Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[ding]

So you say. And I suppose it's just by coincidence that temperatures and CO2 (A KNOWN greenhouse gas) has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Also, all the volcanoes on earth each year release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The last I checked, each year the activities of humans have released around 32.3 billion tons of CO2. Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

CO2 has been rising because emissions have been rising. Temperatures have been rising for the last 20,000 years because we are in an interglacial cycle. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.

So yeah, it's a coincidence.

The earth is uniquely configured (polar regions isolated from warm marine current due to landmass configuration which which was driven by plate tectonics) to be colder.

 

[ding]

Human caused global warming is a reality. Pass that on.

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.

A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change over the last 150 years. It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. The researchers
compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, 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.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

 

[ding]

It's apples and oranges comparison. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now. Just because the planet survived then, does not mean our modern civilization would.

The data overwhelmingly shows the earth has been cooling for over 50 million years. 2.7 million years ago the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet and there was a marked step change in the cooling trend. Never before has the earth been configured for bi-polar glaciation. It is this configuration which has led to increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty. You are confusing a warming spell during an interglacial cycle with man made global warming.

 

[Stryder50]

So you say. And I suppose it's just by coincidence that temperatures and CO2 (A KNOWN greenhouse gas) has been rising since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Also, all the volcanoes on earth each year release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. The last I checked, each year the activities of humans have released around 32.3 billion tons of CO2. Only an insane person, or a paid denier, could think that much extra CO2 wasn't making any difference.

Current level of CO2 is @ 400ppm-Parts Per Million. If you were competent in math you'd see this is a ratio of 400/1,000,000 or reduces to 1/2,500. Since you appear to have also failed basic science when getting your 'education', here's a reminder Earth's atmosphere composition;

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that nitrogen is @ 780,000ppm and oxygen is @ 210,000ppm and argon is @ 9,340ppm.
This visual might help you to grasp some perspective;

And here's an at home experiment you can do to understand the influence of CO2 level on the atmosphere;
Take one of those plastic (petroleum by-product) two liter bottles that soda comes in and fill it with two liters of water at 70 degrees F. This represents that 2,500 parts of the atmosphere. Now add to this 0.8ml (milliliters) of water at 75 degrees F., this is about 1/8 teaspoon, and represents that one part out of 2,500 of CO2.
How much did the temperature inside that bottle rise?

Only and insane AND ignorant person, or a paid Al Gore clone-puppet, would think current levels of CO2 are a driver atmospheric warming.

 

[Stryder50]

What if there is nothing to human caused global warming, but we did something about it anyway. What's the worst that could happen. We live more equitably within our ecological environment. But what is the worst that can happen if human caused global warming is real. As I think it is. And accelerating. As I think it is also. The worst is that humans don't have long for this planet. You decide. Which approach is best.

Screw up on your atmosphere fixing and you could trip off another ice age. Notice on this graph how quickly temperatures can plunge into an ice age and how much slower it is getting out of one;

This one shows a different scale, but essential point here is how many have happened in just the past million years;

This image shows more recent time scale during the period humans have been here, and not the temperature variations;

Here's another one to consider for perspective (though I'm inclined to think it exaggerates the CO2 effect);

 

[Stryder50]

Here's another image to ponder;

And this one;

 

[Stryder50]

I have some graphs for you and all the other human caused global warming deniers around here. There are MANY like them. But these should do.

View attachment 533318

View attachment 533321

View attachment 533322
View attachment 533323View attachment 533324

View attachment 533325

All of which show coincidence more than cause, and rather shaky at that. If anything they suggest that rising temperatures might drive increase in CO2, when not causing CO2 to drop. Also, these are a very short term timeline compared to the full geological history of Earth, and don't reflect data factors such as the increase quality and accuracy of instruments nor the increased quantity of instruments and locations for measure. Nor do the appear to factor the "heat island" effect of urban areas(cities) where many measurements are taken.

Link towards your original, #23 post.

Global Warming. Here's the thing.

Pascal's wager isn't a scientific argument.....It's a religious argument. Prima facie evidence that the warmers are a pseudo-scientific cult. Did Pascal make some sort of similar argument about something. What I said didn't come from him. That was pure me. And your denial of human...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Stryder50]

Wake up. Then go to post #23.

To start with, the charts you present show less than 200 year time-span and less than two degrees F temperature range. This is sort of like noticing a pothole in a road and assuming the whole road is nothing but potholes. For the more objective readers here, some charts showing further range and timeline perspectives, which show much higher temps and CO2 levels in the past, but also no evidence that CO2 levels caused higher temps.;

Speaking of volcanoes and their emissions ...

Note CO2 levels 10 times that at present, @4,000ppm+, and the planet survived.

Charts found here;

chart of carbon dioxide levels in past million years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Notice how often in past couple hundred million years that temps remained high while CO2 levels dropped significantly.

 

[Stryder50]

Another rural retard. The reason that rural areas are losing population is people like you. No one likes living near retards that purposely keeps areas on the stupid side.

This from an urban retard whom doesn't get dirt under his fingernails working the land to grow food. I'd bet you think it just magically appears on the grocery store shelves.

BTW, up here the rural areas are growing in population and would do more so if it weren't for regressive GMAs. And FWIW, I only live about 8 miles from "the city" where I used to work, before retiring.

I see your city is experiencing population flight, probably because of those stupid side Democrat government types, the ones that allows AntiFa to trash your city.

 

[Stryder50]

Further FYI, EXCERPTS:
...

Happer on The Truth About Greenhouse Gases​

...
The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”

As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.
...
The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.

We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.

Yet there are strident calls for immediately stopping further increases in CO2 levels and reducing the current level. As we have discussed, animals would not even notice a doubling of CO2 and plants would love it. The supposed reason for limiting it is to stop global warming—or, since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecast, to stop climate change. Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful, so another rationale for reducing CO2 is now promoted: to stop the hypothetical increase of extreme climate events like hurricanes or tornados. But this does not necessarily follow. The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 to 390 ppm.

Let me turn to some of the problems the non-pollutant CO2 is supposed to cause. More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones. It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.

Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.

The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.

The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth—perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.

The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
...

Happer on The Truth About Greenhouse Gases • Watts Up With That?

The dubious science of the climate crusaders. by William Happer (from First Things) William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University. The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics...

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[myself]

All of which show coincidence more than cause, and rather shaky at that. If anything they suggest that rising temperatures might drive increase in CO2, when not causing CO2 to drop. Also, these are a very short term timeline compared to the full geological history of Earth, and don't reflect data factors such as the increase quality and accuracy of instruments nor the increased quantity of instruments and locations for measure. Nor do the appear to factor the "heat island" effect of urban areas(cities) where many measurements are taken.

Link towards your original, #23 post.

Global Warming. Here's the thing.

Pascal's wager isn't a scientific argument.....It's a religious argument. Prima facie evidence that the warmers are a pseudo-scientific cult. Did Pascal make some sort of similar argument about something. What I said didn't come from him. That was pure me. And your denial of human...

www.usmessageboard.com

Did the graphs I posted mean nothing to you? As for CO2, it is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. Every year all the volcanoes on earth release around 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year the activities of humans is responsible for the release of around 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2! Only a fool could think that much more of a known greenhouse gas isn't going to make an impact on our climate.

 

[myself]

CO2 has been rising because emissions have been rising. Temperatures have been rising for the last 20,000 years because we are in an interglacial cycle. The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.

So yeah, it's a coincidence.

The earth is uniquely configured (polar regions isolated from warm marine current due to landmass configuration which which was driven by plate tectonics) to be colder.

I posted a number of graphs in post #23. Maybe you should look at them again. Also, don't blame the sun's output for what is going on. That's just stupid.

 

[myself]

Current level of CO2 is @ 400ppm-Parts Per Million. If you were competent in math you'd see this is a ratio of 400/1,000,000 or reduces to 1/2,500. Since you appear to have also failed basic science when getting your 'education', here's a reminder Earth's atmosphere composition;

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Note that nitrogen is @ 780,000ppm and oxygen is @ 210,000ppm and argon is @ 9,340ppm.
This visual might help you to grasp some perspective;



And here's an at home experiment you can do to understand the influence of CO2 level on the atmosphere;
Take one of those plastic (petroleum by-product) two liter bottles that soda comes in and fill it with two liters of water at 70 degrees F. This represents that 2,500 parts of the atmosphere. Now add to this 0.8ml (milliliters) of water at 75 degrees F., this is about 1/8 teaspoon, and represents that one part out of 2,500 of CO2.
How much did the temperature inside that bottle rise?

Only and insane AND ignorant person, or a paid Al Gore clone-puppet, would think current levels of CO2 are a driver atmospheric warming.

You sure do seem to go through a lot of trouble to prove how wrong you are. The earth is heating up. That heating is accelerating. That's the end of the story.

 

[myself]

Screw up on your atmosphere fixing and you could trip off another ice age. Notice on this graph how quickly temperatures can plunge into an ice age and how much slower it is getting out of one;



This one shows a different scale, but essential point here is how many have happened in just the past million years;



This image shows more recent time scale during the period humans have been here, and not the temperature variations;



Here's another one to consider for perspective (though I'm inclined to think it exaggerates the CO2 effect);

I prefer my graphs. Also, methane is around 85 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. I will show you a graph of what is going on with that. Despite all the thawing tundra and the out gassing of methane hydrate ice in the oceans, around 60% of what is shown comes from human activities.

 

[myself]

To start with, the charts you present show less than 200 year time-span and less than two degrees F temperature range. This is sort of like noticing a pothole in a road and assuming the whole road is nothing but potholes. For the more objective readers here, some charts showing further range and timeline perspectives, which show much higher temps and CO2 levels in the past, but also no evidence that CO2 levels caused higher temps.;

Speaking of volcanoes and their emissions ...

Note CO2 levels 10 times that at present, @4,000ppm+, and the planet survived.

Charts found here;

chart of carbon dioxide levels in past million years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Notice how often in past couple hundred million years that temps remained high while CO2 levels dropped significantly.

I'm not arguing that things were warmer in the past. They were. But what is important is how fast things are heating up now. Also, one website says that the last time the earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

What if there is nothing to human caused global warming, but we did something about it anyway. What's the worst that could happen. We live more equitably within our ecological environment. But what is the worst that can happen if human caused global warming is real. As I think it is. And accelerating. As I think it is also. The worst is that humans don't have long for this planet. You decide. Which approach is best.

The current "solution" to GW MAINLY involves wealth distribution from the rich countries to the poor to "to combat change".. That means that the US has paid small Pacific Islands to build GIANT international airports at about 7 feet above sea level..

The problem with "doing something" and expecting a better world is that those $$TRILLIONS of dollars would be better in education, clean water, health systems and food production if you WANTED to DESIGN a better world.

Not on windmills and solar panels and "income redistribution" which doesn't fix a thing..

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not arguing that things were warmer in the past. They were. But what is important is how fast things are heating up now. Also, one website says that the last time the earth was this warm was 125,000 years ago.

Current rate of warming is about 0.14DegC per DECADE.. Or 0.014DegC per year.. In your lifetime, the rise has probably been about 0.6degC.. Does that scare you? NO.. It's the propaganda that focuses on certain aux GW theories about CATASTROPHIC models and theories that have NEVER been mainstream GW science..

And those reports about "Global Mean Average Surface Temp" or GMAST WERE NEVER capable of even FINDING a 0.14DegC/decade temp rise. No way to cover the ENTIRE SURFACE of the earth and measure that accurately with tree rings, ice cores, mud bug holes as thermometers. In fact, the BEST ancient climate studies can barely produce a mean temperature for every 500 year period.

Any temperature variance FASTER than 500 years were close to invisible to ALL these studies.. Those proxy studies only show LONG TERM AVERAGES, not temperature transients or climate variability..

They never would have RECORDED our last 1000 years of GMAST.

 

[myself]

The current "solution" to GW MAINLY involves wealth distribution from the rich countries to the poor to "to combat change".. That means that the US has paid small Pacific Islands to build GIANT international airports at about 7 feet above sea level..

The problem with "doing something" and expecting a better world is that those $$TRILLIONS of dollars would be better in education, clean water, health systems and food production if you WANTED to DESIGN a better world.

Not on windmills and solar panels and "income redistribution" which doesn't fix a thing..

You know, we can't save the world. The only thing we can do is become isolationist and try to save ourselves. To that end, solar panels are the best way to go.

 

[myself]

Current rate of warming is about 0.14DegC per DECADE.. Or 0.014DegC per year.. In your lifetime, the rise has probably been about 0.6degC.. Does that scare you? NO.. It's the propaganda that focuses on certain aux GW theories about CATASTROPHIC models and theories that have NEVER been mainstream GW science..

And those reports about "Global Mean Average Surface Temp" or GMAST WERE NEVER capable of even FINDING a 0.14DegC/decade temp rise. No way to cover the ENTIRE SURFACE of the earth and measure that accurately with tree rings, ice cores, mud bug holes as thermometers. In fact, the BEST ancient climate studies can barely produce a mean temperature for every 500 year period.

Any temperature variance FASTER than 500 years were close to invisible to ALL these studies.. Those proxy studies only show LONG TERM AVERAGES, not temperature transients or climate variability..

They never would have RECORDED our last 1000 years of GMAST.

I have a number of graphs in post #23 for you to disagree with.

 

[flacaltenn]

You know, we can't save the world. The only thing we can do is become isolationist and try to save ourselves. To that end, solar panels are the best way to go.

Solar panels are NOT alternative energy. Their performance is not the same in Tucson and Albany. The sun is only there for 8 hours a day at anywhere near full energy..

We're NOT helping the world regardless of GW by over-investing in wind or solar.