Climate Change Denial

[ohmman]

Moderator Note: Threads merged.

 

[Gardyloo]

Proof that CO2 has minimal impact runs as follows:-

The surface of the earth is at a temperature that emits "black body radiation". In heading out into space it hits CO2 molecules and can excite them (causing them to heat up). However this excitation only occurs at a very specific frequency around 14 um and rolls off very rapidly on either side - 1um variation is at the 10% level. So what is the effect of extra CO2?

Consider a cubic metre of air. It contains around 3 * 10^22 molecules (mostly Nitrogen, but also Oxygen et al.)
Now consider a column of that Air 1 molecule wide and 1 deep, but a metre high. It will contain the cube root of the whole metre of gas, ie 3 * 10^7 molecules, so 30 million molecules of Air in our column.
At 400ppm (current CO2) that means 12,000 CO2 molecules in our column
Our photon of radiation at 14um sets off and has to avoid 12000 possible collisions in the first metre - its got no chance.
What happens if we double to 800 ppm - its still got no chance.
What happens if we halve to 200ppm? At 6,000 molecules its still got no chance.
Global warming is happening, and has been happening for 10,000 years since the ice age, but CO2 is of minor relevance

A famous scientist once said, "The world is not only stranger than we suppose, it's stranger than we can suppose." This is doubly and tripley true if you don't know the science. What you suppose missed out on some crucial physics. I know your analysis seems so straightforward that is must be right, but as Mencken said, "For every problem there is always a solution that is neat, simple and wrong.

The following is an explanation of why CO2 absorption is not saturated and therefore additional CO2 in the atmosphere will cause additional warming... it's because it's the absorption of IR high in the atmosphere that counts, not that at ground level. Don't take my word of it, check out the following link: A Saturated Gassy Argument
It is by Spencer Weart, an astrophysicist and author of "The discovery of global warming," and the climate scientist, Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.

 

[nwdiver]

Proof that CO2 has minimal impact runs as follows:-

The surface of the earth is at a temperature that emits "black body radiation". In heading out into space it hits CO2 molecules and can excite them (causing them to heat up). However this excitation only occurs at a very specific frequency around 14 um and rolls off very rapidly on either side - 1um variation is at the 10% level. So what is the effect of extra CO2?

Consider a cubic metre of air. It contains around 3 * 10^22 molecules (mostly Nitrogen, but also Oxygen et al.)
Now consider a column of that Air 1 molecule wide and 1 deep, but a metre high. It will contain the cube root of the whole metre of gas, ie 3 * 10^7 molecules, so 30 million molecules of Air in our column.
At 400ppm (current CO2) that means 12,000 CO2 molecules in our column
Our photon of radiation at 14um sets off and has to avoid 12000 possible collisions in the first metre - its got no chance.
What happens if we double to 800 ppm - its still got no chance.
What happens if we halve to 200ppm? At 6,000 molecules its still got no chance.
Global warming is happening, and has been happening for 10,000 years since the ice age, but CO2 is of minor relevance

.... so why is Venus 800F despite the surface receiving less energy than the surface of Earth due to perpetual cloud cover?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

.... so why is Venus 800F despite the surface receiving less energy than the surface of Earth due to perpetual cloud cover?

Venus has high temperatures because of its dense atmosphere PV=NRT

See https://www.researchgate.net/public...from_an_Empirical_Planetary_Temperature_Model

 

[nwdiver]

Venus has high temperatures because of its dense atmosphere PV=NRT

See https://www.researchgate.net/public...from_an_Empirical_Planetary_Temperature_Model

..... we've been over this.... PV=NRT only applies to a CHANGE in pressure. It's not a source of energy. That's why the SCUBA tank in my garage with 2x the pressure of Venus is ~50F not 800F. Venus is hot because its dense CO2 atmosphere is SUPER-efficient at trapping energy from the sun.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Check the actual profession of the 'scientists' on that list. Most of them are just abusing their scientific & professor titles. Only a handful 'scientists' of this group of "prominent global experts" have a background in Climat science.
I don't think that being a writer or geologist qualifies to be named a prominent global expert in climate science.

That is rich.

The climatologists hound and harass any heretics, that is exactly what they did to Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry.

Bill Gray, who was an amazing hurricane forecaster, had all his funding cut off after disagreeing with Al Gore. Al Gore said we were going to have more and bigger hurricanes, and Bill Gray correctly contradicted him and lost his funding.

If you speak up you get ostracized, fired, lose grants, have trouble getting published. The climategate emails show they conspired to eliminate an entire journal and keep people from getting published.

Politics ruins science.

 

[nwdiver]

ruins science.

How do microwaves heat food?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Your CO2 chart goes back to the history of the planet before humans could have or did exist. Starting that far back is irrelevant because who cares what the planet could or would be like if humans are not able to survive it. The only thing that matters to most of us humans is what's needed on planet Earth to sustain human life in relatively comfortable climate conditions.

Here's a chart that shows the period of human activity more appropriately: the last 800,000 year. Humans arguably didn't evolve into the species we are today until about 200,000 year ago, so the other 600,000 years on the chart is for the time our human ancestors were around. Notice the range of CO2 stays between about 160 - 300ppm. We NEED some CO2 in the atmosphere for the warmth needed to support human life, but the overwhelming body of scientific literature says human activity will be negatively impacted when levels of CO2 in our atmosphere reach above 350 ppm, and we are at about 415 today and rising every year. We have already seen the impacts of climate change that are unfolding almost exactly as predicted, except that they are unfolding faster than scientists have anticipated, which is why the time to act is NOW. Science is where the concept of climate change begins. Peer-reviewed, overwhelming science. Not at all sure where you're getting your information, but it is not consistent with the overwhelming majority (>99%) of scientists.

Here is a chart of the last 2000 years, again showing no correlation with CO2 and temperature.

Climate principles should stay the same, no matter the time period...

But, when you start and end a chart can be deceitful - ever notice that the Arctic ice charts start around 1980?

 

[nwdiver]

Here is a chart of the last 2000 years, again showing no correlation with CO2 and temperature.

Climate principles should stay the same, no matter the time period...

But, when you start and end a chart can be deceitful - ever notice that the Arctic ice charts start around 1980?

..... don't.... don't you think it takes a change in CO2 for a change in CO2 to change the temperature???? Who ever said a change of < 4% would have a measurable influence on climate? That's fades into the background of other forcing agents. Scientists are concerned because CO2 has increased by >40%... hence the jump in temperature when CO2 increases.

When CO2 ACTUALLY changes... so does temperature. Pretty clear correlation.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

How do microwaves heat food?

We are talking climate, not microwave ovens

How does something cooler heat up something warmer?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

Uour

..... don't.... don't you think it takes a change in CO2 for a change in CO2 to change the temperature???? Who ever said a change of < 4% would have a measurable influence on climate? That's fades into the background of other forcing agents. Scientists are concerned because CO2 has increased by >40%... hence the jump in temperature when CO2 increases.

When CO2 ACTUALLY changes... so does temperature. Pretty clear correlation.

View attachment 631419

Yes, there certainly appears to be a correlation

if you look at the graph posted, the red temperature line consistently rises BEFORE the blue CO2 line.

Thus, since the temperature rises consistently rise BEFORE the CO2 rises, CO2 CANNOT be causing the temperature rise.

Thank you for posting data that proves my point.

 

[nwdiver]

How does something cooler heat up something warmer?

.... in a very similar way microwaves that are -256C can boil water...

so.... if microwaves correlate to -256C how do they heat water to 100C?

 

[SummerlinChiro]

The whole idea that fossil fuels are a finite resource does not match economic fact.

If you can grok Julian Simon’s work, then you will never get taken in by the peak oil crowd.

The Simon Project - HumanProgress

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, there certainly appears to be a correlation

if you look at the graph posted, the red temperature line consistently rises BEFORE the blue CO2 line.

Thus, since the temperature rises consistently rises BEFORE the CO2 rises, CO2 CANNOT be causing the temperature rise.

Thank you for posting data that proves my point.

......

Easy. CO2 acted as a long-term feed back. The source of CO2 was the oceans. There was an initial slight warming caused by a change in Earths orbit. This resulted in the oceans warming slightly. Warm water cannot hold as much gas as cold water so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased. This increase drove more warming until a new equilibrium was reached.

Far from 'disproving' climate change this comes as close to verifying it as scientifically possible. Without the forcing effect of CO2 there is no other plausible explanation for the Ice ages. The tiny variations in Earths orbit are much too small to explain the ~10C swings in temperature that are observed from glacial to inter-glacial periods.

So of course the warming started first... something had to force some CO2 out of solution in the oceans. Orbital shifts triggered the warming but CO2 drove the majority of warming. Even then the real forcing agent is water vapor but the amount of water vapor is directly and exponentially proportional to the amount of CO2.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

.... in a very similar way microwaves that are -256C can boil water...

Let’s keep it to climate.

 

[nwdiver]

Let’s keep it to climate.

I am. Climate change is 100% about radiation. How do microwaves heat water? You literally cannot understand climate change if you don't understand how radiation works. It's ALL about radiative forcing. That IS climate change.

Why do some things get hot in a microwave but others don't?

 

[Brando]

Last 800,000 years the earth has gone into and out of many ice ages. We really don't know why - some interesting theories.
CO2 seems a symptom that lags temperature gains. UNTIL current times. Seems CO2 levels have NEVER in the last 800,000 been this high.So we probably don't know what might happen.

Sea levels gone up and sown ~ 200 meters a couple of times the last 800,000 years.

adding more CO2 can't help and might hurt. Pollution and destruction of our natural systems (plants/animals/fish etc...) is for sure wrong, right? reefs/forests/grasslands/birds/bees/seafoods So many things to heal.

good luck, please do the best you can, enjoy what natural wonders you can

 

[mspohr]

Seems CO2 levels have NEVER in the last 800,000 been this high.So we probably don't know what might happen.

Anybody can see that temperature and oceans are rising.

 

[gavine]

This thread is starting to look like a flat Earth argument. One side is scientific fact and should be the consensus while the other side just can't part from their belief/opinion and keeps pushing their false narrative. It's kinda fun to watch actually. I'm entertained by it. Carry on.

 

[SummerlinChiro]

This thread is starting to look like a flat Earth argument. One side is scientific fact and should be the consensus while the other side just can't part from their belief/opinion and keeps pushing their false narrative. It's kinda fun to watch actually. I'm entertained by it. Carry on.

Exactly!

How the consensus got hijacked by the flat earthers will be studied in the future as a great example of bad science hijacking the common consciousness...

It is right up there with Phrenology, Lysenkoism, and Eugenics.