13 agency report says humans are the dominant cause for climate change

[Billy_Bob]

Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.

We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.

If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.

Here is an example:


This graph is a plot in 10,000 year points covering 4.5 billion years. No real wild and crazy things happening here..



This Graph is in 1,000 year plots and covers just 450 million years. But we see that our current crop of warming is not unusual or out of the norm.

This one is in 50 year point plots covering our current interglaical of about 16,000 years and our little blip is on the end of the record. Our current temperature rise is not unusual or fast.

 

[J.W.Hardin]

Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.

We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.

If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.

Here is an example:

View attachment 160069
This graph is a plot in 10,000 year points covering 4.5 million years. No real wild and crazy things happening here..

View attachment 160070

This Graph is in 1,000 year plots and covers just 450 million years. But we see that our current crop of warming is not unusual or out of the norm.

View attachment 160071
This one is in 50 year point plots covering our current interglaical of about 16,000 years and our little blip is on the end of the record. Our current temperature rise is not unusual or fast.

I find it weird that people, especially formally trained scientist, don’t understand this. I always feel like I’m missing something in these conversations because it seems so simple to me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can someone explain to me why “global warming” is even a big deal? In the history of the earth temperature goes up and down. According to every model I’ve seen were in an overall down trend in temperature. Humans have lived in ridiculously warm periods much much hotter than the earth is right now. I️ could see if we were at the height of one of those warm periods and we were adding on to it, it could be a problem.

We shouldn’t fight the change. Adapt, same way we’ve been doing it for hundreds of thousands of years. In the times where the earth was so much hotter than it is today, our ancestors didn’t even have AC. I️ think it will be easier in modern times to deal with a warmer climate.

If you’re sad about your beach house you just have to realize that times change and the mountains can be just as nice of a vacation spot.

Here is an example:

View attachment 160069
This graph is a plot in 10,000 year points covering 4.5 million years. No real wild and crazy things happening here..

View attachment 160070

This Graph is in 1,000 year plots and covers just 450 million years. But we see that our current crop of warming is not unusual or out of the norm.

View attachment 160071
This one is in 50 year point plots covering our current interglaical of about 16,000 years and our little blip is on the end of the record. Our current temperature rise is not unusual or fast.

I find it weird that people, especially formally trained scientist, don’t understand this. I always feel like I’m missing something in these conversations because it seems so simple to me.

It is simple... I just taught a high school class this week about this problem and why we need context in science. Their teacher was livid when I showed the students the Greenland ice cores and how it decimated the alarmist point of view. It was a rather interesting conversation about reality vs fantasy modeling.

The best way to teach is visual reference. IMHO

 

[elektra]

Didn’t read this before my previous reply to you. The problem here comes in your misunderstanding of the process of freezing.

When something freezes energy leave the system in the form of heat.

Are you addressing freezing or the physics of CO2, very different things. Freezing CO2 does not turn it into dry ice? Is heat the only form of energy? Is heat the energy that binds atoms together? Is heat the energy that drives gravitational forces? Maybe it is you that has a misunderstanding and are thus only focused on heat?

 

[J.W.Hardin]

Didn’t read this before my previous reply to you. The problem here comes in your misunderstanding of the process of freezing.

When something freezes energy leave the system in the form of heat.

Are you addressing freezing or the physics of CO2, very different things. Freezing CO2 does not turn it into dry ice? Is heat the only form of energy? Is heat the energy that binds atoms together? Is heat the energy that drives gravitational forces? Maybe it is you that has a misunderstanding and are thus only focused on heat?

Just because heat isn’t the only form of energy doesn’t mean it isn’t a form of energy. When energy leaves in the form of heat energy is still leaving. I feel like that’s simple.

 

[IanC]

There is no "differential" because you do not take into account the losses caused by water vapor near surface. You put on your blinders and look solely at a narrow band while forgetting about the gorilla in the room

A graph showing TOA radiation measured by satellite. Between 8-14 microns the radiance corresponds to surface temperature because the radiation directly escapes (less the notch for ozone). Between 14-16 microns it is coming from a much higher and cooler region in the atmosphere. ie. It is not coming from the surface.

 

[elektra]

If CO2 were a mile long, in 1,000,000 miles we would find CO2 every 2500 miles. 1 mile then for the next 2500 miles, nothing.

At best, CO2 is only capable of effecting .04% of any radiation that strikes CO2, in the atmosphere.

The rest does not come near CO2, at the atomic level. That is why it is impossible to measure any sort of effect outside of a controlled laboratory using concentrations of CO2 not found in the atmosphere.

Any ion or atom or whatever strikes a molecule of CO2 will lose energy, simple physics. More CO2, absorbing energy, and releasing energy, will be releasing energy that is weaker.

Certainly when the solution proposed is to increase manufacturing, to increase the use of heavy industry, when that is the solution, to pollute more, to destroy more land, it is easy to see all of this stuff is simple obfuscation.

So little CO2 spread out so thin, does nothing. 2500 miles? .04%, almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no "differential" because you do not take into account the losses caused by water vapor near surface. You put on your blinders and look solely at a narrow band while forgetting about the gorilla in the room

A graph showing TOA radiation measured by satellite. Between 8-14 microns the radiance corresponds to surface temperature because the radiation directly escapes (less the notch for ozone). Between 14-16 microns it is coming from a much higher and cooler region in the atmosphere. ie. It is not coming from the surface.

Now overlay the rise in 16-30um which is the band where water vapor emits.. You will see a corresponding rise in that output. The earth Found path #2 to keep thermal equilibrium. And the window as a whole still emitted the same levels of energy.

 

[xyz]

Guess which countries will do better with global warming?

Russia would actually benefit by having the world's largest navigable coastline and milder temperatures in winter.

 

[IanC]

There is no "differential" because you do not take into account the losses caused by water vapor near surface. You put on your blinders and look solely at a narrow band while forgetting about the gorilla in the room

A graph showing TOA radiation measured by satellite. Between 8-14 microns the radiance corresponds to surface temperature because the radiation directly escapes (less the notch for ozone). Between 14-16 microns it is coming from a much higher and cooler region in the atmosphere. ie. It is not coming from the surface.

Now overlay the rise in 16-30um which is the band where water vapor emits.. You will see a corresponding rise in that output. The earth Found path #2 to keep thermal equilibrium. And the window as a whole still emitted the same levels of energy.

What rise in the 16-30 micron bands? And why?

Equilibrium is maintained by increase temps at the surface, which pushes more radiation out through the atmospheric window.

 

[IanC]

If CO2 were a mile long, in 1,000,000 miles we would find CO2 every 2500 miles. 1 mile then for the next 2500 miles, nothing.

At best, CO2 is only capable of effecting .04% of any radiation that strikes CO2, in the atmosphere.

The rest does not come near CO2, at the atomic level. That is why it is impossible to measure any sort of effect outside of a controlled laboratory using concentrations of CO2 not found in the atmosphere.

Any ion or atom or whatever strikes a molecule of CO2 will lose energy, simple physics. More CO2, absorbing energy, and releasing energy, will be releasing energy that is weaker.

Certainly when the solution proposed is to increase manufacturing, to increase the use of heavy industry, when that is the solution, to pollute more, to destroy more land, it is easy to see all of this stuff is simple obfuscation.

So little CO2 spread out so thin, does nothing. 2500 miles? .04%, almost like finding a needle in a haystack.

You win the prize for the most wacko 'explanation' of the day.

BTW, do you remember Avagadro's number? A photon at STP doesn't have to look very far to find a CO2 molecule. 2500 miles, hahahaha.

 

[elektra]

BTW, do you remember Avagadro's number? A photon at STP doesn't have to look very far to find a CO2 molecule. 2500 miles, hahahaha.

.04% how do you visualize that, put it in terms that are reality? If a co2 molecule was a mile, it would be 2500 miles between each molecule. That is some distance, on a molecular level. There is a lot of space between co2 molecules. The idea, that anything so sparse, in our atmosphere is causing warming, is simply bullshit. Call it miles, call it feet, call it inches, call it little tiny specs of stuff you can not see. 2500 of them little spaces until you see another is an awfully long distance.

Does CO2 radiate heat, 2500x's the distance of its size?

CO2 has nothing to do with high temperatures or low temperatures. Certainly not high temperatures, after all, it is dry ice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.

I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 absorbs all available 14-16 micron radiation coming from the surface in roughly the first ten metres of atmosphere.

You have a link for this claim? This claim violates the laws of physics and ignores water vapor in the atmosphere.

This claim violates the laws of physics

How?

 

[elektra]

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together? Energy is only, simply, heat? All energy is removed by cooling something?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, we can not forget about all the water in the atmosphere, that literally surrounds and shields the co2. Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker and be absorbed by the water in the atmosphere.

Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.

I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?

Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker

Weaker than what?

What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?

Who's talking about bonds? You can remove heat from CO2, or anything, by cooling it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together? Energy is only, simply, heat? All energy is removed by cooling something?

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together?

Nope.

Energy is only, simply, heat?

Nope.

All energy is removed by cooling something?

Nope. Only heat.

 

[IanC]

04% how do you visualize that, put it in terms that are reality?

I believe it's called mean free path. The average distance that a photon travels before it is captured. Two metres at STP, ten metres to extinction. As you get higher in the atmosphere, the density decreases and the mean free path gets longer. At a point much higher up an emitted photon is likely to escape to space if it is aimed that way.

 

[elektra]

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together? Energy is only, simply, heat? All energy is removed by cooling something?

It is heat that keeps the nucleus together?

Nope.

Energy is only, simply, heat?

Nope.

All energy is removed by cooling something?

Nope. Only heat.

my understanding was correct, thank you

 

[elektra]

Of course, we can not forget about all the water in the atmosphere, that literally surrounds and shields the co2. Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker and be absorbed by the water in the atmosphere.

Dry ice is manufactured by removing energy until the gas changes phase and becomes a solid. That solid CO2 can then absorb energy from the environment to return to a gaseous state.

I have never read anything that is as stupid as this, honestly.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

We can not remove energy from CO2, period.

You can, by cooling it.

What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?

Any energy re-emitted from co2 will be weaker

Weaker than what?

What is the energy that binds CO2 together? Heat? And only heat?

Who's talking about bonds? You can remove heat from CO2, or anything, by cooling it.

Weaker than the energy that entered, if they claim co2 is making it warmer, that is pretty hard to do, considered that heat will be lost. When it is absorbed or emitted. People were and are speaking of energy. I know there is more energy than simply heat.

And all those other molecules surrounding CO2, how are they attenuating the heat? There is a ton of water surrounding CO2, in the atmosphere, on any given day.

so many little details