The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[bigfield]

What the hell has that got to do with Earth's climate?

1. CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation. This has been for over a century. Greenhouse CO₂ monitors use this to monitor CO₂ levels.
2. Radiation from the sun is absorbed into the ground and ocean and then re-emitted as lower wavelength radiation.
3. Some of that lower wavelength radiation is absorbed by CO₂ in the atmosphere. Same as the glass on a greenhouse.

And that's the greenhouse effect.

CO₂ is not the only greenhouse gas; water and methane are also greenhouse gases.

Climate used to be called seasons [...]

You must be a laugh when you bring this material out at parties.

Seasons last three months; climate is measured over several decades.

[...] before the rabid leftards jumped on the bandwagon of this new cult!

The greenhouse effect has been established science since the 19th century. But I suppose Joseph Fourier was just virtue-signalling.

 

[Jokodo]

Just like homeopathic medicine, a single molecule in an ocean will cure whatever ails mankind. Only in this case that 0.04% along with over 90% of other elements in the atmosphere does manage to keep the planet warm enough for it's myriads of life forms.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

I asked a question. Optical sensors are used to measure CO2 content of an atmosphere, available for a 100 bucks and with a precision/sensitivity of 20-50 ppm. They operate on the principle that CO2 absorbs light at certain wavelengths more than other gases. If your daughter was working in a greenhouse with CO2 enriched atmosphere, she was operating one of those herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sensor

Please explain how, if CO2 absorbs radiation that would pass through an oxygen/nitrogen/helium atmosphere unhindered, is it supposed not to increase heat retention?

Have you heard of the principle of conservation of energy?

Was it not for conservation of energy, life would not be possible anywhere. What the hell has that got to do with Earth's climate?

Everything. Light is a form of energy. If light is absorbed, it gets converted to heat. Heat is also a form of energy. Energy does not disappear. Unless it does, knowing that CO2 absorbs light implies that heat builds up. Saying it doesn't amounts to denying conservation of energy.

Climate is far more complex than that. Climate used to be called seasons before the rabid leftards jumped on the bandwagon of this new cult!

Climate didn't "use to be called seasons" anymore then the ocean used to be called "rain". They're are two tangentially related topics.

 

[fromderinside]

Well weather is different in each season depending both upon where and how climate varies. Connections!!!

 

[angelo]

When one is looking for answers to many questions on the causes or the why of CO2. Google is your friend or an enemy, depending on one's indoctrination to the present cult of AGW.
Professor Alfred Laubereau
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._CO2_concentration_rise_to_the_global_warming

 

[bigfield]

When one is looking for answers to many questions on the causes or the why of CO2. Google is your friend or an enemy, depending on one's indoctrination to the present cult of AGW.
Professor Alfred Laubereau
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._CO2_concentration_rise_to_the_global_warming

Thank you for finally citing a journal article.

Here is a link to the full text PDF so you can actually read the article:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001/pdf

Once you've read the article, perhaps you can tell us what you think this paper says about anthropogenic global warming.

 

[angelo]

When one is looking for answers to many questions on the causes or the why of CO2. Google is your friend or an enemy, depending on one's indoctrination to the present cult of AGW.
Professor Alfred Laubereau
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._CO2_concentration_rise_to_the_global_warming

Thank you for finally citing a journal article.

Here is a link to the full text PDF so you can actually read the article:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001/pdf

Once you've read the article, perhaps you can tell us what you think this paper says about anthropogenic global warming.

It most certainly doesn't repeat ad nauseam the cult of human caused GW/CC/CD!

Here's another study recently released.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-million-year-old-ice-snapshot-earth-greenhouse.amp

 

[steve_bank]

The latest update on predicted rising ocean levels is worse than before.

Miami is in trouble already.

In biblical times corrections came from god. This time it is the overwhelming forces of nature.

From a report the number of acres burned in Ca every year id riding steadily over decades. It was said there is no longer a fire season, it is year long.

 

[bigfield]

When one is looking for answers to many questions on the causes or the why of CO2. Google is your friend or an enemy, depending on one's indoctrination to the present cult of AGW.
Professor Alfred Laubereau
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._CO2_concentration_rise_to_the_global_warming

Thank you for finally citing a journal article.

Here is a link to the full text PDF so you can actually read the article:
http://sci-hub.tw/https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001/pdf

Once you've read the article, perhaps you can tell us what you think this paper says about anthropogenic global warming.

It most certainly doesn't repeat ad nauseam the cult of human caused GW/CC/CD!

That's not what I asked.

It contradicts your own stated beliefs:

• It agrees that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas
• It agrees that the greenhouse effect is real
• It agrees that current warming is anthropogenic
• It relies on a computer model constructed by the author

I'd be happy to discuss the specifics of the paper's conclusions--within our limits as laymen--but your comments so far make it clear you're not at all interested in what the paper says or what that might mean for your own beliefs about the science.

Here's another study recently released.
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-million-year-old-ice-snapshot-earth-greenhouse.amp

You really ought to read the article, or at least the abstract.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1692-3

This paper is entirely consistent with mainstream climate science. What point were you trying to make?


You're welcome to cite peer-reviewed journal articles, but you need to have a basic understanding of what those papers are saying.

 

[angelo]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

The growing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is often considered as the dominant factor for the global warming during the past decades. The noted correlation, however, does not answer the question about causality. In addition, the reported temperature data do not display a simple relationship between the monotonic concentration increase from 1880 to 2010 and the non-monotonic temperature rise during the same period. We have performed new measurements for optically thick samples of CO2 and investigate its role for the greenhouse effect on the basis of these spectroscopic data. Using simplified global models the warming of the surface is computed and a relatively modest effect is found, only: from the reported CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere from 290 to 385 ppmv in 1880 to 2010 we derive a direct temperature rise of 0.26+/-0.01\ \text{K} . Including the simultaneous feedback effect of atmospheric water we still arrive at a minor CO2 contribution of less than 33% to the reported global warming of {\sim}1.2\ \text{K} . It is suggested that other factors that are known to influence the greenhouse effect, e.g. air pollution by black carbon should be considered in more detail to fully understand the global temperature change.

 

[steve_bank]

As I understand it the increase in greenhouse gases tracks to the industrial revolution and increases in fossil fuels, mostly coal.

Sources like volcanism has always been there, but the modern problem is above and beyond long term sources.


Keep in mind that all consumed energy regardless of sources ends up as heat in the environment. The local climate of phoenix has been altered by large scale use of air conditioners. All generated electrical power generated ends up as heat,

 

[Jokodo]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

Could you point us to where it says that? A specific sentence or two? What you quoted doesn't say that - it says that the actual temperature increase is larger than predicted from co2 alone and proposes additional man made factors to explain the difference.

 

[bilby]

As I understand it the increase in greenhouse gases tracks to the industrial revolution and increases in fossil fuels, mostly coal.

Sources like volcanism has always been there, but the modern problem is above and beyond long term sources.


Keep in mind that all consumed energy regardless of sources ends up as heat in the environment. The local climate of phoenix has been altered by large scale use of air conditioners. All generated electrical power generated ends up as heat,

Waste heat from human activity is utterly trivial on a planetwide scale. We've discussed this before on these boards; The forcing due to the greenhouse effect is many orders of magnitude more than the waste heat - the sun is able to provide enough energy to the top of the atmosphere to make human energy use look like nothing at all, so adjusting the atmosphere to retain more of that solar energy is far more significant than the paltry amounts of energy we convert to heat.

 

[bigfield]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

As Jokodo has already noted, the paper doesn't say that at all, let alone "clearly".

However, it is true that the majority of carbon emissions are from natural sources.

From the IPCC's fourth assessment report:



In the absence of human industrial activity, the carbon cycle is roughly in balance: the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is the same as the amount removed. However, when you add fossil fuel usage on top of that, the cycle is no longer in balance and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases.

If you read FAQ 7.1 in the IPCC AR4 (page 512), you'll see that this is well understood by climate scientists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

The growing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is often considered as the dominant factor for the global warming during the past decades. The noted correlation, however, does not answer the question about causality. In addition, the reported temperature data do not display a simple relationship between the monotonic concentration increase from 1880 to 2010 and the non-monotonic temperature rise during the same period. We have performed new measurements for optically thick samples of CO2 and investigate its role for the greenhouse effect on the basis of these spectroscopic data. Using simplified global models the warming of the surface is computed and a relatively modest effect is found, only: from the reported CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere from 290 to 385 ppmv in 1880 to 2010 we derive a direct temperature rise of 0.26+/-0.01\ \text{K} . Including the simultaneous feedback effect of atmospheric water we still arrive at a minor CO2 contribution of less than 33% to the reported global warming of {\sim}1.2\ \text{K} . It is suggested that other factors that are known to influence the greenhouse effect, e.g. air pollution by black carbon should be considered in more detail to fully understand the global temperature change.

Nobody has denied that there are other factors. One of the big ones is water vapor--but water vapor is based on temperature. It acts as an amplifier of other effects. There's also CH4 which is even more of a greenhouse gas than CO2--but once again due to man-made sources.

As for things like black carbon, yes, it has an effect. That's a big part of why we haven't seen a continuous increase in temperature. For a while we were throwing so much crud into the atmosphere that we were actually cooling the Earth. We cleaned up our smokestacks (and quit blowing up cities--WWII threw an awful lot of crud into the air) and exposed the underlying pattern.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not member where I posted a link. Concerns wee expressed as far back as the late 19th century about large scale coal burning and the environment.

'London fog' was a soupy air pollution that killed people.

 

[angelo]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

Could you point us to where it says that? A specific sentence or two? What you quoted doesn't say that - it says that the actual temperature increase is larger than predicted from co2 alone and proposes additional man made factors to explain the difference.

Exactly! CO2 on it's own has little if any effect on global temperatures. Perhaps there's just too many of us, but the population explosion and demise as Paul Ehlrich predicted is just taking longer to eventuate than he predicted.

 

[Jokodo]

The paper clearly states that most of the CO2 emissions are from natural sources.

Could you point us to where it says that? A specific sentence or two? What you quoted doesn't say that - it says that the actual temperature increase is larger than predicted from co2 alone and proposes additional man made factors to explain the difference.

Exactly! CO2 on it's own has little if any effect on global temperatures. Perhaps there's just too many of us, but the population explosion and demise as Paul Ehlrich predicted is just taking longer to eventuate than he predicted.

If you'd read anything from me in this thread, you'd know that I consider Paul Ehrlich a stupid old guy unable to update his beliefs based on facts and evidence at the best if times, a charlatan at other times - so not unlike yourself.

However none if that is relevant to the fact that you linked an article that directly contradicts claims you've made just one out to posts earlier, and summarised it as saying almost the opiate if what it says.

The paper doesn't say co2 has little if any effect. It doesn't say that the co2 increase is not anthropogenic, as you tried to tell us earlier. It does not say thay the other factors beside co2 are not anthropogenic. And it most certainly doesn't say there it's no significant warning, also something you've repeatedly claimed.

If the analysis in this paper us correct, it logically follows that 3/4 of your parts in this thread are spreading falsehoods, since v it directly contradicts them.

 

[angelo]

I do not member where I posted a link. Concerns wee expressed as far back as the late 19th century about large scale coal burning and the environment.

'London fog' was a soupy air pollution that killed people.

We've cleaned up a lot since then. For example cars are responsible for a fraction of the emissions of what they were then. Industry [ in the West at least] has also cleaned up it's act since then. But modern humanity will still depend on mining and industry for practically every single item in every day use for as long as humanity survives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not member where I posted a link. Concerns wee expressed as far back as the late 19th century about large scale coal burning and the environment.

'London fog' was a soupy air pollution that killed people.

Lots and lots of people.

 

[angelo]

Millions of people are killed by pollution each year. More than motoring smashes in fact.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/air_pollution.htm