Heat Generated by 120 ppm of additional CO2

[daveman]

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[koshergrl]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

Well Crick provides a pile of IPCC shit again.

Well... let me stop you right there for a moment. Neither you nor any of your denier friends has ever successfully demonstrated that anything the IPCC puts out in the way of data products could be described as "a pile of shit". And in all your posts, you have demonstrated a strong tendency to make claims without providing any evidence and very often with no reasoning whatsoever. You like to make unsubstantiated assertions; unsubstantiated by anyone. So we should not be all that surprised that you would call the IPCC's data products "a pile of shit" without have ever explained why.

Tell me Crick.. How did you and your IPCC clones stop Natural variation?

Obviously, no one has stopped natural variation. And I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea who you refer to with the term "your IPCC clones".

You and your IPCC pile of crap assume that all warming was due to CO2... Yet only 0.003% of the warming is even capable of being attributed to man and his input of CO2.

Hmm... 0.0003% of the warming. I am wondering where you came up with that number. It is close to the pre-industrial level of CO2 (280 ppm) expressed as a percent of the entire atmosphere. However, humans would be responsible for the 131 ppm [411ppm current - 280ppm pre-industrial] we have added to that level. In any case, he seems to be saying that the Earth's atmosphere, in its entirety, is responsible for the observed warming. That, of course, is false

The correct calculation would be that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for 131/411ths of the current CO2-based greenhouse warming. Or you could say that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for a 411/280ths increase in CO2-based greenhouse warming since 1750. The two statements are functionally identical. So the actual value of human responsibility is more than 100,000 TIMES greater than Billy Boy has just claimed.

Here are the atmospheric CO2 levels the Earth has experienced since 1958:

As I hope you can see, there is very little "natural variation" in that data. The isotopic analysis has shown that the portion of CO2 in the atmosphere not sourced from fossil fuel combustion has remained remarkably stable. Almost every iota of the increase displayed in that graph originated from human activity. And thus every iota of the warming caused by the greenhouse effect acting on that added CO2, then, can also be credited to human activity.

Once again your inability to think critically shows you a fool...

Billy, do you remember when I set up a signature here that was simply composed of several quotes from you and I think a note regarding your claim to be working on that atmospheric physics doctorate? Do you know why I took that off? Do you?

Because I looked at what you had written, in arguments about these topics and about yourself and I said to myself "the last thing this guy needs right now is someone else giving him shit". And so I got rid of the signature. You didn't seem to notice. I ignored you for a bit, but as time went by and you continued to post the things you do, I came to lose a great deal of the sympathy that had popped into my head that day. Now, at the moment, we (particularly me, I think) are working under a public moderator proscription to cease personal attacks. So I will not be making the comments you might be expecting of me and that, being honest, I would enjoy making.

Where your link to whatever joker created those charts?

Oh wait, I found it..

Create A Graph

 

[koshergrl]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

So yeah where's the source of that chart?

Lololol...I have to admire someone who just refuses to give up, even after everybody else recognizes they are not dealing in reality.

 

[Crick]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

 

[flacaltenn]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

CO2 is NOT a net heat source to the surface. Those "watts/meter" are measurement of how much surface heat is reflected BACK to the surface.. It ADDS NO ENERGY that did not come from the sun..

HOWEVER -- that's LESS HEAT than what would normally be LOST to the sky.. So no "energy is created".. Only the LOSS RATE to the universe decreases.. It's a thickening of a GHouse "blanket".. "blankets" create no energy unless they are POWERED by electricity.. LOL....

And please cut the "atom bomb" calculations of total CO2 "heating" integrated over the entire surface of the Earth.. I could do a calculation about additional heating from Urban Heat Islands that would be just as impressive as the 2 watts/meter of CO2 forcing in that IPCC chart..

Leave those scary ass meaningless fear factors to the cartoonists as Skeptical Science...

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

I know it is from the IPPC report, but WHERE in the report, its so freaking big!

Meanwhile as usual you ignore what you can't address, it is a habit you have developed over time, which is why you are a known lover of Pseudoscience bullcrap.

"No link to the chart" Still no link

"no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change." You ignored it.

"Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable". You ignored it.

"Why do you like pseudoscience so much?" You ignored this fact about you.

You offer nothing scientific because you don't know what that is, which is why Pseudoscience is what you end up pushing, which the inevitable default position when you are a science illiterate, that is a fact you can't live down.

That graph, displaying anthropogenic forcing factors, may be found on Page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers within "The Physical Science Basis" of AR 5, available at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC. Scroll down to the page headlined "Report" and click on the link to download the Summary for Policy Makers. When complete, scroll to Page 14.

I have provided lots of empirical evidence to 1750 and further. I haven't the faintest idea if I've ever presented the data from which that chart was constructed. But now you know where it came from. You can investigate it yourself.

Do tell me how you came to the conclusion that that chart was made entirely from models, none of which could be falsified, when you had no idea where that chart came from.

I will continue to ignore obviously rhetorical questions.

I suspect based on your questions and your charges that I needn't worry about your opinions re science literacy. And so I won't.

Have a nice night.

That chart does a LOT of things. It invents totally new definitions of "total solar irradiance" to MINIMIZE the actual solar power increase since 1700.. Completely disengenuous and deceptive. It's also accounts for cow farts and charges them to MAN without SUBTRACTING the massive farting ability of hordes of buffalo, antelope, deer, and moose that the cows replaced.. Phony fart accounting..

The guessing on MANY of those those forcings are HUGE.... Do you understand "error bars" in charts? I don't think you do...

I could go on.. But it would be to no avail or purpose at all...

The bottom line is -- the power of CO2 to change surface temperature equilibrium is MUCH closer to the basic physics and chemistry estimates of 1.1 degC for each doubling of CO2 concentration than the CONCLUSIONS of the IPCC later on in the reports. They attribute SUPERPOWERS to CO2 that don't fucking exist or at least are speculative...

And that 2 watts/meter is USELESS if you don't have an accurate "climate sensitivity number.. That factor is REQUIRED to convert watts/meter to Degrees of surface temperature.

Over the 30 years of this circus -- the climate sensitivity number has come DOWN by almost a factor of four.. Better to assume the 1.1 deg per CO2 doubling and work the equation BACKWARDS to find the additional forcing.. Be it CO2 or solar.... or some combo thereof..

And YOU missed it Crick.. The emergency is officially cancelled. It's now -- just a problem....

 

[flacaltenn]

Almost every iota of the increase displayed in that graph originated from human activity.

That's not in evidence. You might just BE looking at natural variance. Just because the graph is going up for a PUNY 50 years is not trend long enough to tell.. On a climate time scale -- 50 years is a blip....

There are measured changes of 80 to 100ppm CO2 in the Greenland ice cores over the period of time that man has been upright... What makes you think there IS no natural variation???

Man's yearly contribution to the carbon cycle is 5%.. NATURE provides the rest.. And actually, nature sinks about 1/2 of that 5% back from the atmos. For all that is currently known, the ability of the surface or oceans to SINK CO2 back from the atmos could be cyclical.. Because neither the sourcing or sinking ability is measured accurately enough to tell how much of that net 2.5% anthropomorphic contribution contributes to the graph you're staring at..

 

[flacaltenn]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

CO2 is NOT a net heat source to the surface. Those "watts/meter" are measurement of how much surface heat is reflected BACK to the surface.. It ADDS NO ENERGY that did not come from the sun..

·
·
·​

And please cut the "atom bomb" calculations of total CO2 "heating" integrated over the entire surface of the Earth.. I could do a calculation about additional heating from Urban Heat Islands that would be just as impressive as the 2 watts/meter of CO2 forcing in that IPCC chart..

Leave those scary ass meaningless fear factors to the cartoonists as Skeptical Science...

And that 2 watts/meter is USELESS if you don't have an accurate "climate sensitivity number.. That factor is REQUIRED to convert watts/meter to Degrees of surface temperature.

It's not watts per meter. It's watts per square meter.

And very square meter of the Earth's surface receives, on average, about a thousand watts of energy in the form of visible light from the Sun. Add in radiated heat from the Sun, and the number would be even bigger. An additional two watts per meter² is nothing. Less than 0.2 of a %.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not watts per meter. It's watts per square meter.

Thanks.. I spazzed..

And 2 watts/m2 is about 6 or 10 christmas lights... You notice that warmth as you unwrap your presents??? LOL...

What's ironic to me is with the percentages you mentioned that things like urban growth and the "heat island" effect of cities gets downplayed by the people ignoring satellite measurements and relying on 10,000 thermometers to get an "alternate" data set.. NASA and by default the other "temperature record cookers" love to hand wave that "small" time varying factor away so that no one thinks about it...

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about the ppm.....really

 

[Crick]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

Wow. Did you realize that greenhouse gases exposed to IR will slow the release of thermal energy to space and increase the total energy content of the planet.

You all seem to think there is some hard and fast definition of "generate energy". Sorry, there isn't. Does a solar thermal power plant generate energy? Yes.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

Wow. Did you realize that greenhouse gases exposed to IR will slow the release of thermal energy to space and increase the total energy content of the planet.

You all seem to think there is some hard and fast definition of "generate energy". Sorry, there isn't. Does a solar thermal power plant generate energy? Yes.

And your hot spot is where again?

 

[Crick]

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

Climate Meme Debunked As The ‘Tropospheric Hot Spot’ Is Found

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD (Please note "Spencer" in the URL)

Climate Meme Debunked As The ‘Tropospheric Hot Spot’ Is Found

 

[daveman]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

You know what the IPCC and every other climate change cult lacks?

Statisticians. People whose job is the science of change over time.

Climate "scientists" write their own models. And they suck at it.

 

[daveman]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

Wow. Did you realize that greenhouse gases exposed to IR will slow the release of thermal energy to space and increase the total energy content of the planet.

You all seem to think there is some hard and fast definition of "generate energy". Sorry, there isn't. Does a solar thermal power plant generate energy? Yes.

No, it doesn't. No power plant generates energy.

They change energy from one form to another. A hydropower reservoir uses mechanical potential energy. A coal-burning power plant uses chemical energy. A nuclear power plant uses nuclear energy. A solar thermal power plant uses radiant energy. All of them convert their energy sources to electricity.

If you're not even clear on the most basic ideas, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this.

 

[Crick]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

You know what the IPCC and every other climate change cult lacks?

Statisticians. People whose job is the science of change over time.

Climate "scientists" write their own models. And they suck at it.

I suspect one or two have gotten involved. And I would not go to a statistician to write a general climate model. They are chock-a-block full of physics that a statistician would not understand.

 

[Crick]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

Wow. Did you realize that greenhouse gases exposed to IR will slow the release of thermal energy to space and increase the total energy content of the planet.

You all seem to think there is some hard and fast definition of "generate energy". Sorry, there isn't. Does a solar thermal power plant generate energy? Yes.

No, it doesn't. No power plant generates energy.

They change energy from one form to another. A hydropower reservoir uses mechanical potential energy. A coal-burning power plant uses chemical energy. A nuclear power plant uses nuclear energy. A solar thermal power plant uses radiant energy. All of them convert their energy sources to electricity.

If you're not even clear on the most basic ideas, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this.

I am aware of the conservation of energy. The presence of additional CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere results in increased equilibrium temperatures for the planet; more solar energy remaining in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. I wasn't invoking magic. If you think I was, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this.

 

[daveman]

It may be found on page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers contained in "The Physical Science Basis", part of the IPCC, Assessment Report 5. Go to AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Could you tell me why you think I'm "not dealing in reality"?

Partly because IPCC "science" has editors from the political wing of this UN funhouse. The scientists are hired help.. The other 2/3 of the IPCC are politicos or economists or sociologists and the like.. And THAT MAJORITY has a say in the crafting of "executive summaries" and picking the science that IS presented.

It is NOT the pure scientific body you imagine it is.. It's more like the bar scene from Star Wars in terms of the participants and policy makers with VETO ability over the science section report... You place all your eggs in this fragile basket and these jerks will screw you over in terms of representing all of what's available in "climate science"...

You know what the IPCC and every other climate change cult lacks?

Statisticians. People whose job is the science of change over time.

Climate "scientists" write their own models. And they suck at it.

I suspect one or two have gotten involved. And I would not go to a statistician to write a general climate model. They are chock-a-block full of physics that a statistician would not understand.

Nonsense. Climate is how numbers change over time. Statistics.

 

[daveman]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

Wow. Did you realize that greenhouse gases exposed to IR will slow the release of thermal energy to space and increase the total energy content of the planet.

You all seem to think there is some hard and fast definition of "generate energy". Sorry, there isn't. Does a solar thermal power plant generate energy? Yes.

No, it doesn't. No power plant generates energy.

They change energy from one form to another. A hydropower reservoir uses mechanical potential energy. A coal-burning power plant uses chemical energy. A nuclear power plant uses nuclear energy. A solar thermal power plant uses radiant energy. All of them convert their energy sources to electricity.

If you're not even clear on the most basic ideas, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this.

I am aware of the conservation of energy. The presence of additional CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere results in increased equilibrium temperatures for the planet; more solar energy remaining in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. I wasn't invoking magic. If you think I was, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing this.

My point was that you can't get the basic vocabulary right.