Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Common Soldier]

Because the most important thing in the life of some on the political right is feeling persecuted. They crave it, they fetishize it, they want it more than anything. They want to be poor oppressed martyrs fighting against ultimate evil, and so will accept without question any conspiracy theory that tells them what they want to hear. When you get a social reward for being a victim, you start to seek out sources that tell you you are a oppressed.

The problem? They are probably the least oppressed group in human history. They aren't denied their civil rights, they don't get beaten up or lynched when they vote, no one campaigns on wiping them out. They have never had their freedom to travel restricted, been banned from practicing their religion, or made to adopt a new culture under threat of violence. The absolute worst thing that ever happens to them is that they are sometimes required to treat people who look different from themselves with socially expected courtesy.



In a similar way to anti-vaxers, I've never seen a climate denier ever say what the endgame of the vast evil conspiracy is. What does the government gain by intentionally giving whole generations autism? What is the terrible fate sure to occur if the US becomes a leader in green energy?

You clearly demonstrate how Climate Change has been transformed, turning Climate Change into a "social justice" issue instead of a scientific one.
��
Germany has the highest electric rates in Europe, so the terrible fate would be a doubling of the average person's electric bill, and cars they can't afford. The cheapest electric car with a decent range (200+ miles) is around $5,000 dollars or more than an equivalent gas car, and since many Americans live in apartments with no garages or 2 car families with only one garage, they will have to wait in line at charging stations for 4 hours everyday to charge their batteries. Now paying double for electricity, and cars that cost 20% or more might not be an issue to the left, rich as they mostly are, but it is an issue to ordinary Americans

PS - It would likely mean the extinction of some bat specified, which are already under stress. Windmills kill millions of bars a year, fact that Climate Change proponents have successfully kept much of the public. Saving the planet did not include saving the bats, apparently. .

[Alwyn]

Nasa also released a report that stated that climate change was NOT due to human activity:

https://www.newstarget.com/2019-08-3...sil-fuels.html

You might want to look at the snopes commentary on the claims made about that report. Climate scientists know that there are also natural causes of changes to climate. This doesn't mean that human activity isn't also changing the climate - and the natural cycles mentioned in the NASA report don't account for the increases in temperature which are happening.

[Genava]

PS - It would likely mean the extinction of some bat specified, which are already under stress. Windmills kill millions of bars a year, fact that Climate Change proponents have successfully kept much of the public. Saving the planet did not include saving the bats, apparently. .

In my country, the government made a program to perform the energetic transition, there was a referendum asking the population to vote about it.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/may-21-...uture/43090272

I was actively against the government’s future energy strategy because in case of divergent interest in protected area with a potential in wind energy, the wind turbine construction should have priority. Putting the energy transition above biological conservation. I was also against because the strategical program asked for a definitive phase-out of nuclear energy, which is incredible risky.

The problem is that the conservative party was actively against but instead of using intelligent arguments they simply expressed their climate denying making them look as fools. For nuclear energy, instead of defending futur nuclear reactors construction, they asked to keep the actual ones above their operative limit (because there is a margin of safety) while we have among the oldest reactors in function. The president of the conservative party got all attention on him since he was the president of a industrial association for nuclear energy, suggesting he was protecting the short-term interest of the nuclear industries. Moreover, the conservatives tried to use the biodiversity argument but since they defended a few months before (with success) a law to increase roads construction, everybody saw the hypocrisy and opportunism of the argument.

[Coughdrop addict]

You are the poster child for why so many are so skeptical.of Climate Change. You clearly demonstrate how Climate Change has been transformed by your ilk, turning Climate Change into a "social justice" issue instead of a scientific one.

Nope, just pointing out how the right seems to believe that anything they cannot understand or don't wish to acknowledge must be a conspiracy created by "elite liberals" out to get them. As I said this feeds into their victim complex, which is a defense mechanism to soften the blow that some of their misery just might be their own fault. It's easier to tell oneself "The only reason I'm not a billionaire/rock star/CEO is because of social justice/liberals/Jews/Muslims/whoever keeping me down." because the alternative, being angry at oneself for not living up to one's potential, doesn't feel very good. But I don't really blame then. They have been fed a diet of sustained madness by right-wing media for years. To the point where the statement "Hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over are all deliberately lying and decades of research has been faked just to mess with you." is seen as more plausible than "The big polluters are lying to you because they don't want to pay the cost associated with cleaning up their act."

Climate change hoax conspiracy theories suffer the same hurdles as other conspiracy theories.

1. The 'cover story' must explain the event it's covering up well enough to endure all examination by media, law enforcement or other concerned parties.

2. Every conspirator must have a perfect understanding of the cover story. Discrepancies could lead to the truth coming out.

3. Every conspirator must have a means of contacting every other conspirator in complete privacy.

4. Every conspirator must be willing to go to any lengths to keep the secret, and must abandon any notion of gaining fame, wealth, legal indemnity, or other benefits by revealing the conspiracy.

5. Every piece of physical evidence must be destroyed, or placed in a secure location with incorruptible guardians. Forever.

6. Anyone who discovers evidence (and is not part of the conspiracy) must be blackmailed, bribed, killed, or discredited. Which, in every case, will require a cover-up of its own.

7. Anyone who might discover evidence must be monitored in some untraceable fashion for as long as they are a danger.

8. Members of the conspiracy must have access to the hardware, money, and other resources they will need to do all these things, and their access to such resources must be either secret or justified in the public eye.

9. No member of the conspiracy can be allowed to reveal it, so they must be in a position to silence any defector - yet each must trust the others not to misuse the power to kill or discredit them for any reason other than violation of the conspiracy.

10. Lastly, there must be some reason that they are failing to silence the Conspiracy Theorist.

[alhoon]

While no posts have been deleted at this time, please remember the mudpit rules and try to make your posts impersonal.

[B. W.]

You are not good at math. 0.0009% represents only 9 ppm. So... nobody said that.

The present rate of co2 increase is about 3 ppm per year with a current estimated level of 410 ppm that has been accumulating for hundreds of years so 9 ppm over the last 30 years sounds about right, probably an over estimation. You're attributing all the co2 rise in the last 100 years to human activity and forgetting that almost all the increase is from natural causes.

[Common Soldier]

The present rate of co2 increase is about 3 ppm per year with a current estimated level of 410 ppm that has been accumulating for hundreds of years so 9 ppm over the last 30 years sounds about right, probably an over estimation. You're attributing all the co2 rise in the last 100 years to human activity and forgetting that almost all the increase is from natural causes.

Actually, that doesn't seem to be true. The increase in CO2 is mostly due to humans can be determined many ways.

1. We can calculate how much fossils fuels humans have burned and how much CO2 would have been put in the air, which should give us a level 500 ppm, meaning some of it was a sorted by the oceans and other means.

2. We can track the ration od C13/C12 atoms . Plants preferentially prefer carbon 12, so burning fossil fuels gives a different ratio than CO2 from volcanoes. Tree rings tend to trap the C13/C12 ratio, and tree rings indicate a decline of C13/C12 ratios starting around 1850, just as we know humans started burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

I don't think even many skeptics dispute the fact that the current rise in CO2 is human produced. There really isn't anything else to account for the rise. As I said, the changing C13/C12 ratios show the rise wasn't from geological sources.

[Daruwind]

The present rate of co2 increase is about 3 ppm per year with a current estimated level of 410 ppm that has been accumulating for hundreds of years so 9 ppm over the last 30 years sounds about right, probably an over estimation. You're attributing all the co2 rise in the last 100 years to human activity and forgetting that almost all the increase is from natural causes.

Must agree with Common Soldier, https://deepcarbon.net/scientists-qu...l-carbon-earth

• Just two-tenths of 1% of Earth's total carbon—about 43,500 gigatonnes (Gt)^[1]—is above surface in the oceans, on land, and in the atmosphere. The rest is subsurface, including the crust, mantle and core—an estimated 1.85 billion Gt in all
• CO₂ out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges
• Humanity’s annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions
• Earth’s deep carbon cycle through deep time reveals balanced, long-term stability of atmospheric CO₂, punctuated by large disturbances, including immense, catastrophic releases of magma that occurred at least five times in the past 500 million years. During these events, huge volumes of carbon were outgassed, leading to a warmer atmosphere, acidified oceans, and mass extinctions
• Similarly, a giant meteor impact 66 million years ago, the Chicxulub bolide strike on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, released between 425 and 1,400 Gt of CO₂, rapidly warmed the planet and coincided with the mass (>75%) extinction of plants and animals—including the dinosaurs. Over the past 100 years, emissions from anthropogenic activities such as burning fossil fuels have been 40 to 100 times greater than our planet’s geologic carbon emissions

So while MAssive volcanic eruptions or meteors can change the balance, currently the humans are producing a lot more C02. Plus again, you failed to explain sudden change current history!

[Common Soldier]

In my country, the government made a program to perform the energetic transition, there was a referendum asking the population to vote about it.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/may-21-...uture/43090272

I was actively against the government’s future energy strategy because in case of divergent interest in protected area with a potential in wind energy, the wind turbine construction should have priority. Putting the energy transition above biological conservation. I was also against because the strategical program asked for a definitive phase-out of nuclear energy, which is incredible risky.

The problem is that the conservative party was actively against but instead of using intelligent arguments they simply expressed their climate denying making them look as fools. For nuclear energy, instead of defending futur nuclear reactors construction, they asked to keep the actual ones above their operative limit (because there is a margin of safety) while we have among the oldest reactors in function. The president of the conservative party got all attention on him since he was the president of a industrial association for nuclear energy, suggesting he was protecting the short-term interest of the nuclear industries. Moreover, the conservatives tried to use the biodiversity argument but since they defended a few months before (with success) a law to increase roads construction, everybody saw the hypocrisy and opportunism of the argument.

It seems both sides of the debate are wrong in areas in this debate. The conservatives just want to ignore it, but with or without government help, we are going to see a rise in the use of renewable energy production, but if we are really worried about CO2, then younreally can't dismiss nuclear power as an option. I think that many on the left are concern that if you use nuclear, then that will divert some ofnthe emphasis to go renewalable energy, which is the right way to go. I don't think you would want to go all nuclear, but every nuclear plant you have the fewer fossil fuel plants you need. And the opposition to nuclear just convinces opponents of climate change that it is all bunk, since "if CO2 were really as bad as people say, the Climate Change proponents would use every option, including nuclear, so the Climate Change proponents are not as serious about CO2 as they say". I have actually heard people say that. Opposition to nuclear I think sends the wrong message, making it seem the push to get rid of CO2 is social based, rather than science.

But I don't get the conservatives opposition to building new more modern nuclear power. The technology has imported a lot, and the new designs have a lot of benefits to offer, especially going to 2nd and 3rd generations designs. It seems to me this would be the perfect time for the conservative to push nuclear, saying to the left "if you guys are serious about CO2, then nuclear got to be part of the solution, and these miles plants are a lotnsafer than what we have now". I wouldn't think your country has a big coal or natural gas mining lobby to contend with.

Even Trump can't convince utilities from switching from coal. I might challenge thr consensus on CO2 caused warming, but I wholeheartedly support switching from fossil fuels. And if we could find better ways store power cheaply, that would be I think would be useful for a lot of people.

[B. W.]

You might want to look at the snopes commentary on the claims made about that report. Climate scientists know that there are also natural causes of changes to climate. This doesn't mean that human activity isn't also changing the climate - and the natural cycles mentioned in the NASA report don't account for the increases in temperature which are happening.

HaHaHa! You actually consider snoopes a reliable source!

Actually, that doesn't seem to be true. The increase in CO2 is mostly due to humans can be determined many ways.

1. We can calculate how much fossils fuels humans have burned and how much CO2 would have been put in the air, which should give us a level 500 ppm, meaning some of it was a sorted by the oceans and other means.

2. We can track the ration od C13/C12 atoms . Plants preferentially prefer carbon 12, so burning fossil fuels gives a different ratio than CO2 from volcanoes. Tree rings tend to trap the C13/C12 ratio, and tree rings indicate a decline of C13/C12 ratios starting around 1850, just as we know humans started burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

I don't think even many skeptics dispute the fact that the current rise in CO2 is human produced. There really isn't anything else to account for the rise. As I said, the changing C13/C12 ratios show the rise wasn't from geological sources.

I got the figure of 410 ppm from an AGW website since that is the figure they like to use although I'm personally not convinced it is reliable. The way they manipulate figures and data makes the figure's provenance questionable. The figure you used of 500 ppm is over the top extreme.

Must agree with Common Soldier, https://deepcarbon.net/scientists-qu...l-carbon-earth

• Just two-tenths of 1% of Earth's total carbon—about 43,500 gigatonnes (Gt)^[1]—is above surface in the oceans, on land, and in the atmosphere. The rest is subsurface, including the crust, mantle and core—an estimated 1.85 billion Gt in all
• CO₂ out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges
• Humanity’s annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions
• Earth’s deep carbon cycle through deep time reveals balanced, long-term stability of atmospheric CO₂, punctuated by large disturbances, including immense, catastrophic releases of magma that occurred at least five times in the past 500 million years. During these events, huge volumes of carbon were outgassed, leading to a warmer atmosphere, acidified oceans, and mass extinctions
• Similarly, a giant meteor impact 66 million years ago, the Chicxulub bolide strike on Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, released between 425 and 1,400 Gt of CO₂, rapidly warmed the planet and coincided with the mass (>75%) extinction of plants and animals—including the dinosaurs. Over the past 100 years, emissions from anthropogenic activities such as burning fossil fuels have been 40 to 100 times greater than our planet’s geologic carbon emissions

So while MAssive volcanic eruptions or meteors can change the balance, currently the humans are producing a lot more C02. Plus again, you failed to explain sudden change current history!

The AGW "science" is based on the claim that present temperatures are higher than ever in the last several thousand years and that this is caused by man's use of fossil fuels. This is fallacy.

The 2nd century Roman warm period was warmer than present temperatures and this can be proven by the fact that certain varieties of grapes were growing in Britain at the time and aren't able to grow there now because the temperature is too cool. There is an association, however, with man causes at that particular time frame. It so happens that the Amazonian culture reached its peak around 200 AD and it is known that they cleared and burned hundreds of thousands of acres of jungle. The same thing that is happening today. That civilization collapsed around 600 AD for unknown reasons. BTW, I have mentioned the Amazonian problem here several times and the AGW people don't seem to think it is much of a problem even though there is a provable connection between past burning events there and global temperatures.

As has been pointed out there are various signatures of CO2 gases and they having varying degrees of influence concerning climate fluctuations. It would seem that the Roman period of warming is instructive. Also, historically, CO2 increases follow temperature increases so it is not at all clear how all this ties together despite what doomsday cultists would have us believe.

Before I head down the path to Jonestown, I want absolute proof of what the AGW proponents claim is evidence and I want it without manipulated data and computer models that can predict the local weather for at least a solid month with confidence.

[irontaino]

HaHaHa! You actually consider snoopes a reliable source!

This coming from the guy who constantly cites rags like Breitbart and American Thinker?

[B. W.]

This coming from the guy who constantly cites rags like Breitbart and American Thinker?

Those two publications have proven to be consistently credible. Just saying they aren't credible isn't evidence and both publications have exposed numerous problems with snoopes as well as the NYT, CNN, Msnbc, etc.

They also consistently run stories that the above publications have tried to bury.

And I guess I should also mention they're not operated out of a trailer in the backwoods of California.

[Common Soldier]

HaHaHa! You actually consider snoopes a reliable source!



I got the figure of 410 ppm from an AGW website since that is the figure they like to use although I'm personally not convinced it is reliable. The way they manipulate figures and data makes the figure's provenance questionable. The figure you used of 500 ppm is over the top extreme.

The 500 ppm is what they projected the CO2 should have been based on human production, but the figure could be wrong.

My point remains, that based on the carbon ratios, we can be pretty certain that the rise in CO2 levels is man-made, nor natural.

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.

The AGW "science" is based on the claim that present temperatures are higher than ever in the last several thousand years and that this is caused by man's use of fossil fuels. This is fallacy.

The 2nd century Roman warm period was warmer than present temperatures and this can be proven by the fact that certain varieties of grapes were growing in Britain at the time and aren't able to grow there now because the temperature is too cool. There is an association, however, with man causes at that particular time frame. It so happens that the Amazonian culture reached its peak around 200 AD and it is known that they cleared and burned hundreds of thousands of acres of jungle. The same thing that is happening today. That civilization collapsed around 600 AD for unknown reasons. BTW, I have mentioned the Amazonian problem here several times and the AGW people don't seem to think it is much of a problem even though there is a provable connection between past burning events there and global temperatures.

As has been pointed out there are various signatures of CO2 gases and they having varying degrees of influence concerning climate fluctuations. It would seem that the Roman period of warming is instructive. Also, historically, CO2 increases follow temperature increases so it is not at all clear how all this ties together despite what doomsday cultists would have us believe.

Before I head down the path to Jonestown, I want absolute proof of what the AGW proponents claim is evidence and I want it without manipulated data and computer models that can predict the local weather for at least a solid month with confidence.

I think this is the result of confusing effect with cause. CO2 does follow temperature, but it wasn't causing the temperature but a byproduct of it.

Since we know things like the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period existed, we have to question graphs where they don't appear, as it is in the Hockey Stick graph. The fact that the glacier Ozi the Iceman was found in in the Italian Alps shows it must have been as warm then as it is today.

One of the problems we have is that modern Civilization arose during a centuries long cold snap, so what looks like an unusual warming is just the Earth returning to more normal post glacial temperature.

[Genava]

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.

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?

By the way you are missing the effect of lower surface on Mars, which means there is even more CO2/m2.

Edit: I took simply an extreme example to show it is much more complicated you thought, on Titan nitrogen is a greenhouse gas while it is not the case on Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...fects_on_Titan
https://books.google.ch/books?id=aqh...page&q&f=false

[Genava]

And the opposition to nuclear just convinces opponents of climate change that it is all bunk, since "if CO2 were really as bad as people say, the Climate Change proponents would use every option, including nuclear, so the Climate Change proponents are not as serious about CO2 as they say". I have actually heard people say that. Opposition to nuclear I think sends the wrong message, making it seem the push to get rid of CO2 is social based, rather than science.

The problem is to oversimplify and to put everybody in the same box. Most of the Earth scientists (climate scientists include) are in favor of nuclear energy, or at least do not want to phase out totally from nuclear energy.

[JP226]

You are not good at math. 0.0009% represents only 9 ppm. So... nobody said that.

As if the actual proposal is any less ridiculous. Hold on... coral rocks are still not underwater.

[Common Soldier]

The problem is to oversimplify and to put everybody in the same box. Most of the Earth scientists (climate scientists include) are in favor of nuclear energy, or at least do not want to phase out totally from nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, all the opponents are going to remember those Climate Change proponents that oppose nuclear power. I agree that responsible scientist don't do that, but unfortunately, the responsible Climate Change proponents are going to be tarred by the same brush just be association. I have some Climate Change skeptic friends, and you constantly have to combat just plain wrong things they think.

1. That is only a minority of scientist who think CO2 is causing global warming, which is just wrong. The overwhelming majority of scientist of all types support Climate Change, including all the experts in the field.

2. That the only reason that the thermometers indicate warming is because these measurment stations have become swallowed up in urban expansion, being influenced by the urban heat bubble effect, which is also wrong. Scientist have done very clever analysis by correlating measurement stations with urban lights to factor out this effect, and even taking that into account, the warming is still real.

3. That CO2 rise is due to natural forces. Again, wrong, because of the Carbon isotope ratio measurements have shown it to be from human sources.

When most of the Democratic candidates rule out nuclear power as one of the options to combat warming, they just hurt the Climate Change cause. I don't think the Climate Change proponents will be able to change a lot of skeptics minds, but they might be able to convince them to go along with the actions needed to combat climate change. I would rather have a windmills or a solar farm in my backyard than a coal fired power plant, or even a gas turbine one, and renewable is more than cost competitive.

For example, electric cars, if we can get the cost of batteries down, have a lot of positive benefits to them. Electric cars have great acceleration off the line, giving excellent and fun performance without the cost and fuel penalty you have to accept in ordinary gas cars. And with sufficient range, I think many people will find it as convenient to charge their cars at home than going to the gas station. Electric cars are advantages for car makers, since they can save time and effort not having to have to tune their cars to pass emissions test to certify them. I wouldn't mind getting an electric lawn mower that I could use to mow my lawn early in the morning without disturbing my neighbors.

And if you ever have had to flown on a propeller commuter flight, man they can be brutal. I would rather fly on an electric one if they could get the range needed and make them quiet enough. I think electric planes have the potential to be a lot quieter than roaring jets, and at a sacrifice of speed, maybe reducing airport noise would make it worthwhile.

[Common Soldier]

Before I head down the path to Jonestown, I want absolute proof of what the AGW proponents claim is evidence and I want it without manipulated data and computer models that can predict the local weather for at least a solid month with confidence.

I forgot to make a key point. Even though I think the AGW could be wrong, if they are right, we could have a problem on our hands. If they haven't proved Global Warming conclusively, they at the very least have made a very strong case for it. Prudence says we should proceed on the assumption it is real. And maybe not insist that companies have to adopt renewable energy sources, helping to develop better storage systems to help address some of the limitations of these renewable sources. And more nuclear can be an advantage too. Sooner or later, any coal, oil, or gas mine will have to be shutdown anyways, no mine last forever. At the rate we use fossil fuels, we will run out, maybe not today, but in 50, 100, 200 years from now.

American is more than 200 years old, I would like to see it still be around 200 years from now. Our current fossil fuel usage is cannot be sustained in the long run, and someday we will have to switch, why not start now?

And while excessive mania to go Green may create some problems, it is hardly as suicidal as you think. OK, paying twice as much for electricity as Germany does would be a pain, but not the end of the world. And with current electric car technology, I could live with their range if I was forced to without living standards to going back to the stone age. I don't see the Germans running around in rags.

Working on better electric car batteries could lead to my smart phone lasting 2 weeks on a single charge, or being able to use my lap top as long as I want, and not worrying about finding a place to plug it in during some critical meeting. I would prefer an electric lawn mower that I could use early in the morning without worrying about disturbing my neighbors.

I bet you have insurance, right? Think of the actions for Climate Change as a kind of insurance. Yes, my car and house insurance is a lot higher than I would like, and I hope to never use them, but I wouldn't dream of not having any.

[Common Soldier]

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?

By the way you are missing the effect of lower surface on Mars, which means there is even more CO2/m2.

Actually, didn't I take that into account, by adjusting (dividing by 0.4) for the lower Martian gravity. Yes, Mars has a smaller surface, but psi is a per surface area (square inch) unit, so it factors out the lower Martian surface. Yes, there is less total mass of kg of CO2, but there is less surface to heat, it cancels out. Black body temperature doesn't depend on the size of the object.

Edit: I took simply an extreme example to show it is much more complicated you thought, on Titan nitrogen is a greenhouse gas while it is not the case on Earth.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...fects_on_Titan [/quote]

That study talks about a N2-CH4 and N2-H2 absorption, not a N2 by itself absorption, and Titans atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's. Are you proposing a CO2-N2 absorption method on Earth? No one I have seen has ever proposed that.

CH4 is a known greenhouse gas, and I don't see the article saying that N2-CH4 is providing a major component of the greenhouse effect on Titan, just that it provides some.

Even if N2-CO2 does provided some greenhouse effect, it will be limited by the amount of small amount of CO2, and I don't see it suddenly making CO2 an order of magnitude greater CO2 gas on Earth than Mars.

https://books.google.ch/books?id=aqh...page&q&f=false

Don't see where it shows that CO2 on Earth should be a more effective greenhouse gas than on Mars. Can you explain where it does say that?

[Genava]

Actually, didn't I take that into account, by adjusting (dividing by 0.4) for the lower Martian gravity.

Martian surface is 3.52 times smaller than Terrestrial surface. Mass depends on the volume and on the density.

Yes, Mars has a smaller surface, but psi is a per surface area (square inch) unit, so it factors out the lower Martian surface.

Maybe. Atmospheric pressure depends on the gravity too it's why I thought it was not include but you have taken in account the gravity. I only found your value lower than what I read, Pierrehumbert talk about 70 times more CO2 by surface.

Don't see where it shows that CO2 on Earth should be a more effective greenhouse gas than on Mars. Can you explain where it does say that?

Please no more bad faith. I never said the book said that (it actually says it but the entire book is not available on google). I put this link for a direct page where it talks about Titan.

hat study talks about a N2-CH4 and N2-H2 absorption, not a N2 by itself absorption, and Titans atmosphere is much thicker than Earth's. Are you proposing a CO2-N2 absorption method on Earth? No one I have seen has ever proposed that.

Ok let's be more direct and with less space for avoiding argument game:

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

We have computed instantaneous RF (radiative forcing) for five different standard atmospheres in order to assess the uncertainty in RF due to spectroscopic parameters. The combined uncertainty in RF due to uncertainty in line shape (including line mixing), line strength, and air‐broadened half widths is < 1% of the RF. Thus, we now have strong confidence that total spectroscopic uncertainty is a small fraction of the estimated CO2 RF uncertainty in a cloud‐free atmosphere (i.e., much less than the estimated 2–3% out of 10% [Myhre et al., 2013]) and even a smaller fraction when cloudiness is considered. We conclude that in contrast to Happer [2014], the computation of RF is sound and that uncertainty in spectral line parameters, including the line shape function, is not a significant source of uncertainty in the evaluation of RF by CO2.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2016GL068837

We now look in more detail at the role of carbon dioxide in determining atmospheric radiative fluxes and at how this may change as its concentration continues to rise. Figure 5(a) presents TOA spectra with current atmospheric conditions but using five different CO2 concentrations: 0, 1.5, 389, 2 × 389 and 32 × 389 ppmv. The light blue curve represents zero CO2 and the green curve shows that adding as little as ~1.5ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant impact with strong absorption in the centre of the band. The black curve shows the calculated spectrum for the cur-rent concentration of CO2 (389ppmv), with a deepening and widening of the absorption region. The differences between each spectrum and that for the current level are illustrated in Figure 5(b). The purple line shows the band widening further on a doubling of CO2, but in the very centre of the band the flux now increases slightly. This is because the greater optical depth at band centre means that the level of the atmosphere from which most radiation reaches space has moved further up into the stratosphere, where temperatures increase with altitude (note, though, that in the stratosphere enhanced CO2 concentrations result in lower temperatures which counteract the increased emission at band centre). For very high CO2 concentration, the red curve shows an enhancement of these effects: the band centre produces greater emission but the band wings are absorbing more.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.co....1002/wea.2072

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