondered why that left over pizza is scalding hot when you reach for it in the microwave, but it's cold again by the time you sit down at the table, but an oven baked pizza has to sit and cool for quite a while before you can eat it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
The COVID-induced declines in CO2 emissions were more than offset by large amounts of CO2 emitted by unprecedented wildfires in Australia, California and Siberia over the last 12 months or so. ....
As I noted above, we've had big fires before and it doesn't show up on the Mauna Loa data.
Now, I'm intellectually honest, so let's analyze this a little more:--The common wisdom(can we believe it?) is that the burning of fossil fuel is equal to about 2 % of the total carbon budget of the planet each year...Let's assume it all contributes to the increasing co2 levels (it's not; increasing co2 means more photosynthesis, therefor more co2 sequestration)...If fossil fuel use is down 10%, then it's contribution falls to 1.8% ... If the total Co2 budget gives us 400ppm and an extra 2% should raise it to 408ppm, but a 1.8% increase would only bring it to 407.2ppm...Are our measurements accurate enough to discern that?...Maybe not.....This exercise in arithmetic also demonstrates how much "air fertilization" is actually going on. We're not going up 8ppm each year, but just 1-2ppm.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 10-06-2020 at 05:12 AM..
Knock down all the cities, tear up and bury all of the asphalt of the roads and highways. Get rid of all of the people who consume so many of the resources and generate so much heat by their existence. Come on, step right up, volunteer for the gallows and firing squads, let your bodies fertilize the fields of those who are left.
Come on, step right up, put your money where your mouth is.
Maybe add to that list a pandemic with real teeth and all the world leaders have to get infected before they believe its real.
The acreage and tons of CO2 emitted by wildfires is a man-caused feedback loop. Rising temps increase evaporation, lengthen summers, drying out the trees and brush. Lightning or human carelessness ignites the fires. Climate change has intensified high pressure domes, increasing wind velocities. Fires get out of control and consume larger areas. And because the climate is warmer, the burned out alpine forests are replaced by warm climate chapparal and brush that is a fire-prone fuel.
Check out our recent thread on burning wood for power generation. There it was documented that recurrent, natural fires have been not only common, but absolutely required to maintain healthy biomes such as CA's redwood forests...In the past, the fires remained cooler because they occurred frequently with little time for fuel to build up between fires...Now, unwise regulations do allow excess fuel to build up, so fires burn much hotter and damage larger trees that would have escaped unscathed previously. Being hotter, they are harder to control, so they affect larger areas.
CA is actually going thru only a minor period of drought compared to earlier episodes.
"Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years." https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/...cientists-say/
They didn't need "A"GW then, why do we need to call upon it now for an explanation?
Most experts think co2 changes LAG behind temp changes by 800-1000 yrs- ie- co2 levels depend on temps, not temps on co2)
Theories have to account for all the data, not just some of it.
The above was said by GLM in a post in this thread. And I noted again.. that CO2 as a greenhouse gas can act as either a driver of temperate change or in a positive feedback mechanism. Simple for the driver mechanism.. increase the concentration, trap more energy, temperature increase.
But what GLM brought up is the positive feedback mechanism of CO2 where when temperature increases (from for example increasing sun power), eventually CO2 moves from solution in the ocean to the atmosphere. GLM correctly pointed out that before our recent industrial period, for this positive feedback mechanism and for at least the last 800K years, an increase in CO2 concentration would have about an 800 to 1000 year delay from the temperature increase.
Now you all may have noticed that in the last couple hundred years, there is a pretty good correlation with increasing CO2 and temperatures.
So GLM, what happened to that 800 to 1000 year delay? If your incorrect theory was right, would we not have to wait at least another 600 to 800 years to see the CO2 rise?
Once again.. for you to be right, the laws of physics must have changed in the last couple hundred years..
Or.. maybe all the scientist are correct and we are seeing CO2 as a driver where when you increase CO2 concentration from burning fossil fuel, it increases trapped energy and causes an increase in temperature.
Maybe you should not have brought up that 800 to 1000 year delay, it blows another giant hole in the incorrect theory that temperature increase caused the current increase in CO2
Last edited by waltcolorado; 10-07-2020 at 08:59 AM..
So GLM, what happened to that 800 to 1000 year delay? If your incorrect theory was right, would we not have to wait at least another 600 to 800 years to see the CO2 rise?
2
Atm [co2] rises because oceans are warming (open a warm beer vs a cold beer). As oceans warm, polar sea ice melts, allowing even more escape of heat from the oceans to warm the polar atmosphere....Ocean have cyclic warming/cooling too. Deep, cold ocean water is force up as warmer surface water cools and sinks....As the oceans leak oof heat, they get colder and ice accumulates again-- over-all, a negative feedback system.
You have only a loose, occasional positive correlation of co2 & air temps--- On a scale of thousands of years, there is positive correlation. only when the delay is recognized (If there's positive feedback, why didn't the planet burst into flames when co2 levels were 2500ppm during the Jurassic?) On a scale of a few hundred years there can be positive correlation. On a scale of decades, there can be positive OR negative correlation.....You still haven't explained the cooling from 1880 to 1920 or from 1950 to 1980 based on co2.
If co2 were a major driving force, we should always see positive correlation on any time scale.... The fact that that correlation actually becomes negative for spells suggests that any effect co2 has is of relatively minor importance compared to other factors.
Even the UN bureaucrats recognize their first predictions were based on a forcing value for co2 that was way too high at 4-6deg/ doubling period. That's why their computer runs have proven to be totally out of touch with reality as data accumulated with time. They've since lowered their weighting, but it's still too high....Those who have evaluated the temp histories and used thermodynamic principles to estimate the doubling period have placed it at 1.3degC....and that accurately reproduces the satellite record also.....But that doesn't produce the Fear Factor like the UN's.
Walt, you're continually evaluating things assuming that co2 & the GHG theory is right...Try it the other way around and you'll see the skeptical POV makes more sense--that co2 is a relatively minor factor in climate.
The classic GHG/co2 theory can't explain why co2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm, yet temps have never been higher than 22degC, or why there is that 800 year lag in the ice core data, why they have to ignore the kinetics of gases and go to the "delayed loss of heat " mechanism for an explanation which itself misinterprets the Stefan-Boltzmann phenomenon and must use classical mechanics in a quantum mechanics situation....If you have to bend the rules, your theory is wrong.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 10-07-2020 at 11:23 AM..
The Govt-Must-Control-The-Climate pushers have been insisting man affects the climate changes we are seeing, for nearly fifty years now - certainly since the first Earth Day in the early 1970s if not longer.
And in all that time they have never come up with the slightest proof that man's activities have any affect on the climate.
Nothing but documents that refer to other documents, which then refer to yet more documents... but no proof to be seen.
Don't you think that if their notion was true, they'd have been able to find SOME proof during fifty years of trying?
They are clearly relying on the short attention spans of voters who will not remember that every prediction these people have made, has flopped.
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.
