Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

[jc456]

Nope.
Again you are ONLY describing weather, and this has NOTHING at all to do with weather, seasons, axis tilt, etc.
See the previous post on greenhouse gas retention of solar heat, that is not dependent at all upon weather, seasons, axis tilt, etc.

Tell me how warm is 120 ppm of CO2?

 

[Rigby5]

Why, you need them shoved back up your ass for safe keeping?


Capacitors generally resist (filter) changes in voltage on a sinusoidal or changing input or are used as a buffer to isolate and or store energy to maintain equanimity of some voltage rail.


We get what? Lots of little icy capacitors?

You missed the point of capacitors because they differ in an AC circuit compared to a DC circuit.
They just buffer and filter normally, but in an RCL circuit, they shift frequency.

{...
An RLC circuit is an electrical circuit consisting of a resistor (R), an inductor (L), and a capacitor (C), connected in series or in parallel. The name of the circuit is derived from the letters that are used to denote the constituent components of this circuit, where the sequence of the components may vary from RLC.

The circuit forms a harmonic oscillator for current, and resonates in a manner similar to an LC circuit. Introducing the resistor increases the decay of these oscillations, which is also known as damping. The resistor also reduces the peak resonant frequency. In ordinary conditions, some resistance is unavoidable even if a resistor is not specifically included as a component; an ideal, pure LC circuit exists only in the domain of superconductivity, a physical effect demonstrated to this point only at temperatures far below and/or pressures far above what are found naturally anywhere on the Earth's surface.

RLC circuits have many applications as oscillator circuits. Radio receivers and television sets use them for tuning to select a narrow frequency range from ambient radio waves. In this role, the circuit is often referred to as a tuned circuit. An RLC circuit can be used as a band-pass filter, band-stop filter, low-pass filter or high-pass filter. The tuning application, for instance, is an example of band-pass filtering. The RLC filter is described as a second-order circuit, meaning that any voltage or current in the circuit can be described by a second-order differential equation in circuit analysis.

The three circuit elements, R, L and C, can be combined in a number of different topologies. All three elements in series or all three elements in parallel are the simplest in concept and the most straightforward to analyse. There are, however, other arrangements, some with practical importance in real circuits. One issue often encountered is the need to take into account inductor resistance. Inductors are typically constructed from coils of wire, the resistance of which is not usually desirable, but it often has a significant effect on the circuit.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

You would think so, assuming all else remains equal, which is itself, a false assumption. Co2 is a very weak, trace, greenhouse gas, essential to the planet which the Earth has had in far greater and far lower amounts at various times.


And that is unknowable to us at present in any other way than to just GUESS.


Wrong. We DON'T know that. Every cycle is different with different peaks. All we can say for sure is that we are near the end of the current warm peak that has already lasted longer than most and that eventually, we will start dipping into the next glaciating period. That could be 50 years from now, 500 years from now or not occur for another 10,000 years.

I disagree.
Greenhouse gas effects are not a guess or at all theoretical.
They can be substantiated with miniature lab experiments, because scale does not matter.

While you are correct that we can not be sure of a 50, 500, or 10,000 year length of the NATURAL ice age and warming cycle, we can tell the current ARTIFICIAL warming is hundreds of thousands times faster and out of synch.
What you are forgetting is that the planetary temperature is NOT proportional to the instantaneous greenhouse gas concentration.
The greenhouse gas concentration just sets the upper limit.
A slight change in greenhouse gases produces a vast and huge difference in how much solar energy is going to be retained.
But we won't know what the final temperature of the planet will be when it finally reaches the upper limit of even the current greenhouse gas concentration.
Once it gets hot enough, then positive feedback kicks in, such as addition water vapor, evaporating methane that is currently frozen methane hydrate (ocean floor and polar tundra),

The time the planet takes to actually reach equilibrium does not matter.
It may be 20 years or 2000 years.
But the point is we know that the increase in greenhouse gases we have already produced, is likely to eventually increase the planetary temperature by over 10 degrees, rendering it uninhabitable to humans.
The natural 110,000 year long cycle is not relevant.
We are artificially over riding that.
So then the speed and upper limit can be vastly higher.
The current temperature increase has nothing at all to do with seasons, axis tilt, precession, nutation, eccentric, etc.
It is entirely due to the increase impermeability of the boundry later of outer space, to solar heat trying to escape.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you saying winter isn’t wile the tilt moves the northern hemisphere away from sunlight? Removing heat? You can’t be that ignorant that the summer solstice doesn’t affect the northern hemisphere’s climate? Naw you can’t be saying that.

No, what I am saying is that winter is irrelevant on a planetary scale because it is equal to and neutralized by the simultaneous summer.
There is no global warming or cooling due to seasonal effects.

Global warming or cooling can only be due to 2 things.
One would be a change in the strength of the sun and it incoming solar heat.
Two would be a change in the amount of outgoing solar heat retained by the atmosphere.

And since the orbit and solar output is not changing significantly, the first is not relevant.
The only thing that then matters is the amount of solar heat our atmosphere retains as opposed to letting radiate back out into space.
This of it as a valve to a water bypass on a huge dam.
Very little change or pressure on the valve can had a huge effect because the pressure behind the dam is so great.
It is a massive amplification.
A tiny change in greenhouse gas retention of solar heat, can easily turn the planet into the surface of Venus, above the melting point of lead.

 

[jc456]

No, what I am saying is that winter is irrelevant on a planetary scale because it is equal to and neutralized by the simultaneous summer.
There is no global warming or cooling due to seasonal effects.

Global warming or cooling can only be due to 2 things.
One would be a change in the strength of the sun and it incoming solar heat.
Two would be a change in the amount of outgoing solar heat retained by the atmosphere.

And since the orbit and solar output is not changing significantly, the first is not relevant.
The only thing that then matters is the amount of solar heat our atmosphere retains as opposed to letting radiate back out into space.
This of it as a valve to a water bypass on a huge dam.
Very little change or pressure on the valve can had a huge effect because the pressure behind the dam is so great.
It is a massive amplification.
A tiny change in greenhouse gas retention of solar heat, can easily turn the planet into the surface of Venus, above the melting point of lead.

Why are certain regions cooler?

 

[Rigby5]

Tell me how warm is 120 ppm of CO2?

How would I know?
There has never been levels of CO2 that low in any prehistoric record like ice cores or anything.

{...
Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 414.3 parts per million in 2021, up by around 2.4ppm from 2020, C3S said. C3S said levels of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, have jumped in the last two years, but the reasons why are not fully understood.
...}

EU scientists call for action as greenhouse gas levels hit high in 2021

By Kate Abnett BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere hit record highs in 2021, which was one of t...

kelo.com

 

[ding]

No, what I am saying is that winter is irrelevant on a planetary scale because it is equal to and neutralized by the simultaneous summer.
There is no global warming or cooling due to seasonal effects.

Global warming or cooling can only be due to 2 things.
One would be a change in the strength of the sun and it incoming solar heat.
Two would be a change in the amount of outgoing solar heat retained by the atmosphere.

And since the orbit and solar output is not changing significantly, the first is not relevant.
The only thing that then matters is the amount of solar heat our atmosphere retains as opposed to letting radiate back out into space.
This of it as a valve to a water bypass on a huge dam.
Very little change or pressure on the valve can had a huge effect because the pressure behind the dam is so great.
It is a massive amplification.
A tiny change in greenhouse gas retention of solar heat, can easily turn the planet into the surface of Venus, above the melting point of lead.

And yet it was plate tectonics which isolated the polar regions from warm marine currents and altered circulation patterns which led to the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Conditions which still exist today.

Your comment that tiny changes in greenhouse gas retention leading to Venus like conditions is ridiculous. Who told you that?

 

[Rigby5]

Why are certain regions cooler?

Certain regions can be cooler for lots of reasons.
For example, Europe is about 10 degrees warmer than one would expect, and that is due to ocean currents, (Gulf Stream).
Altitude makes a big difference, for example NM is over a mile high and can be 20 degrees cooler than AZ, which is near sea level.
Winds also make a huge difference, were polar air generally flows from NW to SE in the northern hemisphere, and SW to NE in the southern hemisphere.

But the point is with Global Warming, we are not talking about regions at all, but the climate of the whole world, averaged out.

 

[ding]

How would I know?
There has never been levels of CO2 that low in any prehistoric record like ice cores or anything.

<ahem>

 

[Rigby5]

And yet it was plate tectonics which isolated the polar regions from warm marine currents and altered circulation patterns which led to the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Conditions which still exist today.

Your comment that tiny changes in greenhouse gas retention leading to Venus like conditions is ridiculous. Who told you that?

I disagree.
Polar regions are not isolated by plate tectonics at all, in any way.
The reason there are 3 northern hemisphere, isolated convection zones, and 3 southern hemisphere, isolated convection zones, has entirely and only to do with the speed of planetary rotation.
This should be obvious because there is not any tectonic land mass blocking currents near either current pole.

The change from greenhouse planet to icehouse planet was entirely due to loss of atmospheric carbon, due to plants and volcanism producing fresh basalt that absorbs huge amounts of CO2.
{...
A different approach using basalt flows as injection sites—chiefly at the CarbFix site in Iceland and in Washington state—has yielded dramatic results. Metals in basalt have the ability to transform CO2 into a solid inert mineral in a matter of months.
...}

This graph shows how CO2 drastically reduced.

 

[jc456]

How would I know?
There has never been levels of CO2 that low in any prehistoric record like ice cores or anything.

{...
Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 414.3 parts per million in 2021, up by around 2.4ppm from 2020, C3S said. C3S said levels of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas, have jumped in the last two years, but the reasons why are not fully understood.
...}

EU scientists call for action as greenhouse gas levels hit high in 2021

By Kate Abnett BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere hit record highs in 2021, which was one of t...

kelo.com

oh, that's the entire fking claim. adding 120 PPM will cause catastrophic events. So what is the heat 120 PPM adds to the atmosphere?

The reason for the deniers is because no actual fking evidence has ever, ever been presented. Seems the actual narrative is, we have no fking idea what's going on with the planet, but trust us we need to stop adding CO2 because I said so.

 

[Rigby5]

<ahem>

View attachment 593476

I do not know where you got that, and my search showed CO2 never got that low, but maybe it depends on the time scale, and the little blips dropping that low get wiped out when the time scale is increased?
Not sure.
But the point is we did have much colder periods when the CO2 was lower.
And we are artificially increasing CO2 to very high levels, which according to ice core records, will have a very negative effect.
For example, do we really want a 250' increase in ocean levels?

 

[ding]

I disagree.
Polar regions are not isolated by plate tectonics at all, in any way.
The reason there are 3 northern hemisphere, isolated convection zones, and 3 southern hemisphere, isolated convection zones, has entirely and only to do with the speed of planetary rotation.
This should be obvious because there is not any tectonic land mass blocking currents near either current pole.

The change from greenhouse planet to icehouse planet was entirely due to loss of atmospheric carbon, due to plants and volcanism producing fresh basalt that absorbs huge amounts of CO2.
{...
A different approach using basalt flows as injection sites—chiefly at the CarbFix site in Iceland and in Washington state—has yielded dramatic results. Metals in basalt have the ability to transform CO2 into a solid inert mineral in a matter of months.
...}

This graph shows how CO2 drastically reduced.

Disagree all you want. But you are wrong.

As for your belief that declining CO2 was responsible for a cooling planet you have a couple of problems. First of all until the industrial revolution, CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years because the ocean was drawing down the CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 due to colder ocean temperatures.

Why do you believe CO2 was declining if not because the ocean was sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere because of increase sequestration od COLDER temperatures.

You are clearly out of your depth in this conversation. You should listen and learn instead of making statements that have no basis of evidence.

 

[jc456]

But the point is with Global Warming, we are not talking about regions at all, but the climate of the whole world, averaged out.

that's someone's wet dream

 

[Rigby5]

oh, that's the entire fking claim. adding 120 PPM will cause catastrophic events. So what is the heat 120 PPM adds to the atmosphere?

The reason for the deniers is because no actual fking evidence has ever, ever been presented. Seems the actual narrative is, we have no fking idea what's going on with the planet, but trust us we need to stop adding CO2 because I said so.

But it is not all theoretical at all.
We do know the planetary temperature and CO2 concentrations correlate.
We do know the planet is hit with vastly more solar energy than we want to retain.
And we do know that in the last 50 years, the increase in CO2 has caused a huge global warming.

For example, if you remember the USS Nautilus crossing under the North Pole in 1958, they did it in summer, but there was not a trace of open water.
But only about 40 years later, the Arctic Ocean started melting to open water in the summer, and now has open routes all year round.

Surely you can see the huge change in our own very short lifetime.

 

[ding]

I do not know where you got that, and my search showed CO2 never got that low, but maybe it depends on the time scale, and the little blips dropping that low get wiped out when the time scale is increased?
Not sure.
But the point is we did have much colder periods when the CO2 was lower.
And we are artificially increasing CO2 to very high levels, which according to ice core records, will have a very negative effect.
For example, do we really want a 250' increase in ocean levels?

 

[jc456]

I do not know where you got that, and my search showed CO2 never got that low, but maybe it depends on the time scale, and the little blips dropping that low get wiped out when the time scale is increased?
Not sure.
But the point is we did have much colder periods when the CO2 was lower.
And we are artificially increasing CO2 to very high levels, which according to ice core records, will have a very negative effect.
For example, do we really want a 250' increase in ocean levels?

increasing CO2 very high based on what? Again, there is no fking way to determine how warm CO2 is. I've challenged and still there is grape nuts.

 

[alang1216]

That was the end of the little ice age. And look how long ago the vast majority of the melting occurred.

The world operates on a time scale vastly slower than our pitiful lives. Things that began hundreds of years ago won't reach their finish for hundreds more.

Hell, the last ice age ended 11,000 years ago and the continents are STILL rebounding from the weight of the continental ice sheets.

I guess your point is that you'll be dead so who cares? I have grandchildren to think about, in addition to everyone else on the planet.

 

[jc456]

We do know the planetary temperature and CO2 concentrations correlate.

we know fking nothing. What we've seen is CO2 trails temperature increase. Plenty of history to show that. Not one piece of data where an increase of CO2 caused any warming of temperatures. And as I and others in here have asked is to see where anyone has done any experiments to test adding 120 PPM of CO2. Why, that again is the lingering escalation into forced CO2 control. With absolutely no evidence.

 

[Rigby5]

Disagree all you want. But you are wrong.

View attachment 593482
As for your belief that declining CO2 was responsible for a cooling planet you have a couple of problems. First of all until the industrial revolution, CO2 lagged temperature by 800 to 1000 years because the ocean was drawing down the CO2 due to increased solubility of CO2 due to colder ocean temperatures.

Why do you believe CO2 was declining if not because the ocean was sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere because of increase sequestration od COLDER temperatures.

You are clearly out of your depth in this conversation. You should listen and learn instead of making statements that have no basis of evidence.

Polar ocean currents have nothing at all to do with whether or not the planet is warming or cooling.
Nor is the Antarctic continent at all isolated from global ocean currents.
Your graph shows a current circling the Antarctic land mass, but it is in constant contact and mixing with 3 other major currents shown even in your diagram.
In no way could there be significant polar isolation. Air currents move much too quickly for that due to convection, and water is not going to allow extreme differences due to conduction. The constant rotation of the earth is going to force movement of both wind and water to reduce extremes.
Nor would it matter if I was wrong about polar isolation, because plate tectonics have not changed much in millions of years.
The ice age cycles of 110,000 years can not be due to plate tectonics.