Page 38 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 1098

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #741
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava
    Moreover, we are feeling the warming year after year and bit by bit people realizes what's going on. Plots and numbers are not the best way to help people understand
    You are right plots & numbers are not the best way to help folk understand- particularly when manipulated by NASA/NOAA.
    Besides I love the warming year- more time for the beach/surfing etc.

    ...global warming is of little concern when the end times are approaching...
    Yeah, cool story Bro!

  2. #742
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    If one day Common Soldier comes back:

    08 October 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Let's make a thought experiment. With an albedo of 0.3 and the current solar radiation, Earth temperature is predicted around -18°C according to the webpage of the American Chemical Society about planetary temperature. If CO2 has such a negligeable effect and water vapor is the only true active greenhouse gas here, how it could work to warm from-18 to 15°C the Earth by taking in account water condensate and freeze at those temperatures? Moreover any freezing would increase the albedo. Any convection to higher altitude and higher latitude would condensate the vapor as well.
    27 November 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Explain to me how the water vapor alone can increase the average temperature from -18°C (below the freezing point) to 15°C while it can trigger the sea-ice albedo feedback by freezing? (second time I ask you this question)

    -18°C is the estimated value for an albedo of 0.3 (or 30%). Snowball Earth was actually far colder than this because of higher albedo.
    13 October 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Edit: About the effect of pressure on absorption properties I already answered you:
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15840669

    But here more documents from a company
    https://www.licor.com/env/applicatio..._analysis.html
    https://www.licor.com/documents/sul40zcvtnr8t71arbua

    So your comparison between Mars and Earth doesn't hold if you ignore this factor.
    Last edited by Genava; December 04, 2019 at 02:34 PM.

  3. #743
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Post 734, B.W.
    In fact, it's a complete waste of time arguing against...

    It's worth mentioning that the supreme leader of the science deniers in America (out of 23 big countries, only Saudi Arabia and Indonesia had higher proportion of doubters. In fact,the US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries) dismissed a study produced by his own administration, because..."I don't believe it." And I forgot to mention Iran.Saudi Arabia, the US and Iran are forming an unholy alliance of science-deniers.Evangelicals have stuck by Trump, and argue that global warming is of little concern when the end times are approaching.
    There you go.
    That 100% consensus number is as bogus as the "climate science" itself.

  4. #744

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    If one day Common Soldier comes back:

    08 October 2019


    27 November 2019


    13 October 2019
    By itself, water could not raise the temperarue above freezing. But once the temperarure was above freezing, water ballet alone could maintain the temperarues above freezing.

    The CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today during the time of the dinosaurs, but the Earth's temperature was not 5 times hotter back then. With a CO2 level 1/10th thr time 9f the dinosaurs, rhe Earth did not turn into a giant snow ball.


    Edit: About the effect of pressure on absorption properties I already answered you:
    https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15840669

    But here more documents from a company
    https://www.licor.com/env/applicatio..._analysis.html
    https://www.licor.com/documents/sul40zcvtnr8t71arbua

    So your comparison between Mars and Earth doesn't hold if you ignore this factor.
    The graph you show just demonstrates that the FO2 does provide some heating, not that the amount 9f heating produced significantly warms the earth. You would see the same absorption if you had only 1/10th thr amount 9f CO2 that we do.

    And a plausible sounding theory is not a fact. For example, it 8s a fact warming periods started before the rise of FO2. That is a fact. The claim that further rise was due to increase CO2 8s not a fact, but a theory. Climate Change proponents such as yours2lf assert theory as fact, but they are different.

    The more you pretend your theories are facts, 5he more skeptical people will become. Come back when some9ne has done a control scientific study in a lab, showing how the absortpiton is affected by changing air pressure and and water vapor levels.confirming what you.claim. What I see is a lot of hand waving trying to disguise theory as fact.


    Xx

  5. #745
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    By itself, water could not raise the temperarue above freezing. But once the temperarure was above freezing, water ballet alone could maintain the temperarues above freezing.
    So which magical process has maintained the Earth temperature above freezing point during the entire Earth history and permitted to get through the few ice ages where Earth temperature get below freezing point?

    Non-condensing greenhouse gases are essential to maintain the actual temperature. Essential to keep high latitude climate stable. This is why the model did show a runaway process in the polar regions when you removed all the non-condensing greenhouse gases.

    The CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today during the time of the dinosaurs, but the Earth's temperature was not 5 times hotter back then. With a CO2 level 1/10th thr time 9f the dinosaurs, rhe Earth did not turn into a giant snow ball.
    Here you are assuming a linear relation and CO2 being the only parameter of importance. This is actually a position that no scientist have. Your stance is a straw man argument. My whole point here is telling you that you are avoiding the whole physics of greenhouse effect and global climate and the only thing you are doing is going more and more bananas in the same direction.

    Your weird interpretation from Mars or Earth past with a linear relation doesn't hold when your applying anywhere, not because CO2 inefficiency but because of your inability to check the physics behind. Apply your weird relation to Venus and its 0.7 albedo to explain the temperature, it won't work.

    Contrary to you, physicists have a real theoretical framework that explain all the differences.

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

    And geologists support it:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703706001979

    The graph you show just demonstrates that the FO2 does provide some heating, not that the amount 9f heating produced significantly warms the earth. You would see the same absorption if you had only 1/10th thr amount 9f CO2 that we do.
    But this is exactly the level of heating used by the models. This level of heating is causing an increase of water vapor and a decrease of albedo from sea ice. So if the models are running on values matching the observations maybe you should try to understand why instead of assuming linear relation without any use of physical formula or actual lab data.

    Feldman et al. 2015 publication shows explicitly that the CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the spectrum measured. They even observed the seasonal fluctuations of CO2 from the radiative measurements. Their observation matches the theory and the models.

    https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon...se-effect.html

    And a plausible sounding theory is not a fact. For example, it 8s a fact warming periods started before the rise of FO2. That is a fact. The claim that further rise was due to increase CO2 8s not a fact, but a theory. Climate Change proponents such as yours2lf assert theory as fact, but they are different.
    Ok, so I am losing my time with someone that doesn't know what a scientific theory is and someone that doesn't understand what are feedback processes occurring through millennia.

    The fact are the physics of the greenhouse gases. This where everything started from Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar and Plass. Physics. Not climate science. The backbone of our understanding of CO2 impact on climate is from physics. Before even the observation of the actual warming it was expected it would happen with a rise in CO2.

    The more you pretend your theories are facts, 5he more skeptical people will become. Come back when some9ne has done a control scientific study in a lab, showing how the absortpiton is affected by changing air pressure and and water vapor levels.confirming what you.claim. What I see is a lot of hand waving trying to disguise theory as fact.


    Xx
    I literally handed you a lab paper about it... from a company selling products measuring CO2 thanks to its infrared properties for different purposes than climate science.

    Again: https://www.licor.com/documents/sul40zcvtnr8t71arbua

    I know it is frustrating for you that the physics is too much complicated, smashing your certitude in pieces.

    Edit: counting on the laziness expressed here by contrarians, I even give you the paper from 1960s quoted in the lab paper:
    https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abs...uri=ao-1-3-359
    Last edited by Genava; December 05, 2019 at 01:31 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  6. #746

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    So which magical process has maintained the Earth temperature above freezing point during the entire Earth history and permitted to get through the few ice ages where Earth temperature get below freezing point?
    Nothing magical. Life could not spontaneously arise under the conditions that exist on earth today, but it certainly can and is maintain - despite Climate Change claims to the contrary, life still exist on earth today. Likewise, even though water could not by itself raise the temperature of earth above freezing, it is sufficient to maintain it above freezing once it was raised above freezing.

    The CO2 level was 500% higher in the time of the dinosaurs, which is made the climate more stable than it is today, and which is why you didn't have ice ages in the time of the dinosaurs. The high level of CO2 made the earth's climate essentially immune to changes in orbit and solar output. Because the CO2 is so low currently, changes in orbit and solar output drives our climate, CO2 levels were simply too low and had insufficient effect in maintaining climate.

    Our current climate is fundamentally unstable, and it is only a matter of when, not if, when the next ice age will occur. A new ice age will has an even more devastating effect on human population and animal and plant life than any effect of global warming. Burying New York, Chicago, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh under a mile of ice would be worse than flooding out parts of New York city. If we want a truly stable climate, we need to increase CO2 levels by 500% to bring them inline to what they were during the time of the dinosaurs. Then the climate will be stable, not for just a few thousands or a few ten thousands years as today, but stable for hundred million years.

    Non-condensing greenhouse gases are essential to maintain the actual temperature. Essential to keep high latitude climate stable. This is why the model did show a runaway process in the polar regions when you removed all the non-condensing greenhouse gases.
    So you have to assert if you want to maintain the Climate Change theory.


    Here you are assuming a linear relation and CO2 being the only parameter of importance. This is actually a position that no scientist have. Your stance is a straw man argument. My whole point here is telling you that you are avoiding the whole physics of greenhouse effect and global climate and the only thing you are doing is going more and more bananas in the same direction.
    Isn't Climate Change a wonderful theory, no matter what happens to the climate, the answer is always Climate Change due to CO2, even if that means a new ice age forms and the earth completely freezes over to the equator. Nice to have a theory you can never be proven wrong in. If CO2 were the driving factor as claimed, then we should not be seeing the cyclical patterns of ice ages and interglacial warm periods that we are currently experiencing. It is precisely because CO2 is historically so low, compared to what it was many millions of years ago, that we have such wild changes in climate. CO2 is no longer driving climate, and hasn't been for the last few million years, it is just too low.

    Your weird interpretation from Mars or Earth past with a linear relation doesn't hold when your applying anywhere, not because CO2 inefficiency but because of your inability to check the physics behind. Apply your weird relation to Venus and its 0.7 albedo to explain the temperature, it won't work.
    Once again you show the true nature of Climate Change proponents by resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who don't agree with you.

    I am done arguing with you. To you, Climate Change isn't just a good scientific theory, but a religious dogma and anyone who disagrees is a heretic that to you out to be burned at the stake. Unfortunately for Climate Change proponents such as yourself, we happen to be in a democracy where you can't just get your way by pounding your fist and shouting "The Science is Settled!" the way fundamentalists Muslims shout "Ala Akbar"

    Climate Change proponents talk about the dangers of Climate Change to animal life, but the devastation on bird and especially bat population caused the windmills they promote is ignored and hidden as much as possible. While theoretical dangers of of climate change on animal life is loudly announced on the front page, the real dangers caused by windmills on bird and bat populations is reported on the back pages, if at that.

    Don't send me another note like you did last time. It is a waste of time discussing anything you, I am convinced you would assert its Climate Change when glaciers are running over the Amazon. Accepting scientific studies and reports requires an amount of trust, that the data wasn't forged and was reportedly accurately, and right now I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sun rose in the east, not with the condescending attitude that is so typical of Climate Change proponents like yourself. Such attitude isn't going to convince skeptics, and if when you wonder why politicians who are skeptical of Climate Change keep getting elected and actions to block Climate Change keep getting put in place, look in the mirror.

  7. #747
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Once again you show the true nature of Climate Change proponents by resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who don't agree with you.
    Your personal opinion:

    October 07
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    However, I remain skeptical about the CO2 has been the driving cause of any warming, if it in fact exist.

    One reason for such skepticism is Mars has estimate around 30 times the Mount of CO2 its atmosphere as Earth, yet that CO2 has raised Mars temperature a mere 5C.. Climate Change proponents are saying that an amount of CO2 a mere 2% of all Mars CO2 raises Earth's temperature 1C, the equivalent of 20% of a the warming caused by all of Mars CO2. By that logic, Mars should be much, much warmer than what we actual observe.

    Since Earth has only 1/30 the CO2 of Mars,.the CO2 contribution to warming should be 5C/30 x 2 (Earth gets twice as much solar radiation), and half of the CO2 is due to humans,.so human contribution to colonial warming would be around 0.2C or 0.36F. increasing another 200 ppm would still only represent a 0.72F degree warming.

    Mars has 0.088 psi atmosphere, and 95% of it is CO2. But since Mars gravity is only 40% of Earth. That is more like an equivelent of 0.2 psi on Earth. At 400 ppm, that is .0004 of Earth atmosphere, that works out to .0004 x 14.7 psi = 0.00588 psi, 1/30th of Mars.
    November 27 (ignoring my answers)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Although Mars atmosphere is very thin, it composed almost entirely of greehouse gas CO2. The amount of CO2 in Mars atmosphere is far more than in Earth's atmosphere. Mars has a pressure of 0.088 psi and is 95% CO2, so that works out to a 0. 084 PSI of CO2. Earth's atmosphere is .00004 fraction of CO2 in its atmosphere, and Earth's atmosphere has a pressure of 14.7 PSI, so Earth has .0004 x 14.7 = 0.0059 PSI of CO2, which means Mars has 0.084/.0059 = 14.2 times the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere than Earth.

    Yet despite having 1400 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the effect of all this extra CO2 has a negligible effect on warming. Mars predicted Black Body temperature is -64 C, while its observed temperature is still only - 58 C. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...peratures.html.
    My early warning on your interpretation, October 7:

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    But why are you assuming that you can extrapolate a linear relation from Mars and applying it to Earth as a demonstration? When the basic knowledge of the absorption of greenhouse gases is absolutely not suggesting a linear relation with concentration and is depending of both pressure and temperature at the same time?
    And October 8: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15840669


    Let's see what says the scientific literature:

    Quote Originally Posted by LI-COR in "Effects of Temperature, Pressure and Water Vapor on Gas Phase Infrared Absorption by CO2"
    The 4.26 μm CO2 absorption band is due to infrared energy absorption by a particular bond stretching mode that is coupled to rotational energy transitions that produce a large number of individual absorption lines. Individual absorption line widths are sensitive to intermolecular collisions and become broader with increasing pressure. Therefore, total absorption across a band per mole of absorber increases with pressure.
    https://www.licor.com/documents/sul40zcvtnr8t71arbua
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierrehumbert in "Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
    Figure 3 also shows emission spectra for Mars and Venus. The Martian spectrum, obtained on a summer after-noon, mainly takes the form of blackbody emission from a260-K surface, but as with Earth’s spectrum, it has a region centered on the main CO2 absorption band where the radiating temperature is much colder. As far as one can tell from its IR spectra, nighttime Venus looks about as cold as daytime Mars. However, based on microwave emissions (to which the atmosphere is largely transparent), Venera landers, and Pioneer descenders, we now know that Venus has an extremely hot surface, a nearly pure CO2atmosphere, and a surface pressure of nearly 100 Earth atmospheres. Because of the thick atmosphere, essentially all the IR escaping from Venus originates in the top region of the atmosphere, where the pressure is less than 2.5 × 104Pa. The highest-temperature radiating surface in that layer is primarily attributable to CO2 continuum absorption, which fills in the transparent regions of the line spectrum shown in figure 2. Sulfuric-acid cloud sand trace amounts of water vapor also contribute to plugging the gaps.

    Energy balance and surface temperature
    The same considerations used in the interpretation of spectra also determine the IR cooling rate of a planet and hence its surface temperature. An atmospheric greenhouse gas enables a planet to radiate at a temperature lower than the ground’s,if there is cold air aloft. It therefore causes the surface temperature in balance with a given amount of absorbed solar radiation to be higher than would be the case if the atmosphere were transparent to IR. Adding more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere makes higher, more tenuous, formerly transparent portions of the atmosphere opaque to IR and thus increases the difference between the ground temperature and the radiating temperature. The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming. The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730 K. If the planet were a blackbody in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231 K. The greenhouse effect of CO2 on Earth and Mars is visually manifest as the ditch carved out of the Planck spectrum near 667 cm−1. That dip represents energy that would have escaped to space were it not for the opacity of CO2. On Venus, the CO2 greenhouse effect extends well beyond the ditch, owing to the opacity of the continuum associated with so much CO2. In the Earth spectrum, one can also see a broad region in which water vapor has reduced the radiating temperature to a value well below the surface temperature. For Earth and Mars, the width of the CO2 ditch corresponds approximately to the width of the spectral region over which the atmosphere is nearly opaque to IR. Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the width of the ditch and hence increases the CO2 greenhouse effect. But the increase occurs in the wings of the absorption feature rather than at the center(see figure 2). That limitation is the origin of the logarithmic relation between CO2 concentration and the resulting perturbation in Earth’s energy budget. It has been a feature of every climate model since that of Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Per square meter of surface, Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, but the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in narrower spectral lines. That weakens absorption so much that the Martian CO2 ditch has a width somewhat less than Earth’s.
    https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert Norman Plass in "The Effect of Pressure Broadening of Spectral Lines on Atmospheric Temperature"
    Pressure broadening causes lines in infrared absorption bands to have considerably greater half-widths in the lower layers of a planetary atmosphere than in the upper layers. As a result, radiation emitted upward from the wings of lines in the lower atmosphere is not strongly absorbed by the upper layers. Such radiation is thus free to escape to the cosmic cold.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1950ApJ...112..365S
    Quote Originally Posted by Burch et al. in "Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared"
    The present paper deals with the effects of various gases on the widths of the absorption lines within atmospheric bands and hence on the total absorption of atmospheric bands. The Lorentz line shape where the line strength is constant, gives a fairly satisfactory approximation of absorption line shapes for the wide range of pressures in which "collision broadening" is encountered. [...] Experimental studies to be reported later have shown that the total absorption ∫A(v)dv for an entire band in the infrared can be expressed in terms of the two parameters P and w for the range of pressures in which collision broadening is dominant.
    https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abs...uri=ao-1-3-359
    Quote Originally Posted by Riris et al. in "Lidar technology for measuring trace gases on Mars and Earth"
    For Earth we have developed laser technique for the remote measurement of the tropospheric CO2, O2, and CH4 concentrations from space. Our goal is to develop a space instrument and mission approach for active CO2 measurements. Our technique uses several on and off-line wavelengths tuned to the CO2 and O2 absorption lines. This exploits the atmospheric pressure broadening of the gas lines to weigh the measurement sensitivity to the atmospheric column below 5 km and maximizes sensitivity to CO2 changes in the boundary layer where variations caused by surface sources and sinks are largest.
    https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/p....2309207&SSO=1
    Quote Originally Posted by Rampino & Caldeira in "The Goldilocks Problem: Climatic Evolution and Long-Term Habitability of Terrestrial Planets"
    The effectiveness of greenhouse heating on Venus is increased by the fact that greenhouse gases can absorb thermal radiation in their weaker transitions as total atmospheric mass increases, thus the fraction of thermal IR absorbed increases with a planet's surface pressure (Pollack 1991).
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00083.000.html
    See also wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectr...ure_broadening

    Your personal opinion:
    By itself, water could not raise the temperarue above freezing. But once the temperarure was above freezing, water ballet alone could maintain the temperarues above freezing.

    The CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today during the time of the dinosaurs, but the Earth's temperature was not 5 times hotter back then. With a CO2 level 1/10th thr time 9f the dinosaurs, rhe Earth did not turn into a giant snow ball.
    [...]
    Nothing magical. Life could not spontaneously arise under the conditions that exist on earth today, but it certainly can and is maintain - despite Climate Change claims to the contrary, life still exist on earth today. Likewise, even though water could not by itself raise the temperature of earth above freezing, it is sufficient to maintain it above freezing once it was raised above freezing.
    Scientists opinion in response of similar claims:

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Thorne, Professor, Maynooth University
    But water vapour is a feedback and not a long-term forcing. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is driven by the temperature (for every 1K increase 7% more water can be held) and water has too short lifetime in the atmosphere (think precipitation).
    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...sarah-knapton/
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeke Hausfather, Research Scientist, Berkeley Earth
    The water vapor feedback is one of the main positive feedbacks in the climate system. It has been well understood for much of the century that increased temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, trapping additional heat. This is by no means a controversial topic in the scientific community, fringe views by Willie Soon notwithstanding.

    Water vapor cannot be a forcing because of its extremely short atmospheric lifetime in the troposphere. Adding a bunch of additional water vapor won’t cause long-term changes, as it will quickly precipitate out. However, the absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is strongly determined by the temperature; warm the planet (e.g. by increasing CO2 concentrations) and you will end up with more water vapor in the air. This is why water vapor is a feedback rather than a forcing.

    This RealClimate post provides some good background on the role of water vapor as a climate feedback.
    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...sarah-knapton/
    Quote Originally Posted by Katrin Meissner, Professor, University of New South Wales
    It is true that water vapour is a main greenhouse gas, but the amount of water vapour is also tightly related to temperatures (and should therefore be seen as an enhancing feedback, not a driver). That is, higher CO2 will increase temperatures, which will increase water vapour, which will increase temperatures… To write that “carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate” is of course utter nonsense—see other comments.
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...limate-change/
    Quote Originally Posted by Willem Huiskamp, Postdoctoral research fellow, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
    This is a non-sequitur: “CO2 can’t have a large impact on climate because water vapour is Earth’s primary greenhouse gas”. The reality, of course, is that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively stable and bound by atmospheric temperature. CO2, on the other hand, can be easily added to the atmosphere in large amounts, altering the Earth’s energy balance and climate in the process.
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...limate-change/
    Scientific literature:

    Quote Originally Posted by American Chemical Society
    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierrehumbert in "Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
    The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, considerable though it is, understates the central role of the gas as a controller of climate. The atmosphere, if CO2 were removed from it, would cool enough that much of the water vapor would rain out. That precipitation, in turn, would cause further cooling and ultimately spiral Earth into a globally glaciated snowball state. It is only the present of CO2 that keeps Earth’s atmosphere warm enough to contain much water vapor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Held & Soden in "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming"
    As understood by Chamberlin, when air containing water vapor is in thermodynamic equilibrium with liquid water, the partial pressure of the vapor, e, is constrained to equal es(T), the saturation vapor pressure, which is a function of the temperature T only (ignoring impurities in the water and assuming a flat liquid surface). The ratio H≡e/es is referred to as the relative humidity. Supersaturation of a few percent does occur in the atmosphere, especially when there is a shortage of condensation nuclei on which drops can form, but for large-scale climate studies it is an excellent approximation to assume that whenever e rises above es vapor condenses to bring the relative humidity back to unity. In much of the atmosphere it is the saturation pressure over ice, rather than water, that is relevant, but we will not refer explicitly to this distinction. According to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, es(T) increases rapidly with increasing temperature, albeit a bit slower than exponentially. More precisely, the fractional change in es resulting from a small change in temperature is proportional to T−2. At 200K, a 1K increase results in a 15% increase in the vapor pressure; at 300K, it causes a 6% increase. In searching for theories for the ice ages, Arrhenius and Chamberlin both thought it plausible, if not self-evident, that warming the atmosphere by increasing CO2 would, by elevating es, cause water vapor concentrations to increase, which would further increase the greenhouse effect, amplifying the initial warming. The possibility of CO2 increasing because of fossil fuel use helped motivate a series of studies through the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s that improved the radiative computations underlying estimates of climate sensitivity (12–14).
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/ab...y.25.1.441?jo=
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierrehumbert, Brogniez & Roca in "The Global Circulation of the Atmosphere"
    Water vapor is the atmosphere’s single most important greenhouse gas, and it is correct to say that an accurate prediction of climate change hinges on the ability to accurately predict how the water vapor content of the atmosphere will change. It would be a gross error, however, to conclude that the effect of CO2 is minor in comparison to that of water vapor. The greenhouse effect of CO2 accounts for fully a third of the total, and this is a very considerable number. Eliminating the 50 W/m2 of tropical CO2 greenhouse effect would drop the tropical temperature by about 25 K, once amplified by water vapor feedback. When further amplified by ice-albedo feedback, this would certainly cause the Earth to fall into a snowball state. https://press.princeton.edu/books/ha...the-atmosphere
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/%7Ertp1/p...ltechWater.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by Voigt & Marotzke in "The transition from the present-day climate to a modern Snowball Earth"
    While the sole radiative effect of CO2 is too small to trigger a Snowball Earth, removing CO2 activates the ice-albedo and water-vapor feedbacks. In contrast to the Snowball Earth literature, which almost exclusively focuses on the ice-albedo feedback alone, we find that the water-vapor feedback is also key to the initiation of a Snowball Earth, as seen by the strong increase in the clear-sky emissivity.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...382-009-0633-5
    Last edited by Genava; December 05, 2019 at 03:56 PM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  8. #748
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Global warming theorists claimed that the unusually hot El Ninos of 2014-2017 were caused by increased levels of CO2. As it turns out, CO2 had nothing to do with it. They were caused by deep sea geological sources:

    http://www.plateclimatology.com/furt...cal-heat-flow/

  9. #749
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Global warming theorists claimed that the unusually hot El Ninos of 2014-2017 were caused by increased levels of CO2. As it turns out, CO2 had nothing to do with it. They were caused by deep sea geological sources:

    http://www.plateclimatology.com/furt...cal-heat-flow/
    James Kamis is quite an unconvincing person, often relying on misinterpretation of the studies he quote.

    A previous statement from him and a response from scientists on climatefeedback.org:
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...-edward-kamis/
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/james-edward-kamis/
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  10. #750
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier
    Once again you show the true nature of Climate Change proponents by resorting to ad hominem attacks on those who don't agree with you.

    I am done arguing with you. To you, Climate Change isn't just a good scientific theory, but a religious dogma and anyone who disagrees is a heretic that to you out to be burned at the stake. Unfortunately for Climate Change proponents such as yourself, we happen to be in a democracy where you can't just get your way by pounding your fist and shouting "The Science is Settled!" the way fundamentalists Muslims shout "Ala Akbar"

    Climate Change proponents talk about the dangers of Climate Change to animal life, but the devastation on bird and especially bat population caused the windmills they promote is ignored and hidden as much as possible. While theoretical dangers of of climate change on animal life is loudly announced on the front page, the real dangers caused by windmills on bird and bat populations is reported on the back pages, if at that. Don't send me another note like you did last time. It is a waste of time discussing anything you, I am convinced you would assert its Climate Change when glaciers are running over the Amazon.

    Accepting scientific studies and reports requires an amount of trust, that the data wasn't forged and was reportedly accurately, and right now I wouldn't trust you if you told me the sun rose in the east, not with the condescending attitude that is so typical of Climate Change proponents like yourself. Such attitude isn't going to convince skeptics, and if when you wonder why politicians who are skeptical of Climate Change keep getting elected and actions to block Climate Change keep getting put in place, look in the mirror.
    To answer your personal attack against me, I want to start by pointing out something: contradicting someone and highlighting the fallacies in one discourse is not an ad hominem attack.

    My issue was about your arguments and your personal interpretation of phenomenon studied by scientists. Which is the topic of this thread. Especially your interpretation of Mars greenhouse effect and climate. When you expressed your own interpretation, I immediately warned you about your mistake of neglecting a fundamental aspect of radiation science: pressure and temperature. You ignored this critic and you repeated your interpretation. I tried again to show you that the topic is far more complex that you had thought with an example and you ignored again my critic and responded with bad faith to avoid my point. I gave you a bunch of quotes from scientific literature to show you the importance of taking in account the pressure and to show you it is not an easy topic (it requires at least an undergraduate level on spectroscopy), you saw the message but you left the topic for a month to come back simply to repeat again your interpretation. It is not the first time you are doing this, you asked at some point references about how the radiative forcing of CO2 is calculated and when I gave it to you, you left to come back ignoring my message and asking again the references. And you never responded to those references. You are ignoring them. I told you my issue with your attitude here. If you are not listening to counterarguments and if you are always coming back and forth time to time throwing the same arguments others already responded, you have basically the attitude of someone trolling.

    Your transposal from Mars to Earth to quantify the effect from CO2 was simply wrong. You built a sophistic interpretation because you didn't have listen to my arguments, neither read a tiny bit of the references I gave you on the topic. When you came back saying the same thing again, it was provocative. Moreover when you said "Without any atmosphere at all Earth's average temperature would be just around 0 F. To get the results of the graph, his models assume that water vapor contributes very little greenhouse warming, which is wrong" it was provocative and arrogant. We discussed hundreds of times how the water vapor feedback is important in the models in this thread. Saying that the models are assuming little contribution from water vapor is really telling us that you are ignoring everything. And it was arrogant because you are putting your self-reasoning above everything else. For example, you are assuming scientists are wrong because you do not understand why the Earth became colder in the models than the calculation you saw about an Earth without atmosphere. You posted the link so I know which calculation you saw and you literally missed the information, the calculation is using the actual albedo of the Earth. The model you saw was displaying an increase of albedo because of sea-ice and snow cover feedback. This is something we already discussed. So it is really inappropriate to say scientists using the model are wrong while you deliberately ignored all the information we exchanged in the thread.

    It seems that you understood that your interpretation was wrong about CO2 since you moved from your idea that +200 ppm of CO2 was giving only +0.2°C and was quite insignificant to Earth climate to a new idea where CO2 become what was stabilizing the climate of the dinosaurs and that we should aim for 1000ppm and above. However, you displayed something I already told you was irritating: when you lose foot on a topic, you jump on political discourse and labelling of your opponents. Somehow, I became "one of them" and I am saying the "science is settled". The thing is you are not in the position to understand what aspect of science is relying on huge amount of evidences if you are not checking the literature. I am contradicting you by using the scientific literature, that the only thing I am doing here. Even with decades old literature.
    Last edited by Genava; December 06, 2019 at 04:08 PM.

  11. #751
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    James Kamis is quite an unconvincing person, often relying on misinterpretation of the studies he quote.

    A previous statement from him and a response from scientists on climatefeedback.org:
    https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...-edward-kamis/
    https://climatefeedback.org/authors/james-edward-kamis/
    Hahaha! So now global warming "theorists" are using politifact as an arbiter of truth. You have no idea how funny that is.

  12. #752
    irontaino's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    4,613

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Whenever you attack another source and try to be condescending about it, it's always nice to remind people that your "arbiters of truth" are rags like Breitbart and American Thinker.
    Fact:Apples taste good, and you can throw them at people if you're being attacked
    Under the patronage of big daddy Elfdude

    A.B.A.P.

  13. #753
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pres...impact-weather

    Well B.W.,Stario and some others will probably cry "fake/paid/manipulated" data but that is probably best counter argument with no data/analysis backup so...
    Madrid, 3 December 2019 - The year 2019 concludes a decade of exceptional global heat, retreating ice and record sea levels driven by greenhouse gases from human activities. Average temperatures for the five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) periods are almost certain to be the highest on record. 2019 is on course to be the second or third warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

    The WMO provisional statement on the State of the Global Climate, says that the global average temperature in 2019 (January to October) was about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period.
    Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit a record level of 407.8 parts per million in 2018 and continued to rise in 2019. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for centuries and the ocean for even longer, thus locking in climate change.
    Sea level rise has accelerated since the start of satellite measurements in 1993 because of the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, according to the report.

    The ocean, which acts as a buffer by absorbing heat and carbon dioxide, is paying a heavy price. Ocean heat is at record levels and there have been widespread marine heatwaves. Sea water is 26 percent more acidic than at the start of the industrial era. Vital marine ecosystems are being degraded.

    The daily Arctic sea-ice extent minimum in September 2019 was the second lowest in the satellite record and October has seen further record low extents. In Antarctica, 2019 saw record low ice extents in some months.
    ....

    Global Climate Indicators


    2019 ends warmest decade on record

    The global mean temperature for the period January to October 2019 was 1.1 ± 0.1 °C above pre-industrial conditions (1850-1900). The five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) averages are, respectively, almost certain to be the warmest five-year period and decade on record. Since the 1980s, each successive decade has been warmer than the last.
    2019 is expected to be the second or third warmest year on record. 2016, which began with an exceptionally strong El Niño, remains the warmest year.

    Large areas of the Arctic were unusually warm in 2019. Most land areas were warmer than the recent average, including South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania. The U.S. state of Alaska was also exceptionally warm. In contrast a large area of North America has been colder than the recent average.

    Record greenhouse gas concentrations
    In 2018, greenhouse gas concentrations reached new highs, with globally averaged mole fractions of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 407.8±0.1 parts per million (ppm), methane (CH4) at 1869±2 parts per billion (ppb) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at 331.1±0.1 ppb. These values constitute, respectively, 147%, 259% and 123% of pre-industrial 1750 levels.

    Global average figures for 2019 will not be available until late 2020, but real-time data from a number of specific locations indicate that CO2 levels continued to rise in 2019.

    Acceleration of global mean sea level rise

    Sea level has increased throughout the satellite altimetery record, but the rate has increased over that time, due partly to melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. In October 2019, the global mean sea level reached its highest value since the beginning of the high-precision altimetry record (January 1993).

    Ocean heat
    More than 90% of the excess energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases goes into the ocean. In 2019, ocean heat content in the upper 700m (in a series starting in the 1950s) and upper 2000m (in a series starting in 2005) continued at record or near-record levels, with the average for the year so far exceeding the previous record highs set in 2018.

    Satellite retrievals of sea-surface temperature can be used to monitor marine heatwaves. So far in 2019, the ocean has on average experienced around 1.5 months of unusually warm temperatures. More of the ocean had a marine heatwave classified as "Strong" (38%) than "Moderate" (28%). In the north-east Pacific, large areas reached a marine heatwave category of “Severe”.

    Continued ocean acidification
    In the decade 2009-2018, the ocean absorbed around 22% of the annual emissions of CO2, which helps to attenuate climate change. However, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the chemistry of the ocean.

    Ocean observations have shown a decrease in the average global surface ocean pH at a rate of 0.017–0.027 pH units per decade since the late 1980s, as reported in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which is equivalent to an increase in acidity of 26% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

    Decline of sea ice

    The continued long term decline of Arctic Sea Ice was confirmed in 2019. The September monthly average extent (usually the lowest of the year) was the third lowest on record with the daily minimum extent tied for second lowest

    Until 2016, Antarctic sea ice extent had shown a small long-term increase. In late 2016 this was interrupted by a sudden drop in extent to extreme values. Since then, Antarctic sea-ice extent has remained at relatively low levels.
    Greenland ice sheet

    Total ice Mass Balance (TMB) for the Greenland Ice Sheet gives a net ice loss for September 2018 to August 2019 of 329 Gigatonnes (Gt). To put this into context, data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites tell us that Greenland lost about 260 Gt of ice per year over the period 2002-2016, with a maximum of 458 Gt in 2011/12.


    High impact events


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Floods


    The Central USA, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Southwest Asia received abnormally high precipitation. The 12-month rainfall averaged over the contiguous United States for the period for July 2018 to June 2019 (962 mm) was the highest on record.

    The onset and withdrawal of the Indian Monsoon were delayed, causing a large precipitation deficit in June but an excess of precipitation in the following months.
    Very wet conditions affected parts of South America in January. There was major flooding in northern Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, with losses in Argentina and Uruguay estimated at US$2.5 billion.
    The Islamic Republic of Iran was badly affected by flooding in late March and early April. Major flooding affected many hitherto drought-affected parts of east Africa in October and early November.
    Drought

    Drought affected many parts of southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific in 2019, associated in many cases with the strong positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole. Exceptionally dry conditions prevailed from mid-year onwards in Indonesia and neighbouring countries, as well as parts of the Mekong basin further north. Long-term drought conditions which had affected many parts of inland eastern Australia in 2017 and 2018 expanded and intensified in 2019. Averaged over Australia as a whole, January-October was the driest since 1902.

    Dry conditions affected many parts of Central America. It was substantially drier than normal in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, until heavy rains in October. Central Chile also had an exceptionally dry year, with rainfall for the year to 20 November at Santiago only 82 mm, less than 25% of the long-term average.
    Heatwaves

    Two major heatwaves occurred in Europe in late June and late July. In France, a national record of 46.0°C (1.9°C above the previous record) was set on 28 June. National records were also set in Germany (42.6°C), the Netherlands (40.7°C), Belgium (41.8°C), Luxembourg (40.8°C) and the United Kingdom (38.7°C), with the heat also extending into the Nordic countries, where Helsinki had its highest temperature on record (33.2°C on 28 July).

    Australia had an exceptionally hot summer. The mean summer temperature was the highest on record by almost 1°C, and January was Australia’s hottest month on record. The heat was most notable for its persistence but there were also significant individual extremes, including 46.6°C at Adelaide on 24 January, the city’s highest temperature on record

    Wildfires
    It was an above-average fire year in several high-latitude regions, including Siberia (Russian Federation) and Alaska (US), with fire activity occurring in some parts of the Arctic where it was previously extremely rare.
    The severe drought in Indonesia and neighbouring countries led to the most significant fire season since 2015. The number of reported fires in Brazil’s Amazonia region was only slightly above the 10-year average, but total fire activity in South America was the highest since 2010, with Bolivia and Venezuela among the countries with particularly active fire years.

    Tropical cyclones

    Tropical cyclone activity globally in 2019 was slightly above average. The Northern Hemisphere, to date, has had 66 tropical cyclones, compared with the average at this time of year of 56, although accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was only 2% above average. The 2018-19 Southern Hemisphere season was also above average, with 27 cyclones.

    Tropical Cyclone Idai made landfall in Mozambique on 15 March as one of the strongest known on the east coast of Africa, resulting in many casualties and widespread devastation. Idai contributed to the complete destruction of close to 780 000 ha of crops in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, further undermining a precarious food security situation in the region. The cyclone also resulted in at least 50 905 displaced persons in Zimbabwe, 53 237 in southern Malawi and 77 019 in Mozambique.
    One of the year’s most intense tropical cyclones was Dorian, which made landfall with category 5 intensity in the Bahamas. The destruction was worsened as it was exceptionally slow-moving and remained near-stationary for about 24 hours.

    Typhoon Hagibis made landfall west of Tokyo on 12 October, causing severe flooding.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  14. #754
    Ferdiad's Avatar Patricius
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    28,043

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Hahaha! So now global warming "theorists" are using politifact as an arbiter of truth. You have no idea how funny that is.
    Like why are you so defensive about this? If global warming was a "hoax" the worst thing that would come about for you is cleaner air and possibly more expensive oil for an amount of years. If it's real the worst case is the planet becoming unihnatblt to humans.

  15. #755
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pres...impact-weather

    Well B.W.,Stario and some others will probably cry "fake/paid/manipulated" data but that is probably best counter argument with no data/analysis backup so...
    Oh no, not the MET again. I've covered that already. Once you manipulate data to prove your theory you can't take that action back and claim legitimacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdiad View Post
    Like why are you so defensive about this? If global warming was a "hoax" the worst thing that would come about for you is cleaner air and possibly more expensive oil for an amount of years. If it's real the worst case is the planet becoming unihnatblt to humans.
    Quite possibly the most clueless statement I've ever read.

  16. #756
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Hahaha! So now global warming "theorists" are using politifact as an arbiter of truth. You have no idea how funny that is.
    The author is a hydrogeologist and climatefeedback.org is full of researchers and professors: https://climatefeedback.org/community/

    Besides your superficial evaluation of the article checking Kamis claims, do you have any insights on the content and on the actual arguments? Something more elaborate than simply shouting "globalist" all the time. Something a bit deeper than simply political interpretation and Manichaeism.

    PolitiFact asked one of the author of a paper Kamis is claiming as disproving human-induced climate change and the author himself says Kamis is misinterpreting the whole publication:

    In 2017, one of the authors of this study (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Senior Research Scientist Erik Ivins) was contacted by the fact-checking website PolitiFact. Ivins told them: “The study itself is about steady state conditions that would exist at the bottom of the ice sheet for many many millions of years. We think of climate change as occurring 10 years, 100 years, maybe 500 years—our study has nothing to do with those time scales[…] Nothing in our paper has anything to do with climate change.”
    And the article from climatefeedback.org highlights some other misinterpretations and lies by omission from Kamis claim:

    The Climate Change Dispatch article does not link directly to the study, but instead links to a NASA press release. It also mistakes the headline of the press release for the title of the study. In contrast to the claims in the Climate Change Dispatch article, the NASA press release states, “Although the heat source isn’t a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today.”
    The same for the confusion from Kamis on the role of geothermal heat tens of millions years ago with the actual condition in Greenland:

    The Greenland study evaluated the geologic cause of the pattern of geothermal heat flows around Greenland and concluded that the pattern is likely the result of a hot portion of the Earth’s mantle passing beneath Greenland 50 to 80 million years ago. (That portion of the mantle now lies beneath Iceland.)
    While Kamis is using this as a proof Greenland melting is not caused by global warming.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  17. #757
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    The author is a hydrogeologist and climatefeedback.org is full of researchers and professors: https://climatefeedback.org/community/

    Besides your superficial evaluation of the article checking Kamis claims, do you have any insights on the content and on the actual arguments? Something more elaborate than simply shouting "globalist" all the time. Something a bit deeper than simply political interpretation and Manichaeism.

    PolitiFact asked one of the author of a paper Kamis is claiming as disproving human-induced climate change and the author himself says Kamis is misinterpreting the whole publication:



    And the article from climatefeedback.org highlights some other misinterpretations and lies by omission from Kamis claim:



    The same for the confusion from Kamis on the role of geothermal heat tens of millions years ago with the actual condition in Greenland:



    While Kamis is using this as a proof Greenland melting is not caused by global warming.
    Presidential science adviser tells the truth about Global Warming. It is a scam. I've mentioned Happer before and how he lost his research grants because he wouldn't go along with Gore and his globalist scam:

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...ing-is-a-scam/

  18. #758
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Presidential science adviser tells the truth about Global Warming. It is a scam. I've mentioned Happer before and how he lost his research grants because he wouldn't go along with Gore and his globalist scam:

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...ing-is-a-scam/
    You could at least try to pretend you care Why quoting my message if there is nothing in relation?
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  19. #759
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    2.5K ppm CO2 is low. Healthy life existed for millions of years with much higher levels -during the Paleozoic era- for example, levels were above 4k ppm. And an ice-age occurred with CO2 levels of about 4k ppm.
    Fact is CO2 levels have been falling for more than 50 million years. High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are NOT associated with abnormally high temperatures.

    The events capable of causing mass extinction are ice-ages, comet + asteroid impact & ? flood volcanism. Elevated CO2 levels have never been implicated in mass extinction events- CO2 levels can only cause mass extinction by being too low imo.

  20. #760
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    2.5K ppm CO2 is low.
    Actually, most of the Mesozoic (Dinosaurs era) was below 2000 ppm and with average closer to 1000 ppm. The Cenozoic was mainly below 1000 ppm. Both era have seen life flourishing with hot temperatures.



    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    Healthy life existed for millions of years with much higher levels -during the Paleozoic era- for example, levels were above 4k ppm.

    And an ice-age occurred with CO2 levels of about 4k ppm.
    Fact is CO2 levels have been falling for more than 50 million years.
    Big differences to note before to start this kind of comparison:
    During the Paleozoic, the Solar output was 4% smaller than today. This is due to the stellar life-cycle of our Sun, it is something also explained in the faint young Sun problem. Which means that the greenhouse effect should compensate this lower output, around 12 W/m2, so it means around 2000 ppm of CO2 to only compensate this. Solar activity is varying slightly century to century and millenia to millenia, but in the case of hundreds of millions of years, the stellar evolution of our Sun should be taken in account. This is where most of the variations is happening.

    Moreover in the Late Ordovician when the ice age you are talking about happened, there was a supercontinent known as Gondwana locked in the South Pole. This kind of configuration is known to enhance ice ages through the albedo feedback (polar ice caps are more stables as ice sheets over land than sea ice). And when this ice age occured, the CO2 was dropping quickly in the same time.



    Although, the exact trigger of this ice age is debated, the role of CO2 decreases in the amplification of this event is not. Recently, a candidate has been found to initiate the chain reaction of feedback processes, a meteor:
    https://earthsky.org/space/did-an-as...e-age-on-earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are NOT associated with abnormally high temperatures.
    Yes it is.

    CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic
    http://www.eeenergia.org/wp-content/...oic-DRoyer.pdf

    Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845

    Palaeoclimate: CO2 and late Palaeozoic glaciation
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...oic_glaciation

    This is why the The Geological Society of America (GSA) defends the view that CO2 is an important parameter to Earth climate:
    https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/posit...osition10.aspx

    Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.

    The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing, such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth’s orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth’s climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Climate models have improved continuously and now reproduce observed continental-scale warming patterns over multiple decades (IPCC, 2013).

    Given the knowledge gained from paleoclimatic studies, several explanations for the ongoing warming trend can be eliminated. Changes in Earth’s tectonism and its orbit are far too slow to have played a significant role in the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 150 years. At the other extreme, large volcanic eruptions have cooled global climate for a year or two, and El Niño episodes have warmed it for about a year, but neither factor dominates longer-term trends. Extensive efforts to find any other natural explanation for the recent trend have similarly failed.

    As a result, greenhouse-gas concentrations and solar output are the principal remaining factors that could have changed rapidly enough and lasted long enough to explain the observed changes in global temperature. The 5th IPCC report (2013) concluded that solar irradiance changes contributed only a few percent to changes in radiative forcing of the atmosphere over the past century. Throughout the era of satellite observation, during periods of strong warming, the data show little evidence of increased solar influence (Foster and Rahmstorf, 2011; Lean and Rind, 2008).

    Greenhouse gas concentrations remain the major explanation for the warming. Observations and climate model assessments of the natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for this warming conclude that rising anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s (Meehl et al., 2004). The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now ~40% higher than peak levels measured in ice cores spanning 800,000 years of age, and the methane concentration is 1.5 times higher (IPCC, 2013). The measured increases in greenhouse gases are more than enough to explain the observed global temperature increase at Earth’s surface. In fact, considered in isolation, the greenhouse gas increases during the last 150 years would have caused a warming larger than that actually measured, but mechanisms that limit increases in near-surface air temperatures from aerosols, ocean heat storage, and possibly clouds have offset part of the warming. In addition, because the oceans take decades to centuries to respond fully to climatic forcing, the climate system has yet to register the full effect of recent greenhouse gas increases.

    These advances in scientific understanding of recent warming form the basis for projections of future changes. If greenhouse-gas emissions follow a likely trajectory with little to no effort to stabilize emissions (IPCC, 2013, RCP 8.5), by 2100 atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach four times pre-industrial levels, for a total warming of 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C compared to 1850. Even under scenarios that take into account efforts to stabilize emissions, expected increases in global mean temperature exceed 2 °C by the year 2100. The likely changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature would substantially alter the functioning of the planet in many ways. The projected changes involve the following risks to humans and other species: (1) continued shrinking of Arctic sea ice, with effects on native cultures and ice-dependent biota; (2) less snow accumulation and earlier melt in mountains, with reductions in spring and summer runoff for agricultural and municipal water; (3) disappearance of mountain glaciers and their late-summer runoff; (4) increased evaporation from farmland soils and stress on crops; (5) greater soil erosion due to increases in heavy convective summer rainfall; (6) longer fire seasons and increases in fire frequency; (7) severe insect outbreaks in vulnerable forests; (8) acidification of the global ocean; and (9) fundamental changes in the composition, functioning, and biodiversity of many terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In addition, melting of Greenland and West Antarctic ice (still highly uncertain as to amount), along with thermal expansion of seawater and melting of mountain glaciers and small ice caps, will cause substantial future sea-level rise, affecting densely populated coastal regions, inundating farmlands, and dislocating large populations (Melillo et al, 2014; IPPC, 2013). Because large, abrupt climatic changes occurred within spans of just decades during previous ice-sheet fluctuations, the possibility exists for rapid future changes as ice sheets become vulnerable to enhanced global warming associated with the greenhouse gas increases. Finally, carbon-climate model simulations indicate that 15%–40% of the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” could stay in the atmosphere for longer than a thousand years, extending the duration of fossil-fuel warming and its effects on humans and other species. The acidification of the global ocean and its effects on ocean life are projected to last for tens of thousands of years and, on the basis of documented climate changes in the past, lead to extinction of species.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    Elevated CO2 levels have never been implicated in mass extinction events- CO2 levels can only cause mass extinction by being too low imo.
    Yes, there are.

    Hyperthermal-driven mass extinctions: killing models during the Permian–Triassic mass extinction
    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2017.0076

    Surviving rapid climate change in the deep sea during the Paleogene hyperthermals
    https://www.pnas.org/content/110/23/9273

    The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum: New Data on Microfossil Turnover at the Zumaia Section, Spain
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/27670609?seq=1

    Extreme warmth and heat-stressed plankton in the tropics during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
    https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont.../e1600891.full

    Evidence disproving tropical 'thermostat' theory: global warming can breach limits for life
    https://phys.org/news/2017-03-eviden...ry-global.html

    Ocean acidification drove Earth’s largest mass extinction
    https://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-aci...ass-extinction

    Mystery solved: Ocean acidity in the last mass extinction
    https://phys.org/news/2019-10-myster...xtinction.html



    Last edited by Genava; December 08, 2019 at 09:37 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •