A Climate Hero.

[Cardinal Carminative]

abu afak

Thanks!

Hmm, just looking through a few posts I can see that this poster also believes the scientists. And they do seem kind of abrasive at times. I can see how you might draw that conclusion, but there's very little reason to assume that I can't say exactly what I'm saying by myself.

If I were going to create a sock what is the possible rationale for that if I'm just going to post abrasive counterpoints to most of the denialist trash? I already do this under THIS name.

Either way, I'm not a sock. But if I was I'd probably try to change it up a bit....no real point to sock puppetry if it's just more of the same.

 

[ding]

The GHG effect, again, is much more complex than just "heat trapping".

Actually it's not. Heat is flowing from the surface of the planet through earth's atmosphere into outer space. The flow of heat is slowed by the gases in the atmosphere and causes heat to build up in the atmosphere much like a choke behaves in fluid flow. The amount of heat impeded from escaping into outer space relative to no atmosphere is the greenhouse gas effect.

 

[ding]

Thanks!

Hmm, just looking through a few posts I can see that this poster also believes the scientists. And they do seem kind of abrasive at times. I can see how you might draw that conclusion, but there's very little reason to assume that I can't say exactly what I'm saying by myself.

If I were going to create a sock what is the possible rationale for that if I'm just going to post abrasive counterpoints to most of the denialist trash? I already do this under THIS name.

Either way, I'm not a sock. But if I was I'd probably try to change it up a bit....no real point to sock puppetry if it's just more of the same.

Hilarious.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Actually it's not. Heat is flowing from the surface of the planet through earth's atmosphere into outer space. The flow of heat is slowed by the gases in the atmosphere and causes heat to build up in the atmosphere much like a choke behaves in fluid flow. The amount of heat impeded from escaping into outer space relative to no atmosphere is the greenhouse gas effect.

And if our atmosphere didn't have the capability to have feedbacks in the form of water vapor interactions you'd be closer to correct.

If you were to super-simplify the AGW concept and assume that you would find meaning in the amount of IR radiation one mole of CO2 absorbed you would NOT have an understanding of how much the temperature would increase at the surface (tecnically this is the "climate sensitivity of CO2"). Precisely because there are feedbacks associated with that energy transfer. That's why the estimates of climate sensitivity of CO2 are not firmly one number, but rather a range with a most likely value.

As I said, it would probably be a no-brainer to load up a cell with CO2 and shoot an FTIR through it (or get a broader range of IR) and then integrate under the CO2 peaks. But, again, that wouldn't do you much good in climate science or in relation to the greenhouse effect.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Hilarious.

What, specifically, is hilarious?


Maybe I can find a post that it time-stamped contemporaneous with one of my posts to prove the point, but it's not really my issue.

While I don't want to be associated with someone else's thoughts or posts that I have no control over, I am not entirely certain I know why it would matter either way.

Can we discuss the science some more? I'm actually enjoying that today.

 

[ding]

And if our atmosphere didn't have the capability to have feedbacks in the form of water vapor interactions you'd be closer to correct.

If you were to super-simplify the AGW concept and assume that you would find meaning in the amount of IR radiation one mole of CO2 absorbed you would NOT have an understanding of how much the temperature would increase at the surface (tecnically this is the "climate sensitivity of CO2"). Precisely because there are feedbacks associated with that energy transfer. That's why the estimates of climate sensitivity of CO2 are not firmly one number, but rather a range with a most likely value.

As I said, it would probably be a no-brainer to load up a cell with CO2 and shoot an FTIR through it (or get a broader range of IR) and then integrate under the CO2 peaks. But, again, that wouldn't do you much good in climate science or in relation to the greenhouse effect.

Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation from Earth's surface just like CO2 does. There's no amplification going on.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation from Earth's surface just like CO2 does. There's no amplification going on.

Water and CO2 behave quite differently in the real atmosphere. In the atmosphere added CO2 will take longer to re-equlibrate to an earlier lower level because it follows the CARBON CYCLE. H2O can be easily evaporated and introduced into the atmosphere but excess will READILY re-equilibrate to a lower level through the process of precipitation.

H2O is considered a FEEDBACK because it responds to the warming from added CO2 and adds more warming. That's what a feedback loop is. So yes there is an amplification. The estimated climate sensitivity of CO2 makes explicit use of this as well as any other feedbacks that are there.

H2O also absorbs IR somewhat differently in that it absorbs in slightly different wavelengths. Adding H2O into an atmosphere will provide new regions to absorb the IR which may help to overcome any "saturation" of the absorption bands of CO2. Granted the atmosphere is not yet "saturated" with regards to IR absorption by CO2 and there's always band broadening.

In other words you can't just measure how much a volume of CO2 will increase in temperature if you hit it with IR since that isn't the only aspect of the greenhouse effect.

You don't have to take my word for it you can read more about it here: How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

(They even show you some lab set ups looking at IR absorption of CO2)

 

[ding]

Water and CO2 behave quite differently in the real atmosphere. In the atmosphere added CO2 will take longer to re-equlibrate to an earlier lower level because it follows the CARBON CYCLE. H2O can be easily evaporated and introduced into the atmosphere but excess will READILY re-equilibrate to a lower level through the process of precipitation.

H2O is considered a FEEDBACK because it responds to the warming from added CO2 and adds more warming. That's what a feedback loop is. So yes there is an amplification. The estimated climate sensitivity of CO2 makes explicit use of this as well as any other feedbacks that are there.

H2O also absorbs IR somewhat differently in that it absorbs in slightly different wavelengths. Adding H2O into an atmosphere will provide new regions to absorb the IR which may help to overcome any "saturation" of the absorption bands of CO2. Granted the atmosphere is not yet "saturated" with regards to IR absorption by CO2 and there's always band broadening.

In other words you can't just measure how much a volume of CO2 will increase in temperature if you hit it with IR since that isn't the only aspect of the greenhouse effect.

You don't have to take my word for it you can read more about it here: How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

(They even show you some lab set ups looking at IR absorption of CO2)

A CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons. There's no amplification.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

A CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons. There's no amplification.

A CO2 absorbs and IR photo and re-radiates it. It is then absorbed by another CO2 molecule. We've been over this a couple times now.

Feedbacks are quite common in real world systems and do lead to an amplification.

But again, you don't have to believe me.

Lecture03 -- Climate sensitivity and feedback

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

A CO2 molecule can both cool and warm, because it both absorbs and emits IR photons. There's no amplification.

To my knowledge CO2 is not able to "cool" something (Unless you are talking dry ice). It, itself, can re-radiate any absorbed IR radiation thus returning the bond vibrations to a lower level which I guess you would call "cooling" but that would be like saying when you turn the oven off the oven cools the kitchen. That isn't how it works.

 

[ding]

To my knowledge CO2 is not able to "cool" something (Unless you are talking dry ice). It, itself, can re-radiate any absorbed IR radiation thus returning the bond vibrations to a lower level which I guess you would call "cooling" but that would be like saying when you turn the oven off the oven cools the kitchen. That isn't how it works.

The temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, the faster motion of a molecule that eventually results from the IR photon that was absorbed by a CO2 molecule raises the temperature of the gases in the atmosphere.

The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

 

[haveatit]

Seventy five percent of the Earths history the global temperature has been significantly warmer than it is today. The mammals that we enjoy today evolved during the paeleocene-eocene thermal maximum when global temps were a minimum of 9 degrees warmer than today. Those are called facts. There have been multiple times that the temps have been far warmer during the last 12,000 years that make up our current holocene time frame.

• Baltic Ice Lake stage. This covers the deglaciation to ca. 11,550 cal year BP (calendar years before present)
• Yoldia Sea stage. This covers ca. 11,700–10,700 cal year BP (a brackish water basin in the first part of this stage and freshwater basin during the second; some studies place the end of the Yoldia Sea stage at 11,100 cal year BP)
• Ancylus Lake stage. A freshwater basin ca. 10,700–9500 cal year BP
• Littorina Sea stage. A brackish water basin, ca. 9500 cal year BP to present (Hyvärinen et al. 1988; Björck 1995, 1999; Andrén 2003; Andrén et al. 2002; Heinsalu and Veski 2007; Zillén et al. 2008). From colonisation by freshwater molluscs, the Limnea Sea has been dated at 4400 cal year BP and located in northern Estonia (Saarse and Vassiljev 2010).

Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)

This chapter summarises the climatic and environmental information that can be inferred from proxy archives over the past 12,000 years. The proxy archives from continental and lake sedimentsSediments include pollen, insect remnants and isotopic...

link.springer.com

Nice way to change the subject. Nobody is denying that for most of Earth's history it was warmer. But then there was a long period of cooling. Though now there is sharply increasing warming. And it is created by humans.

 

[haveatit]

No, you can show me climate model creations. Those are not data. What you can't present is empirical data to support your claim because it simply doesn't exist.

No. I can show you graphs. They aren't created by models. They are created by observations.

 

[ding]

Though now there is sharply increasing warming. And it is created by humans.

Again... Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[haveatit]

Ahhhh, yes. The eternal cop out. No one pays me. Unlike the global warming fraud pushers who get paid millions to push the fraud, I get nothing.

Next.

Would it be against the rules for me to say you suck? It is those who produce energy and the pollution that goes along with it who make all the money. So if anybody has millions to spend denying human caused global warming, it is them. You also say that you don't get paid to spread your filth. Well you're lying about human caused global warming. So what makes you think I would believe that you don't get paid to do so.

 

[ding]

No. I can show you graphs. They aren't created by models. They are created by observations.

Which are used by models for the purpose of history matching so that they can tell you what they think caused it.

The problem is the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.​

​

This is circular reasoning.​

​

Dr. Roy Spencer​

​

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[haveatit]

I guess I'm evil then.

Although I don't deny the impact that the urban heat island effect and deforestation has on temperature (i.e. albedo). I just disagree on how they quantify the impact CO2 has. So maybe I'm just bad and not evil.

You guess you may be evil? Let's not skip over the stupid part.

 

[haveatit]

Yes, but I don't see what setting myself on fire would accomplish. I put up with all kinds of foolishness.

Nobody would set themselves on fire to protest human caused global warming unless they were damn sure they were right. Damn sure! A lot more sure than you are that human caused global warming is a fraud.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again... Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

Willie Soon has been pushing Solar for years now. He is among the tiny minority in the field who remains a skeptic.

But I noted that the paper you cite says: "The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e.,


there has been some “global warming” since the 19th century."

At least they are noting that their findings do NOT agree with earlier findings which show NO statistical effect from the urban heat island effect (Peterson) and I'm glad that they AGREED there HAS BEEN WARMING since the 19th century.

So we can drop this cannard that somehow the UHIE alters the results in some meaningful way. Clearly even Soon et al. feel there has been some warming.

Obviously Willie Soon prefers the SUN to be the cause of climate change. But, unfortunately, time and again, the folks who actually work with space-things (like, you know, THE SUN) at NASA have a rather different view on the topic.

Is the Sun causing global warming? warming/#:~:text=No.,goings%20of%20the%20ice%20ages.

 

[ding]

Would it be against the rules for me to say you suck? It is those who produce energy and the pollution that goes along with it who make all the money. So if anybody has millions to spend denying human caused global warming, it is them. You also say that you don't get paid to spread your filth. Well you're lying about human caused global warming. So what makes you think I would believe that you don't get paid to do so.

This is pretty simple... there is a greenhouse gas effect. The IPCC models overestimate that effect by a factor of 2 to 3 times because they add in positive feedback of water vapor. Their simple-minded assumption is that warming caused by increasing CO2 causes more water vapor, which will enhance the radiative warming which roughly doubles the amount of warming from the CO2 increase alone in climate models.

Water vapor feedback on the long time scales are not positive. If it were the planet would never have cooled.

Increasing cloud reflection, decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere, an increase in ocean mixing or some combination of the three are reasons why water vapor feedback is not positive.