Global Warming
- Thread starter lotr10
- Start date
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>
skepticalscience.com
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
We are not saturated but I guess we can look forward to our planet becoming Venus.
Back to mythbusters. Doh!
Back to mythbusters. Doh!
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Meanwhile within the last two weeks...
www.bloomberg.com
phys.org
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/5I2UGATASNOVFEGC7O3O4EXONU.jpg)
www.reuters.com
‘Years of Good Life’ Is the Latest Measure of Global Warming’s Impact
A group of Austrian researchers developed a new index that calls for a change in economic thinking about climate adaptation.
www.bloomberg.com
Global warming could make survival in tropics impossible: Study
Limiting global warming to targets proposed in the Paris Agreement could keep tropical regions from reaching temperatures that are beyond human tolerability, a new study projects.
Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns
A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.
www.reuters.com
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
<p>If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated.</p>skepticalscience.com
I have to say that I give more credibility to Princeton Physics Professor Emeritus Happer's take on CO2 "saturation" then this article. Yea I know it sounds like I'm appealing to authority with my throwing out the professors credentials but the mans expertise is on the physics/chemistry of optically polarized atoms. Which is what we're talking about here.
Meanwhile within the last two weeks...
‘Years of Good Life’ Is the Latest Measure of Global Warming’s Impact
A group of Austrian researchers developed a new index that calls for a change in economic thinking about climate adaptation.
Global warming could make survival in tropics impossible: Study
Limiting global warming to targets proposed in the Paris Agreement could keep tropical regions from reaching temperatures that are beyond human tolerability, a new study projects.
Global warming could cut over 60 countries' credit ratings by 2030, study warns
A new algorithm-based study by a group of UK universities has predicted that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by the likes of S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch - could see their credit ratings cut because of climate change by 2030.
Not one of these articles is scientific. They're a combination of hypothesized economic impacts, social science and science opinion pieces.
The climate is naturally warming as the Earth continues to come out of an Ice Age. The rise in temperature is accompanied by an enormous variability that sees occasional dips back into mini-ice ages. But the trajectory is up. That's what the data shows. The rest is conjecture based on human release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
But articles like these use the simple fact that the world is warming as the foundation for constructing story's about human impact and possible apocalyptic climate outcomes. But the truth remains that the two have not been scientifically connected yet. It's an unproven theory that exploits the natural warming that the earth experiences after the end of EVERY Ice Age.
Last edited:
ohiopup
Well-known member
Geologists estimate that the accumulation of ice in the current cycle ended
aproximatle 18K years ago and more moderate temperatures resulting in the
great melting happened 11K+ years ago. Geological evidence suggests that the
Earth has been completely void of ice sheets several times in the past. What they
don't know is how warm it got in the past.
We aren't completely out of currant Quaternary glaciation period yet.
:>---
SALT
aproximatle 18K years ago and more moderate temperatures resulting in the
great melting happened 11K+ years ago. Geological evidence suggests that the
Earth has been completely void of ice sheets several times in the past. What they
don't know is how warm it got in the past.
We aren't completely out of currant Quaternary glaciation period yet.
:>---
SALT
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Global Temperatures and CO2 Concentrations (2020)
A first step in reducing emissions is understanding where they’re coming from—this week we’re breaking down U.S. emissions.
www.climatecentral.org
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Century-old climate myth still making the rounds
Carbon dioxide or water vapor, pick a side in this global warming debate. The fourth myth in the climate change series keeps the conversation going.
news.utexas.edu
From 10 years ago. This is a denier ploy. Keep bringing back old nonsense.
You just proved you know zero about what is going on by mentioning Venus and runaway greenhouse effect.
But continue calling people stupid and such while attacking sources with no real information to back up any of your claims.
I guess that makes you feel better.
Only thing worse than actual stupid people are people who don't really know what is going on yet act like douchebags telling everyone else they are so stupid for not believing X while giving no real evidence/logic for X.
Congratulations on being in that category.
Global Temperatures and CO2 Concentrations (2020)
A first step in reducing emissions is understanding where they’re coming from—this week we’re breaking down U.S. emissions.
The time scale evaluated here for CO2 level & temperature - 1880 to 2019 - is to short to draw any useful conclusions from.
And this statement from the linked article also represents a timescale to short to draw any useful conclusions from:
Now at 414 ppm, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years,
800,000 thousand years may sound like a long time but from a geological perspective it's like trying to draw several years of economic conclusions from one day of the stock market performance.
Global Temperatures and CO2 Concentrations (2020)
A first step in reducing emissions is understanding where they’re coming from—this week we’re breaking down U.S. emissions.
Another limitation of this research is that they are forced to use surrogate measures to estimate CO2 levels and temperatures for anything more then 200 years old. In contrast, over the last century they've been able to employ direct measurements of CO2 level and temperature.
While they will argue that their historical climate reconstructions are accurate there is no way they can match the accuracy and precision of the instrument readings. So we have a situation where direct assessments are being compared to indirect assessments. This can result in very misleading outcomes.
Century-old climate myth still making the rounds
Carbon dioxide or water vapor, pick a side in this global warming debate. The fourth myth in the climate change series keeps the conversation going.news.utexas.edu
From 10 years ago. This is a denier ploy. Keep bringing back old nonsense.
This is a fine example of what I would call science history. And like all history the author will use the information and facts that support their thesis. And to be clear there's nothing wrong with that and in a discussion like Global Warming these types of articles serve a useful purpose.
However, this is not science and doesn't represent a scientific rebuttal to the claims that beyond a certain level increasing CO2 concentrations does not result in substantial new warming.
One thing this article does call out is the dependence of Climate Science on modeling. IMO this is a fundamental weakness of this field of science. In complex natural systems modeling has not proven to be very good. Modelings track record for climate prediction is poor. Their reliance on modeling is problematic.
100% fact.
The thing about science and the scientific method is that it is amazing in explaining the world around us as it is right now.
Science and especially prediction models, are good at determining what is going on right now but slowly get worse and worse in accuracy the further you go in the future or in the past.
Any model specifically on non-linear dynamics, bifurcating systems, chaos mathematics is ok at modeling the "right now" but quickly gets "terrible" as soon as you go more than a year or so in the future or in the past then it is literally guess work.
I am not saying modeling is wrong to use and/or we should avoid models completely. I mean I use models all the time to model industrial combustion emissions (CO2, NOx, CO, SOx, etc) in large industrial furnaces to figure out how to reduce the various emissions. I will say that the models I use, which are VASTLY more simple (the combustion of natural gas is about a 100ish step reaction once you include all the partial chemical steps that form the bad emissions, not a simple 1 step equation they teach in chemistry). Those 100ish step reaction modeling with fluid dynamics, thermal dynamics, etc of the system is vastly more simple than a non-linear bifurcation chaos system that climate is.
My models are way easier and they STILL are inaccurate to what really happens in a furnace. I use them mainly to determine possible trends as I change things in a burner design to eliminate some "bad" ideas before I test things in a lab.
Science in general is bad at predicting the past and the future because it is designed to describe the world as it is right now. Scientific models are even worse at going back and forward in time.
The easiest way on a simple example I have explained this to people is the projectile motion of a baseball being thrown or hit by a bat. Physics and calculus can give us equations based on the balls instantaneous velocity (with angle) height from the ground, spin rate, and current wind velocity/direction and predict where the ball was probably hit/thrown from and where it will finally land.
However, the probability of the prediction based on the equations being right goes down as you move away from the balls current location either backwards or forwards in time. The main reason is you don't know even simple things that will/can change the trajectory like change in wind speed, change in air density (pressure/temperature in a given area), wind direction, etc.
Take a ball flying through the air as something vastly simple mathematically compared to bifurcating non-linear dynamics/chaos mathematics. Again, the further in the future or past you try to model a system the worse the model is at predicting anything.
We have seen this over and over again over the last 50 years of climate modeling. The further out they make "dire" predictions and they are ALWAYS wrong.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
We know the things you claim we do not. You are a walking contradiction who tries his hardest to pass himself off as "smart." Try using "bifurcating" a couple more times.
Adding more CO2 and Methane is not better for anyone.
Celebrity lifestyle increases global warming: New study flight-shames Bill Gates and Paris Hilton
Bill Gates and Paris Hilton rack up the worst CO2-emissions with their frequent flying.
sciencenorway.no
André Schürrle (athlete)
Felix von der Laden (influencer)
Jennifer Lopez (singer and actress)
Karl Lagerfeld (designer)
Mark Zuckerberg (business leader)
Meg Whitman (business leader)
Oprah Winfrey (TV-host, business leader)
They’re super rich and they don’t really care
The idea isn’t new. In various media stories celebrities have been exposed for claiming to save the world in one initiative, and then on the other hand harming the environment with their lifestyle.
Bill Gates and Paris Hilton rack up the worst CO2-emissions with their frequent flying.
Celebrity lifestyle increases global warming: New study flight-shames Bill Gates and Paris Hilton
While Greta Thunberg and the kids are out marching for climate change to be taken seriously, celebrities like Bill Gates and Paris Hilton continue flying like the world has no limits.
sciencenorway.no
André Schürrle (athlete)
Felix von der Laden (influencer)
Jennifer Lopez (singer and actress)
Karl Lagerfeld (designer)
Mark Zuckerberg (business leader)
Meg Whitman (business leader)
Oprah Winfrey (TV-host, business leader)
They’re super rich and they don’t really care
The idea isn’t new. In various media stories celebrities have been exposed for claiming to save the world in one initiative, and then on the other hand harming the environment with their lifestyle.
So where exactly have I contradicted myself? I have never claimed to be “smart” you are the one who has repeatedly on this thread called people stupid or treated them as such for not believing your opinion on the matter.
I don’t believe I have called anyone or treated anyone in such a way yet. I have presented information you are welcome to dispute if you can.
“We know the things you claim we do not.” You are going to have to translate this gobbledygook for me.
If you don’t believe what I have said, specifically about my background or what scientific or mathematical ideas I have stated, feel free to point out exactly where you believe I am lying or “wrong” and I will supply supporting information.
I will wait.
I guess the ease with which you're able to obtain what can at best be charitably described as hack hit pieces, indicates how effective Happer is in his skepticism. Scientists like this must scare the crap out of the Global Warming alarmists.
I get you guys don't want to challenge the man on the science, emeritus physics professors from Princeton tend to intimidate folks, but come on IB these continued attempts at character assassination only demonstrate how weak the Global Warming argument actually is.
It is overwhelmingly held that global warming is greatly effected by carbon emissions. You know that. There’s very few idiots left in the scientific community like Trump’s last COVID expert.
Last edited:
The fact that you say so. Especially after reading all the bull hit you normally post.
What exactly do you question and what “bull shiit” have I specifically posted?
I am fully willing to back up anything I have said with evidence/proof just call out what you are saying is not true.
Or just keep being vague and ignoring the question.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
Just for fun, tell us the highest level of math you have taken.
Let me fix this for you: Global warming MAY be effected by human release of CO2 though the magnitude of any increase in temperature is NOT KNOWN.
And don't tell me what I know and don't know. At least I'm honest enough to admit what I don't know unlike the majority of climate scientists.
This is beyond weak. What BS has jmog posted? Don't hide your own ignorance behind rude ad hominem attacks.
Anyone can get on here and lie. I’m pretty sure I am much better educated than you.
They are scientists, and you are some who spends his day playing on Yappi.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldSoulon
Well-known member
Maybe you're just a crafty liar.
You really shouldn't be treating science like a religion. You know where the high priests (eg scientists) are infallible. It just doesn't work that way.
And FYI not all scientists are created equal and not all scientific disciplines are equally rigorous.