The Next Thing.....
- Thread starter nat55
- Start date
A very good chance it isn't either science or true.
I do have doubts, or at least, am skeptical about the greenhouse effect. Greenhouses don't work that way, so, at the very least, it's a misnomer. Greenhouses actually work by trapping warmed air which that it continues to warm without dispersal into the rest of the atmosphere. The idea that light energy can pass one-way through a gas then to be bounced back when it tries to pass the other way through that same gas seems more than a little odd to me. I'm not saying it isn't a thing, but, for me, like quantum theory, I don't understand the explanations I have read. Showing me the math only convinces me that one can describe its effects, not explain its mechanism.
-Will (Dragonfly)
In the last post, I noted that CO2 can act as either feedback or forcing. As feedback, CO2 will lag temperature. As forcing, CO2 concentration will cause a temperature change.
The plot below is from this source https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html and shows CO2 vs temperature closer to our present time (1964 to 2008)
During the glacier ages, CO2 concentration would have lagged temperature by some hundreds of years and clearly that is feedback. But the present time shows a correlation with increasing CO2 levels and temperature. This can be explained with the FORCING function aspect of CO2. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere (by burning fossil fuel), it increases green house gas concentration which traps more sun energy. Increase trapped energy either turns into heat or kinetic energy.
The link again for CO2 as both feedback and forcing https://www.yaleclimateconnections....a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/
The plot below is from this source https://skepticalscience.com/The-correlation-between-CO2-and-temperature.html and shows CO2 vs temperature closer to our present time (1964 to 2008)
During the glacier ages, CO2 concentration would have lagged temperature by some hundreds of years and clearly that is feedback. But the present time shows a correlation with increasing CO2 levels and temperature. This can be explained with the FORCING function aspect of CO2. If you add CO2 to the atmosphere (by burning fossil fuel), it increases green house gas concentration which traps more sun energy. Increase trapped energy either turns into heat or kinetic energy.
The link again for CO2 as both feedback and forcing https://www.yaleclimateconnections....a-feedback-and-forcing-in-the-climate-system/
Last edited:
Will, I hope you dont mind if I neither read or respond to your post without references.
Walt, I don't doubt your data nor your science, but I'm unclear as to what you are debating?
Are you trying to demonstrate:
A). Human activity is changing the weather?
B). Human activity is the only significant factor impacting climate change.
C). The changing weather will result in disastrous ocean flooding, draught, hurricanes, and/or other highly undesirable weather conditions within the next 50 years?
D). Something else?
I am with you on A but not so much on B, or C, maybe on D.
-Will (Dragonfly)
Are you trying to demonstrate:
A). Human activity is changing the weather?
B). Human activity is the only significant factor impacting climate change.
C). The changing weather will result in disastrous ocean flooding, draught, hurricanes, and/or other highly undesirable weather conditions within the next 50 years?
D). Something else?
I am with you on A but not so much on B, or C, maybe on D.
-Will (Dragonfly)
I could not find anything in your post showing CO2 concentrations. One plot has some sort of CO2 reference but no scale or anything. Is this this the source you are presenting for your conclusion????? I have provided a plot of what CO2 concentration from about 1975 (refercenc https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide). This plot is typical of what you can find on the internet. Your plot (which has no description or scale or anything) does not resemble any plot of atmospheric CO2 concentration I can find. Who knows.. cant tell from your reference..
How about some good news..
Last edited:
Read and click on POWER link , now in BLUE
CO2 concentration UP... CO2 POWER or heat retained going down.
Hmmmm?
Therefore, by the POWER link.. no CO2 concentration effects.
Enough said by me...
Sailing preparation, drinking CO2 laden Beer... burp...
Jim...
PS: Look to the SUN as the only significant POWER source we have.
http://saber.gats-inc.com/images/wn_0317.png
Do you suppose that is showing the 11 year sun spot cycle and 2019 and 2020 are at the minimum of the cycle. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming Sunspot activity was peak in 2014 and that is where that plot starts.
Im not really seeing how that shows that CO2 is not at least somewhat (half or more) responsible for the warming that has occurred in the last 200 years.
Solar output and its affects on the climate is a good subject to discuss, and there are plenty of references to look at. I was waiting to see if any references show up regarding C02 as both feedback and forcing as its a key thing to understand.
FYI, this image is from Dr Roy Spencer who is one of the guys that Fox news uses. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Its the UAH satellite data so no one can claim that the sensor is close to an outdoor air conditioner vent. Note that the temperature anomaly is from the running centered 13 month average. The anamoly is usually referenced to some fixed date earlier in the past but make the numbers look worse.
Last edited:
What? Perhaps.
It is a gas that is found in green houses. It serves the plant life in the process known as photosynthesis. (educated opinion- no reference available). It is a gas that captures IR waves and stores this energy. It is a gas that humans manufacturer. It also is a gas lesser in volume and quantity in the atmosphere, being greatly less than water vapor. CO2 is a gas formed by combustion. Forest fires create large volumes of CO2, as do volcanoes. Would a large volcanic eruption produce CO2 equal to - less than - or greater than the CO2 produced by cars in a year of LA traffic?
Water vapor is also created by humans. It is a greenhouse gas. It is affected by IR reflected solar radiation. (this is basic physics- and educated opinion). Scientific calculations of the amount of heat absorbed by water vapor identify that water vapor stores more (nearly 2 times as much) heat energy than CO2.
Efforts to reduce vehicle harmful vehicle emissions, since 1975, have instead increased water vapor and CO2 emissions from vehicles.
These catalytic converters combine oxygen with carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons(HC) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
According to the EPA, greenhouse gas emissions were 12 percent lower in 2016 than in 2005, in part due to the large decrease in fossil fuel combustion resulting from the switch to natural gas from coal. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/37821-greenhouse-gases.html) The warmer winter conditions during those years also reduced the need for many homes and businesses to turn up the heat. (So is the EPA suggesting that global warming contributed to lesser need for the burning of fossil fuels?)
I am still in question that man can have an influence on the available CO2 in the atmosphere. Further while CO2 remains a lesser greenhouse gas in comparison to water vapor (which we have added to the atmosphere with our catalytic converters) man does not currently possess the ability to reduce the IR heating affect of the Sun on our atmosphere.
Examining the social engineering concepts of taxing carbon in light of the former information appears to me to be an effort in wealth transfer from the people to the politicians. On the Independence Day I am reminded of the similar actions of the British King Charles.
I therefore declare my Independence and happily go sailing harnessing the IR energy in the form of wind.
You could have easily fact checked this. Im not sure why LA traffic was mentioned unless you know exactly what percent of the total emission it is.
Here is just one reference.. they all say about the same thing https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Both water and CO2 are pretty remarkable. Both have an enormous influence on the climate and are the basis for life. Turns out both are also dipoles which influences their performance as a green house gas (no reference given.. I will if asked). As an aside, the dipole nature of water influences how lightning gets dissipated..
But water vapor concentration is temperature sensitive and it does something CO2 does not. Water vapor condenses at some cold temp so there is little where radiation escapes the atmosphere. Difficult reading but this link discusses why CO2 is the gas we are mostly concerned about. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 (and yet another link)
But water vapor concentration is temperature sensitive and it does something CO2 does not. Water vapor condenses at some cold temp so there is little where radiation escapes the atmosphere. Difficult reading but this link discusses why CO2 is the gas we are mostly concerned about. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 (and yet another link)
Last edited:
Gentlemen:
I have decided to enter this fascinating debate for the first time. But before I contribute, I must carefully review the literature to become much more conversant in the subject at hand. This is a substantial undertaking as we all know. I am a retired academic but not in science related to this issue. However, as such, I am very familiar with the process of researching a scientific topic. I expect this research will be complicated by the shortage of publications presenting work in opposition to the "consensus view". As you may be aware, much of the consensus work was/is the result of grants issued by agencies and sponsors with the objective of developing supporting science for that view. In other words, most if not all sponsors have been remiss in requesting proposals for science in opposition. So, a challenge lies ahead.
Rick
I have decided to enter this fascinating debate for the first time. But before I contribute, I must carefully review the literature to become much more conversant in the subject at hand. This is a substantial undertaking as we all know. I am a retired academic but not in science related to this issue. However, as such, I am very familiar with the process of researching a scientific topic. I expect this research will be complicated by the shortage of publications presenting work in opposition to the "consensus view". As you may be aware, much of the consensus work was/is the result of grants issued by agencies and sponsors with the objective of developing supporting science for that view. In other words, most if not all sponsors have been remiss in requesting proposals for science in opposition. So, a challenge lies ahead.
Rick
I wonder about this query. Will this in somehow impact the relevance applied to submissions of this individual? I hope not. Weather academic endeavors were in basket weaving to applied mathematics should not color the observations of the individual. Opinions are just opinions and they may have foundations in the subject matter. They do not need attached “certifications”.
What may be needed is support. But this support does not require “Walt” approval.
Note.. this is just my opinion, may not be accurate. I dont have reference.. Im probably not that open minded any more, and if you have a good reference on a related subject, be happy to read it. At this point and after reading stuff for a few years (discussion like this are a good way to learn if you actually spend the time to read and understand links), I dont have much doubt that we have caused the current warming. I think there is a fair amount of deception going on especially on the internet and social media and you can usually follow a $$ trail back to oil, gas and coal funding. I expect that deception to increase in this next election cycle,
FYI, I am not the one who brought up the academic affiliation. If it was intended to give credibility, it was fair so ask what field. But. it could have been just retired guy conversation. FYI, requiring a reference evens out the playing field as it is the reference someone can argue against, not the poster.
If you want to prove that the warming is not caused be humans, you first have to ignore the enormous CO2 elephant in the room. Then pick some other mechanism (such as solar variations) and see if it explains the warming. I have read some attempts at this. In my opinion they fail. Or you can take the other approach and deny that warming has even happened but at this point with both earth and satellite measurements confirming that.. you have a hard road ahead.
I prefer the science aspect of this subject.. but of course have an opinion on the "other" part also.
In 2018, the IPCC was asked what would be involved in keeping the worlds climate to only a 1.5C change. Note that they are just a bunch of scientist and presented what they found based on what they were asked to look into. Acting on this would be up to policy makers.
Here is the report https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf There is also a video on youtube. edit.. here is the video
That report said we need to reduce CO2 emission by 45 percent by 2030 (only 11 years) and pretty much completely eliminate emission by 2050. After that if we dont become more efficient, we would actually have to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
I believe oil gas and coal is one of the largest industries on the planet. Oil gas and coal are also what have allowed the planet to be like it is now and I personally only see wind and solar making a small dent.
So.. we would have to pretty much throw away one of the largest industries on the planet and at the same time fund another huge industry. Easy to think that is possible and Im not an economist but it seems to me that we would send us into some really bad economic turmoil.
Who knows...
In 2018, the IPCC was asked what would be involved in keeping the worlds climate to only a 1.5C change. Note that they are just a bunch of scientist and presented what they found based on what they were asked to look into. Acting on this would be up to policy makers.
Here is the report https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf There is also a video on youtube. edit.. here is the video
That report said we need to reduce CO2 emission by 45 percent by 2030 (only 11 years) and pretty much completely eliminate emission by 2050. After that if we dont become more efficient, we would actually have to start removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
I believe oil gas and coal is one of the largest industries on the planet. Oil gas and coal are also what have allowed the planet to be like it is now and I personally only see wind and solar making a small dent.
So.. we would have to pretty much throw away one of the largest industries on the planet and at the same time fund another huge industry. Easy to think that is possible and Im not an economist but it seems to me that we would send us into some really bad economic turmoil.
Who knows...
Last edited:
Here is my question.
I don't doubt that putting dirty or even stuff that does not belong out into the atmosphere is not the best thing to do. I am still dubious about things like McDonalds is ruining the oceans because all of the cows that must be killed to make those burgers stand around and fart all day long destroying the ozone layer. However what's the point of the United States shackling our economy to put out less when we do not put out as much India or China? Second question where do we get off telling other countries they can not develop their industries and grow their economies just as we did a few generations back?
I remember I high school all the "scientists" said we'd have another ice age by the year 2000. What happened to that one?
I don't doubt that putting dirty or even stuff that does not belong out into the atmosphere is not the best thing to do. I am still dubious about things like McDonalds is ruining the oceans because all of the cows that must be killed to make those burgers stand around and fart all day long destroying the ozone layer. However what's the point of the United States shackling our economy to put out less when we do not put out as much India or China? Second question where do we get off telling other countries they can not develop their industries and grow their economies just as we did a few generations back?
I remember I high school all the "scientists" said we'd have another ice age by the year 2000. What happened to that one?
Last edited: