Global Warming Thread

[james12]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is a highly simplified and therefore misleading graph.  In fact, it doesn't really say much at all.  There are multiple ranges of each of these gases at multiple intensities (absorbtion coefficients) which are not depicted here in any readable sense.

It is also mislabeled.  What does "greenhouse radiation" refer to?  Is it the earth's radiation spectrum?  If so, it is inaccurate.  Is it solar radiation?  If so, it is a self-defeating argument because it would lead to cooling instead of warming.  And all this must be adjusted for mass, specific heat, and comparative concentration to earth's historical levels.

I don't have time to put together all the graphs, but I'll get to it later as I have time.

The graph does not deal with absorption coefficients. It is a graph of radiation in the IR range which reaches the earth. For this reason it is labeled green house gas radiation. It does not include solar radiation because solar radiation is short wave centered around the visable spectrum which is outside the range of the graph. 

[Guest]

On December 21, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Carborendum said:

That is exactly what global warming is.  All our concerted efforts would make such an insignificant impact, it is laughable to think it is a danger.  We cannot be expected to get into a tizzy fit just because Chicken Little says the sky is falling.

Carborendum,  Consider this quote "In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet."  

In other words - it's not a fluctuation in the sun, or radioactivity, volcanoes, or some other natural cycle that's threatening our Earth right now, surely all of those things have been contributing to the ice-age/warming cycles for 800,000 years.  The one and only factor that is NEW and causing the NEW changes we're tracking with actual measurements and reproducible data is HUMAN activity - particularly the burning of fossil fuels.  Yes, livestock and methane is a factor, and many vegans consider preventing global warming as a part of why they don't eat meat, alas, the fossil fuel industry is the biggest contribution to the rising CO2 levels.  

And yes, yes, CO2 is everywhere - every human exhales it, so why is it considered a pollutant?  Well, it's like blankets on a bed.  The first blanket keeps you warm, but blankets 2 and 3 will only make you sweaty.  The additional CO2 will certainly cause the Earth to be a better environment for PLANTS to grow - plants take in CO2, so an environment that supports more plant growth is Earth's natural response.  Longer growing seasons, more rain to areas where plants are growing, warmer temperatures are suit plants.  And it would work if we could let the plants grow, but we keep cutting the forests down and paving our suburbs. 

Ultimately we, human beings, COULD make a concerted effort to make the necessary changes if we could only get our elected officials to represent US instead of their wealthy donors.  

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, Tuckabee said:

Consider this quote "In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet."

(FYI, Carborendum is my son-in-law.)

Please read the whole topic. I reject the IPCC on these grounds: they are politicians and bureaucrats: their income depends on people ceding freedom and paying taxes. In other words, their biases lead them to push for more and more government control.

That said, there is no incontrovertible evidence, and no proof whatsoever, that anthropomorphic climate change is significantly affecting the earth.

The numbers have been fudged, the models that "predict" the "catastrophe" are designed by the same people who need to prove the case the models predict, there is no evidence that this insignificant (in geological terms) period differs from the past. The whole argument reeks of political machinations.

3 hours ago, Tuckabee said:

The one and only factor that is NEW and causing the NEW changes we're tracking with actual measurements and reproducible data is HUMAN activity - particularly the burning of fossil fuels.

This is begging the question. You (and you are not alone in this: the very scientists you cite do the same thing) assert that what we're seeing are "NEW changes". There is nothing new in any of what we are currently seeing. They grew grapes and made wine in England in the last "global warming", and "Greenland" was a paradise. In that case (and in all the others of our past), there was no "burning of fossil fuels".

Global warming (not all that long ago, global cooling), climate change and "climate weirding" are all scams, being foisted on us by people who seek greater and greater power over us. Your closing sentence shows us how this will come to pass (if we do not resist and win):
 

3 hours ago, Tuckabee said:

Ultimately we, human beings, COULD make a concerted effort to make the necessary changes if we could only get our elected officials to represent US instead of their wealthy donors.  

All it will take is giving in to political power, letting them dictate what we may and may not do. That's simply unacceptable.

Finally, all the climate crusaders assume that warming is inevitably bad. There is no reason to take this position. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide in the air (meaning there will be more food). Warmer climates will open more fields to cultivation (meaning there will be more food). Warmer climates would mean we'd need less fuel to keep from freezing in winter. So, I say, bring it on. There would be fewer people starving, fewer people freezing, and fewer people in New York (since the oceans would rise and flood them out ).

Lehi

Edited April 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

(FYI, Carborendum is my son-in-law.)

 

That explains a lot. Yup, a whole bunch of stuff really...

 

(just playing guys) 

[Guest]

On 4/8/2016 at 5:35 PM, james12 said:

The graph does not deal with absorption coefficients. It is a graph of radiation in the IR range which reaches the earth. For this reason it is labeled green house gas radiation. It does not include solar radiation because solar radiation is short wave centered around the visable spectrum which is outside the range of the graph. 

You've succeeded in completely losing me.  Please explain.

If this is the graph of the IR range that reaches earth, then why is wavelength as indicated by the X-axis showing parts of the visible light spectrum?
Why is CO2 only indicated in one line?
If it does not address absorbtion coefficients, then what are the various gases supposed to indicate?
If it is coming IN, then how is the CO2 going to let the heat IN , but not OUT?  This goes against all the IPCC reports and common greenhouse science.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Guest

[james12]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You've succeeded in completely losing me.  Please explain.

1. If this is the graph of the IR range that reaches earth, then why is wavelength as indicated by the X-axis showing parts of the visible light spectrum?
2. Why is CO2 only indicated in one line?
3. If it does not address absorbtion coefficients, then what are the various gases supposed to indicate?
4.If it is coming IN, then how is the CO2 going to let the heat IN , but not OUT?  This goes against all the IPCC reports and common greenhouse science.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes....

1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 

2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 

3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it  

4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases. 

[james12]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You've succeeded in completely losing me.  Please explain.

1. If this is the graph of the IR range that reaches earth, then why is wavelength as indicated by the X-axis showing parts of the visible light spectrum?
2. Why is CO2 only indicated in one line?
3. If it does not address absorbtion coefficients, then what are the various gases supposed to indicate?
4.If it is coming IN, then how is the CO2 going to let the heat IN , but not OUT?  This goes against all the IPCC reports and common greenhouse science.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes....

1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 

2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 

3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it  

4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases. 

[james12]

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

I will accept responsibility (on behalf of all mankind) for "Global Warming" when "scientists" can answer these questions:

1) Why is CO₂ (a minuscule fraction of the atmosphere) the culprit when H₂O (a much, much larger fraction of the air) and which has far higher specific heat not considered a (or the) problem?

Well intrigued by this discussion I thought I would tackle these questions.

it is certainly true that water vapor has a greater impact on temperature than carbon dioxide in the short term. But there are a couple of aspects to water vapor that make it less of a concern. First, the concentration of water vapor in the air is directly related to the temperature. As the temperature increases the amount of water vapor increases, and as it decreases so too does the water vapor. Second, water vapor stays only weeks in the atmosphere. It falls as rain or snow and then is added again during evaporation. In contrast, CO2 can remain for a century or more in the atmosphere. What's more CO2 creates a positive feedback loop by raising temperature which in turn increases water vapor in the air and so exacerbates global warming.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

2) Why have Mars and Venus also experienced "global warming" during the same period as Earth (and proportionally at about the same rates)?

Consider that for decades we have been arguing about whether earth is warming. We have thousands of temperature probes, satellites, etc. and yet we still debate. How is it then that with just a few satellites orbiting Mars/Venus we know these planets are warming? Do we really know what is going on there? Not only that, but you claim they are warming at the same rate as earth. Please provide evidence in support of such a claim. I don’t see how anyone could have such definitive information.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

3) If man has caused global warming, why have there been ice ages in the past, with subsequent periods of warming following each of them?

I addressed a portion of this previously, but let me run through it more completely. CO2 and methane have been implicated in most climate changes in earth’s past. Ice ages have primarily been caused because of cyclical changes to the earth’s orbit, tilt, or wobble, known as Milankovitch cycles. As the oceans cool more CO2 is absorbed. This decreases CO2 in the atmosphere and allows more heat to escape into space creating an ice age. This process takes tens of thousands of years. However, this is not the case now. Our orbital and rotational cycles show that we should be cooling. However, we are heating. What’s more, it is not happening over 10,000 years but over a few centuries. 

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

4) Why is global warming a problem in any case? Do plants not grow better with higher levels of CO₂. Would a warmer climate not make Russia and China, Canada, Chile, and Argentina more productive of grains and other food products?

The answer to this question is complex. For example, t is not completely clear how global warming combined with El Nino and La Nina conditions impact different areas of the earth. In some areas it appears to cause heat waves and in other areas more rain and hurricanes. On going research will need to uncover more of the exact effects. So let me just discuss effects on plants and animals. Global warming helps some plants and animals to grow, but it hurts others. As you have noted, warming and cooling of the earth has happened in the past. But the problem with the current trend has to do more with the speed of the change than the change itself. It takes many plants and animals a long time to adapt. As the earth warms some plants and animals cannot make the transition to warmer climates because they have not evolved to handle them. Because of this, many species will die. 

However, heat is not the only issue, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a fair portion of it is absorbed into the oceans and so are becoming more acidic. Coral have been found to be particularly susceptible to the acidity change. Coral support many species of plants and animals similar to rainforests on land. As it dies off, so too will these other living organisms whom depend on it to survive.

Based on what I’ve read, it appears likely that global warming will ultimately cause earth’s life forms to be less diverse. On some level it is similar to other extinction periods. So, is this a huge deal? In my book it is.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

5) Who's paying for all this "science" that tells us we're the guilty parties? Why are global warming alarmists to be believed any more than deniers when their funding comes from those who would benefit from the proposed governmental controls "required" to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions?

I don't agree with alarmists on either side but prefer to try and weigh the evidence. As to funding, I would say it’s a mixed bag. For instance companies who depend on fossil fuels for profit pay for research to contradict some scientific studies. While other research centers are funded by governments, universities, and private donors who may have something to benefit from global warming findings. From my perspective I don’t see a compelling case to suppose that the large majority of scientists who believe anthropomorphic global warming are trying to twist results to fit their agenda.

On 12/21/2015 at 0:15 PM, LeSellers said:

6) Why do the countries who have the lowest per capita emissions have to pay for further lowering theirs while countries with the highest per capita emissions get to do nothing at all?

The US is first in per capita emissions and will be for many years. So based on your statement we should be doing the most to curb greenhouse gas emissions of all people on earth, and yet we are not. Countries in Europe are much more proactive. But further, consider that many countries with the lowest per capita emissions are being impacted by our emissions without significantly contributing to the problem or without receiving any benefits from fossil fuel technology.

[Guest]

@james12,

I have to apologize.  I was wondering why you hadn't replied to this post until I realized I never hit "post".  So, here it is. 

BTW, thank you for engaging me in this conversation.  You're only the second person I've spoken with on the other side of this issue (and I've spoken to MANY) that actually spent some time learning and thinking about the actual data.  It's been enlightening.

Unfortunately, I am in a crunch for this week and next.  So I cannot give you the time and attention you deserve.  I can say stuff off the top of my head.  But all the data that is necessary for this discussion will take research time that I don't have right now.  But here is what I've got for now.

On 4/12/2016 at 1:11 PM, james12 said:

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes....

1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 

2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 

3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it  

4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases. 

 

Wavenumber (cm^-1).  Got it.  I just looked at the numbers and assumed they were wavelengths.  Sorry.

Here are the graphs that I've got.  The unit conversion shows that they don't seem to agree with your chart.

[unixknight]

[james12]

On 4/14/2016 at 6:10 AM, Carborendum said:

@james12,

I have to apologize.  I was wondering why you hadn't replied to this post until I realized I never hit "post".  So, here it is. 

BTW, thank you for engaging me in this conversation.  You're only the second person I've spoken with on the other side of this issue (and I've spoken to MANY) that actually spent some time learning and thinking about the actual data.  It's been enlightening.

Unfortunately, I am in a crunch for this week and next.  So I cannot give you the time and attention you deserve.  I can say stuff off the top of my head.  But all the data that is necessary for this discussion will take research time that I don't have right now.  But here is what I've got for now.

Wavenumber (cm^-1).  Got it.  I just looked at the numbers and assumed they were wavelengths.  Sorry.

Here are the graphs that I've got.  The unit conversion shows that they don't seem to agree with your chart.

Here is a fairly good representation that combines the graphs and images above along with the data I shared. The image can be split into a top portion and a bottom portion.

·    Top: The top left portion shows the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. The top right section represents the thermal radiation which escapes earth’s atmosphere.

·    Bottom: The bottom section indicates the amount of radiation both incoming (on the left) and outgoing (on the right) which is absorbed by the atmosphere and includes water vapor, greenhouse gasses, etc.  

The graph I previously showed is related but is just a small portion of this chart (from 5-16um). Your first graph (7.6-9.4um) and third graph (5-20um) are also just a portion of the above image.

Hopefully we can talk the same language now. When you get a second give me your comments.

Edited April 15, 2016 by james12

[Guest]

Your image is not coming through on my computer.

[pam]

Not for me either.

[james12]

Ok, I replaced it with a new image. Let me know if it comes through now.

[Guest]

Apparently most Americans don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/matthew-hrozencik/pew-only-27-americans-believe-human-activity-causes-climate-change

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently most Americans don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/matthew-hrozencik/pew-only-27-americans-believe-human-activity-causes-climate-change

Well, if only 27 of us believe, I'd say "most" is an understatement...

[zil]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently most Americans don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/matthew-hrozencik/pew-only-27-americans-believe-human-activity-causes-climate-change

Headline: "Pew: Only 27% of Americans Believe There is Consensus That Human Activity Causes Climate Change"

...So, if human activity causes climate change, does that mean we should all be idle?  And if so, how exactly is Obama gonna pay for our idleness?

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, zil said:

Headline: "Pew: Only 27% of Americans Believe There is Consensus That Human Activity Causes Climate Change"

...So, if human activity causes climate change, does that mean we should all be idle?  And if so, how exactly is Obama gonna pay for our idleness?

 Human activity probably has some effect on climate change but the results won't be noticed for thousands and thousands of years. It's hardly something we need to worry about . 

[Anddenex]

34 minutes ago, zil said:

So, if human activity causes climate change, does that mean we should all be idle?  And if so, how exactly is Obama gonna pay for our idleness?

Pssshh...Global warming -- The devil made us do it

[zil]

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Human activity probably has some effect on climate change but the results won't be noticed for thousands and thousands of years. It's hardly something we need to worry about . 

Hey!  Stop getting in the way of my free handouts!  I want Obama to pay for my monthly book habit.  I'm thinking $50 / month might keep me in books.  But not if I'm idle. Hmm.  We might oughta triple that.  And then there's all my expenses that I won't be able to pay cuz I'm not going to work any more - that's like the opposite of idle.  Someone's gonna have to bring me groceries - in an idle kinda way.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Hey!  Stop getting in the way of my free handouts!  I want Obama to pay for my monthly book habit.  I'm thinking $50 / month might keep me in books.  But not if I'm idle. Hmm.  We might oughta triple that.  And then there's all my expenses that I won't be able to pay cuz I'm not going to work any more - that's like the opposite of idle.  Someone's gonna have to bring me groceries - in an idle kinda way.

R U kidding?  Books take trees.  That increases global warming.  If you have e-books, that requires electricity.... So you need to pay extra taxes for reading.

If everyone stopped reading books, we'd end global warming.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

R U kidding?  Books take trees.  That increases global warming.  If you have e-books, that requires electricity.... So you need to pay extra taxes for reading.

If everyone stopped reading books, we'd end global warming.

Heretic!  Someone get a stake - we need to burn this dude at it!  (We can use all the lousy books for fuel.)

[NeuroTypical]

I wouldn't be surprised if humans can have an impact on the constant changes that are always having to the climate.  It's not really something I care about debating, I have no dog in that fight.

I do, however, have all sorts of dogs in the "what should be done about it" fight.  And from where I'm standing, "reduce carbon footprint" is pretty darn low on the list.  

Question for everyone who supports refiguring society to stop global warming - what exactly do you have against huge sections of the world suddenly becoming available for agriculture after millenia of permafrost?  

[estradling75]

Many Americans learned in school about Ice Ages... About how the Climate Changed to cover the world in ice and then changed again to remove the ice... And that it has done this repeatedly without any Human Help at all.  And that this natural climate change drove some animal and plants extinct.

Many of us aren't as concerned about how Human's might be accelerating or decelerating the the process then we are about using our Intelligence and technology to make sure we are not going to be another animal that goes extinct.

Most of the focus of "Man Created Climate Change" is to try to stop Climate Change which is foolish and not logical when you see the whole picture.  Instead it should be focused on adapting us and our civilization to endure and thrive as the climate changes.

[anatess2]

And the PC-labeling goes on...

The press now calls Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA director choice, a Climate Change Denier.  Denier.  This is how the left wages character assassination.  They call you some PC name that they hope will effectively reduce you to the size of an ant so they wouldn't have to face you in an actual debate on Climate Change.

This is Pruitt's actual quote:

“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

They call that a Denier.  Of course, they are of the mindset that the Science of Anthropogenic Climate Change is already settled.  This is what's frustrating about the left.

Edited December 8, 2016 by anatess2