Global Warming

[jmog]

Dude, you can't read. I didn't say that. lol, Everyone and anyone can read the post. And you're right, I'm presuming you quoted your nonsense from myth busters, .... word-for-word. But ok, if denial gets you through your day, go with it!

So you say something utterly stupid, move the goalposts a few times once someone calls you out for your stupid comment, and then say they quoted myth busters?

Come on, try harder. Cockroaches die from nuclear radiation just like humans, they just take longer to die. Don’t say something stupid next time and you won’t get called out for it.

Good God you can’t make up that level of stupidity.

 

[lotr10]

The Earths natural carbon sink may be much larger and effective then first thought:

Twice as much carbon flowing from land to ocean than previously thought

After accounting for these effects, the authors were up for a surprise: they found much higher numbers for the land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure). Most of …

wattsupwiththat.com

Check out the comments at the end of this article. Very good discussion.

 

[lotr10]

So you say something utterly stupid, move the goalposts a few times once someone calls you out for your stupid comment, and then say they quoted myth busters?

Come on, try harder. Cockroaches die from nuclear radiation just like humans, they just take longer to die. Don’t say something stupid next time and you won’t get called out for it.

Good God you can’t make up that level of stupidity.

You have always been an excellent poster on this topic Jmog and when it comes to understanding and explaining aspects of chaos theory and other complex mathematical concepts you add a great deal of value.

I don't get why some posters want to pick fights or joke around on this type of thread. There are all sorts of threads where trolling and blood letting is actually entertaining and adds to the thread. But this is the kind of thread where it should be okay for people interested in science to disagree without being insulted.

 

[Hammerdrill]

More CO2 will not cause more warming

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

 

[irish_buffalo]

More CO2 will not cause more warming

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/

Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

Heck of a story with zero facts. Where is jsmog when you need him?

David E. Wojick - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

Wojick has been described as a journalist and policy analyst. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Wojick has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

 

[Indiandad]

So, if true, you don’t want to take any action because you don’t want to be told what to do? Seems very short sighted to me. Why not participate in some sort of strategy to combat this impending crisis? Why disagree just for the hell of it? That makes no sense to me with what is at stake. I also don’t agree with the alarmist that claim the world will end by 2030. In fact, I don’t believe that science argues that. We need to do something and stop the debate on whether Global warming is real or not.

What is the "impending crisis"? What is at stake?

 

[lotr10]

Heck of a story with zero facts. Where is jsmog when you need him?

David E. Wojick - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

IB there's no point in attacking Wojick as all he's doing here is reviewing the scientific paper submitted by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden. In fact Wojick does us a favor by breaking the paper down so that a layperson can understand their point.

But if you want the peer reviewed paper Wojick is summarizing here it is. Be warned though you will need jmog's help to tackle the mathematics if you read this paper. Maybe you can dig up dirt on the physicists who did the work and wrote the paper?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf

Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases W. A. van Wijngaarden1and W. Happer 21 Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada, wlaser@yorku.ca2 Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA, happer@Princeton.eduJune 8, 2020

The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s five most important, green-house gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space. Over 1/3 million lines having strengths as low as 10−27cmof the HITRAN database were used to evaluate the dependence of the forcing on the gas concentrations. For a hypothetical, optically thin atmosphere, where there is negligible sat-uration of the absorption bands, or interference of one type of greenhouse gas with others,the per-molecule forcings are of order 10−22W for H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4. For cur-rent atmospheric concentrations, the per-molecule forcings of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are suppressed by four orders of magnitude. The forcings of the less abundant greenhouse gases, O3, N2O and CH4, are also suppressed, but much less so. For current concentrations, the per-molecule forcings are two to three orders of magnitude greater forO3, N2O and CH4, than those of H2O or CO2. Doubling the current concentrations of CO2, N2O or CH4 increases the forcings by a few per cent. These forcing results are close to previously published values even though the calculations did not utilize either a CO2 or H2O continuum. The change in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling is estimated taking into account radiative-convective equilibrium of the atmosphere as well as water feedback for the cases of fixed absolute and relative humidities as well as the effect of using a pseudo adiabaticlapse rate to model the troposphere temperature. Satellite spectral measurements at various latitudes are in excellent quantitative agreement with modeled intensities.

 

[Hammerdrill]

Heck of a story with zero facts. Where is jsmog when you need him?

David E. Wojick - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

Hmmm, now that is a really weird take by you.

 

[lotr10]

Hmmm, now that is a really weird take by you.

I suspect that he didn't read the attached scientific article that was in the story. BTW that paper is a big deal with implications that need to be carefully considered by public policy folks.

 

[Hammerdrill]

I suspect that he didn't read the attached scientific article that was in the story. BTW that paper is a big deal with implications that need to be carefully considered by public policy folks.

Yep. I had read something similar last year I think. WRT the fact that increasing CO2 was not a big deal, because there was some sort of limiting factor. And of course it makes perfect sense, that our planet will not easily be changed, certainly not by something humans are doing. Things can change on a local level, but not the entire world/climate.

 

[jmog]

Heck of a story with zero facts. Where is jsmog when you need him?

David E. Wojick - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

1. He didn’t write the paper, two physicists did. He summarized.

2. When, not if, you need help understanding the math in the actual paper send me a private message I will help you out.

 

[irish_buffalo]

1. He didn’t write the paper, two physicists did. He summarized.

2. When, not if, you need help understanding the math in the actual paper send me a private message I will help you out.

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

This guy co-authored the paper.

 

[irish_buffalo]

8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? | Royal Society

Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? Answer

royalsociety.org

 

[irish_buffalo]

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

 

[warriorblue]

You know this is going to be a hot topic again soon. The Biden administration will go all in on fighting human caused climate change. But are human activities really changing the global climate? If they are is the change extensive? And is the change bad?

Trump never talked about global warming. He policies accelerated it

 

[Hammerdrill]

8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? | Royal Society

Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? Answer

royalsociety.org

So who is right? And there isn't much detail in that single paragraph. Was their work peer reviewed? Where are the citations?

 

[Hammerdrill]

And is the change bad?

This is key. Why is it somehow a foregone conclusion that what man does is bad? Doesn't seem particularity scientific, almost more like and emotional point of view.

 

[lotr10]

Trump never talked about global warming. He policies accelerated it

Wrong if by accelerating global warming you're referring to the amount of CO2 the USA put into the atmosphere. The USA continued it's impressive drop in CO2 emissions begun during the Obama administration. And this happened in spite of solid economic growth.

U.S. CO2 emissions 2021 | Statista

Energy consumption in the United States produced 4.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) in 2021 - an increase of seven percent from 2020 levels.

www.statista.com

Trump's emphasis on Natural Gas accelerated the drop in America's CO2 release.

 

[lotr10]

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 think the paper by the two physicists does a better job of showing that temperature increases level off in the face of increasing CO2 levels then this paper does claiming the opposite.

As an aside, for an area of science that is claimed to be "settled" these two papers represent clear evidence that the debate is still raging in the PEER REVIEWED scientific literature.

 

[lotr10]

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

This guy co-authored the paper.

IB you need to be careful about relying on hit sites like the one you cite above to attack folks like Professor Happer. Here's some relavent info on Professor Happer that you should consider before acting like he's just another "guy":

William Happer | Dean of the Faculty

dof.princeton.edu

William (Will) Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics and one of the pioneers in the field of optically polarized atoms, is transferring to emeritus status at the end of this academic year. Will is known for developing rigorous theories to analyze his elegant atomic physics experiments as well as for extensive service to Princeton and the U.S. government. His research has initiated several vibrant fields outside of atomic physics.

Will is also known for his extensive government service. Since 1976, he has been a member of JASON, a group of scientists and engineers who advise the federal government on matters of defense, intelligence, energy policy, and other technical problems. While participating in the 1982 JASON summer study, he proposed to use a thin sodium layer in the upper atmosphere as a source of an artificial guide star to correct the “seeing” distortions in optical telescopes due to the effects of atmospheric turbulence. The sodium layer is excited from the ground with a laser and adaptive optics are used with real-time feedback to cancel the distortions. Today, most large optical telescopes use such laser guide-star systems. From 1987 to 1990, Will served as chair of the steering committee of JASON.

From 1991 to 1993, Will served in President George H. W. Bush’s administration as the director of energy research in the Department of Energy, where he oversaw a basic research budget of roughly $3 billion. His responsibilities included directing much of the federal funding for high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion, environmental science, the human genome project, and other areas. More recently, he chaired the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Nuclear and Radiological Issues and the National Research Council’s standing committee on improvised explosive devices.

His University service includes being the chair of the University Research Board from 1995 to 2005. He has published over 200 scientific papers. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. He was awarded the 1997 Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society.

 

[lotr10]

This is key. Why is it somehow a foregone conclusion that what man does is bad? Doesn't seem particularity scientific, almost more like and emotional point of view.

Agree 100%.

On my land the farmer built a pond back back in 1970. It's entirely an artificial creation and today is an amazing natural habitat supporting an impressively diverse ecosystem. From fish to frogs to dragon flies to ducks to turtles to snakes to serving as a water source in late summer to deer, raccoons, bob cats, coyotes as well as a food source for birds, this man-made pond is a clear improvement on what was there before.

 

[irish_buffalo]

Agree 100%.

On my land the farmer built a pond back back in 1970. It's entirely an artificial creation and today is an amazing natural habitat supporting an impressively diverse ecosystem. From fish to frogs to dragon flies to ducks to turtles to snakes to serving as a water source in late summer to deer, raccoons, bob cats, coyotes as well as a food source for birds, this man-made pond is a clear improvement on what was there before.

apples oranges.

 

[jmog]

Climate misinformation by source: William Happer

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

This guy co-authored the paper.

You do realize that ad hominem and appeal to authority are very bad logical fallacies right?

 

[irish_buffalo]

You do realize adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue warming right?

 

[lotr10]

You do realize adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue warming right?

Not necessarily which was the point of the article.

 

[jmog]

You do realize adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue warming right?

Considering there is radiation reflected back into space and radiation absorbed by CO2, your respite is not necessarily correct. There is/eventually an equilibrium. I mean Mars and Venus are both mostly CO2 atmospheres and they are not continually warming. There is an equilibrium point where the warming stops due to radiation reflected back into space.

Our two closest planets directly refute your assertion.

The question truly becomes where that number/equilibrium is for Earth in both CO2 levels as well as what that temperature equilibrium is. That is what the article/research was trying to explore.

Once again, you are wrong.

 

[TrueEagle]

Well, you are the one that discredited Lotr since he didn’t “understand chaotic systems” so I was wondering if I had more credibility since I in fact do understand chaos systems?

Hard to believe judging from your posts.

 

[jmog]

Hard to believe judging from your posts.

What in my posts suggest I have not taken, and aced, a non-linear dynamics/chaos theory class?

I mean it’s not like chaos theory mathematics is a common topic here on yappi where you cold assess my general knowledge on the topic.

 

[lotr10]

Hard to believe judging from your posts.

I have yet to see a single useful post from you on this topic. You either cite authority or hurl insults. You don't seem to understand even the most basic parts of this discussion while shouting SCIENCE at the top of your lungs.

 

[Hammerdrill]

You do realize adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will continue warming right?

Apparently not, based on what the science tells us.