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.
This also explains the 800 year lag in CO2 level changes behind temp levels in the ice core data. Rising CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause.
Does GLM have some sort of agenda?
Its truly unfortunate the fossil fuel industry got caught up in this warming issue. The fossil fuel industry is not sitting back however and spends hundreds of millions (just in the US) each year lobbying and creating doubt that burning fossil fuel is causing the warming. They are protecting there business and profits. (see a couple links at the bottom).
Normally we see in these discussion on climate change a bunch of responses like "the climate changed in the past, its normal for it to change now" or "volcanoes put out much more CO2 than humans" or "its warming but we are not causing it so cant do anything about it" ect.
You can correct me if Im wrong but there is an odd correlation to folks who say the above to folks who watch Fox, Newsmax or other conservative sources. Ask them to find a reference to back up "what they know", they never can. You really cant fault folks for just repeating what they heard on their news sources but you can conclude that a lot of the fossil fuel denial marking money is spent underwriting those news source. Its a complex subject, sometimes you just have to believe your news source.
Now what about GLM?
He just posted that
Quote:
Rising CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause
We have had this discussion many times in the past that CO2 can act as a driver where if you increase the concentration, you immediately get more trapped energy. And CO2 can act as feedback where if the sun energy drops (like has happened during the cold periods in the last 800K years, the colder water aborbs some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and levels drop. The feedback is that the lower CO2 concentrations also contributes to it getting colder. There is a delay (like the 800 year mentioned) from when the water cools to when the CO2 levels drop. Note that our time frame for the current warming is all under 200 years. Reference https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2...limate-system/
I would think someone like GLM would understand the very simple concept that CO2 can act as a driver. Ie, we add CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel, the concentration goes up and it gets warmer. This is exactly what is happening now (no need to wait 800 years). We have had this discussion many times.
But GLM just ONLY noted the feedback mechanism even though Im fairly sure he knows better.
Makes me wonder what is driving GLM's agenda and attempt to say our burning of fossil fuel is not causing the warming.
What my agenda? Im just a retired electrical engineer who studies climate change science and finds it disturbing that the fossil fuel industry is spending big $$ to cover up the issue. I have no respect for the folks who generate the deception for $$ and know that they are lying.
As you say, CO2 has remained below 300ppm for the past 800k yrs, but 800M y/a it was1000ppm. Where did it all go? https://www.google.com/search?client...MM&vssid=mosai
I'm sure you're familiar with that classic temp/CO2 graph-- no correlation between the two on long time periods. Other factors determiniing temps are much more important than CO2.
Younstill don't apparently grasp the concept of the logarrhythmic relationship of CO2 and temps-- the higher the CO2 the less impact on temps...nor do youn give proper respect t to the negative feedback influence of temps on other climatic factors.
I'm getting tired of reminding you of these things which you never seem to afknowledge. Come back to me when you have a better understanding of them.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 04-12-2024 at 08:55 AM..
Tired also.. and want to give anyone following this to read post 10 and especially 11.
Im not sure the property insurance underwriters who are evaluating flood, wind and wildfire risk care about what happened 800 million years ago. We should discuss this furhter but those high levels were caused by a period of intense volcano activity. https://earth.org/data_visualization...20than%20today.
Re: trapped energy- consider the concept of extinction of absorbtion-- suppose a light house beacon can be seen from 10 km off shore on a clear night, 5 km on a hazy nite and only inside 1km on a foggy night....Does the fog absorb more light than the haze?...or is all the light being absorbed under both conditions, just in a thinner layer by the fog?...
....top of the ATM measurements @4.5um (the major absorbton band for CO2) already shows all the radiation is being absorbed now. Adding more CO2 won't absorb more heat but will absorb it in a thinner layer closer to the surface....As long as nights are still cooler than days, the ATM is not in equilibrium and we're in no danger of "over heating,"
One more time about CO2/temp log relationship-- Theoretically, our ATM devoid of CO2 would have a temp about 0degC. Adding CO2 up to about 50ppm would raise that ave temp to 10degC...at that point water vapor, very low at colder temps, would become high enough to provide even more GHE than co2...
....each doubling of CO2 adds about 1.3degC... so from 50- 400ppm is 3 doubling periods, adding about 4.2degC. Add tha to the first 10deg and get 14.2degC for average world temps. That agrees well with the actual 14.7deg measured by satellite.
My only agenda is to keep the science straight....When the argument seems to take sides so clearly aligned with political POV, one has to question motives of the side that seems to be lying about the science. Google "hide the decline" Climategate, etc etc.
A couple more issues actually brought up in this thread showing huge evidence against the GLM theory that warming caused the CO2 (and we are not causing the warming preserving the fossil fuel industry profits)
A quick very simple description of how green house gas causes warming. The energy from sun comes down through the atmosphere at shorter "visible" wavelengths. That energy warms up the surface. The warmer surface then increases its black body radiation but this is at a longer wavelength and the longer wavelength energy is emitted back towards space. A green house gas has little interaction with the shorter wavelength energy coming down but interacts and absorbs the longer wavelength energy going back up. If you increase the green house gas concentration, you trap more of the longer wavelength outgoing radiation. It acts like a blanket. More GHG, the thicker the blanket, the warmer it gets under the blanket. The effect is almost immediate, increase the concentration and the trapped energy starts to increase the temp.
Nasa, MIT, European union, phys,org, IPCC (195 member countries) and many other scientific organizations all say the accepted and by far most agreed on science that the 36.6 Billion tons of CO2 that we are putting directly into the atmosphere each year that adds to all the CO2 previously put into the atmosphere is what is mainly causing the warming that we are clearly measuring with both satellite and terrestrial measurements.
Now we have the special GLM theory that the warming occurred first which then caused the rising CO2. Suspiciously, this theory would mean that we are not causing the warming by burning fossil fuel so there is no need to cut back. Which or course means the record profits the fossil industry saw in the last few years would continue.
More question for GLM to explain..
If the warming occurred first, what caused the warming? For four decades, Satellites have been measuring the sun radiance and it is actually slightly decreasing. Yet our global temp is increasing. It can not be the sun. If not the sun, then what can you make up now?
In the CO2 feedback mechanism, the CO2 concentrations changed 600 or 800 years after the temperature change. Yet our current change has CO2 and temperature closely correlated (like happens with the basic definition of green house gas). Hmm.. why dont we have the 800 year delay?
Even when temperatures did rise above our current global temps in the past 800K years, CO2 levels never rose above 300 PPM (now 40 percent higher than this). What story can you make up that explains why something that never occurred in the past is occurring now?
Where did the CO2 come from if it didnt come from the obvious tail pipe. It did not come from the oceans as they are sinking 30 percent of what we put into the atmosphere. The ocean is also becoming more acidic because it is actually absorbing CO2 because of increased atmospheric concentration, not releasing it.
I guess this only leaves your option to explain your own special theory that both the warming and the CO2 are from volcanoes? We have not discussed this yet.. hint... we will find all sorts of evidence that volcanoes did not create the CO2 and actually tend to cool the atmosphere.
So many huge holes in the special GLM theory trying to preserve the fossil fuel industry profits.
Climate gate from 15 years ago (blown out of proportion even back then). Im surprised you didn't mention Al Gore...
Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-16-2024 at 11:02 AM..
Virtually all energy warming the planet comes from the Sun. It has cycles, but the changes from Max to min don't really amount to all that much...The precession of the planet's axis, of course, is the most dominating single factor in driving the planet's climate, but the planetary elliptical orbit also precesses and when perigee and max tilt occur simultaneously, we get max solar warming. Min solar warming occurs when apogee & min tilt coincide. Other combinations result in I termediate warming. (Remember my suggestion to graph out y=sinX + sin 2X + sin 3X?)
Complicating matters, the oceans have cycles on decade long scales where colder, deeper water rises to the surface and warm water sinks. The oceans have 1000x the heat content of the ATM as well asco2 content. Those are driven by simple physics to equilibrate, hence the delays in co2 following, not preceding temp changes.
The most elagent lab experiments are those that can hold all factors stable, vary one single factor and then measure the effects on the system....The problem is, in Nature, you can't hold the other factors stable. If you vary one, all the others will show compensatory changes.....Simple logic-- we're still here to talk about this, so climate must be a stable negative feedback system. Positive feedback systems (as the Treehuggers claim the CO2/temp relationship is) must ncessarily blow itself up.
I've tried to simplify the answer to your question of what causes the warming. It gets more complicated when we add in sea ice-- Cold water leads to more ice. More ice insulates the oceans from heat loss, so more warming. There are other cycles involved, like the Solar system's excursion around the galaxy affecting cosmic rays which affect clouds, etc etc.
Add all these cycles together and you get a complicated Fourier series....The role of CO2 at this point (400ppm) can be ignored like ignoring wind resistance in plotting the trajectory of a falling bowling ball, or ignoringbthe relativistic factors in plotting the trajectory of a moon rocket. They contribute too little to the final answer to be of practical importance.
More logic-- climate has cycled repeatedly over the last three billion years. The planet didn't need CO2 from fossil fuel to do it before. Why should it need it now?
BTW-- yes, those govt organizations you've quoted do have their bureaucratic agenda. They have been caught in outright lies. They routinely adjust (most would call "cheat") data to fit the narrative. Do a little more reading. These things are there to see if you aren't just following the popular press.
The role of CO2 at this point (400ppm) can be ignored
I guess if some guy on the internet said so and has no reference so probably made this up, it must be true..
Try googling the quoted comment LOL..
FYI, the best place we have to measure the suns long term output is from a satellite orbit and this has been going on for four decades. I said the sun power is not what is directly causing the current warming, its getting warmer because rising CO2 levels are trapping more of the suns energy. Actually, pretty much all scientific references say this.
No, not all the science papers claim CO2 is important, only the ones you selectively read or remember.
You only have an untested theory, correlation studies that only support your theory on cherry picked time periods and computer programs that only tell you what you told them to tell you.
More logic-- CO2, no matter how stong it's Influence on temps, is not strong enough to prevent cooling on a cyclic basis every 30 years. Co2 levels increased from 390ppm in 1995 to about 420ppm by 2015, yet there was ZERO warming during those 20 years....Why not?
Im seeing at least .2C warming during this time period.
But I trust GLM, these both must be wrong and its actually ZERO.
The global temperature is of course a combination of green house gas contribution plus natural variations. The plots since about 1980 now have a fairy steady increase slope mainly due to an increase in CO2 and the "squiggle's" from natural variations.
We see the slope due to GHG increase is .2 C per decade (also what the UAH satellite site says).. Enso variations are also on the order of +/- .2C.. So over a decades time, we could have a span of 10 years where there was no warming because of course what we get is the sum of GHG warming added to Enso variations.
However, go out 20 years. 2023 was the warmest year on record. In 20 years every single year will be warmer than 2023 and some years are going to be a LOT warmer. Of course assuming CO2 increases at current rates.
Last edited by waltcolorado; 04-17-2024 at 04:38 PM..
This past year due to El Nino conditions of the OCEAN, warming average has gone up again.
The OCEANS control the weather. They contain 1000x the heat content of the ATM.. Please check the UAH site for data showing g that the tropics have shown almost no warming over the last 40 yrs, the temperate zones only slight warming at night only, and the north polar region 4-6 degC warming. The south pole, protected on all sides by circumpolar ocean has shown no warming.,..Who cares if the N pole warmed from -35 to -31? Ice remains Ice and nothing lives there anyway.
If you'd care to do a little independent thinking, examine the satellite records-- if we consider the El Nino & La Nina yrs to be out-liers and eliminate them from the calculation, there is no warming at all for the 44 yr period....What does that tell you?
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.
