CO2/warming correlation - how to respond?

[nwdiver]

Those are a blip, about 3~4 years and back to baseline.
Besides, the ash and H2SO4 eventually fall down. Human generated CO2 remains in air until a tree grows, or dissolves in another fluid, water (which becomes acidified).

Is that the answer to challenge you wanted?

Look at the numbers. The point is that average global temperature is maintained mostly by radiative forcing. A volcanic winter does not decrease radiative forcing ~1000x as much as CO2 increases it as you're implying. Maybe ~10x. So our pathetic addiction to fools fuel is more than capable of noticeably influencing average global temperature over the span of only a few decades because numbers.

If ~80M tons of SO2 can drop average global temperatures ~1F in only a few months clearly it's not going to take thousands of years for ~2 TRILLION tons of CO2 to increase temperatures....

 

[MontyFloyd]

Look at the numbers. The point is that average global temperature is maintained mostly by radiative forcing. A volcanic winter does not decrease radiative forcing ~1000x as much as CO2 increases it as you're implying. Maybe ~10x. So our pathetic addiction to fools fuel is more than capable of noticeably influencing average global temperature over the span of only a few decades because numbers.

If ~80M tons of SO2 can drop average global temperatures ~1F in only a few months clearly it's not going to take thousands of years for ~2 TRILLION tons of CO2 to increase temperatures....

Ahhh, I see your point!
If a momentary burp of the earth can cause this, then long term slow combustion can certainly cause that.


Had to look up radiative forcing, not hear that before (I often link sources).

I learn, you learn, we all learn.

 

[DaveE]

[[Which is roughly in line with the increase in Ocean heat content.... which is where ~93% of the thermal imbalance is going.]]

A basic understanding of physics means that you know that gasses don't heat up liquids (barely at all)...

If the oceans are heating, it's because more light is getting to the surface (or geothermal events are warming them from below). You don't heat water with air (well).

Basic math: Q=m⋅c⋅ΔT.... or the difference in mass between ocean and atmosphere sets the rate of heating. A gallon of saltwater is 8.34 lbs. A gallon of air is 0.01 lbs. Which means the liquid can heat the air, but not the other way around (at least not significantly).

if the Ocean is increasing in heat -- it's proof that the atmosphere is not capturing more CO2, but that the water is capturing increased light. And that disproves AGW CO2 theory, not proves it. The whole point of AGW was the idea that the upper atmosphere was capturing infrared light... not that the oceans are.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

[[Which is roughly in line with the increase in Ocean heat content.... which is where ~93% of the thermal imbalance is going.]]

A basic understanding of physics means that you know that gasses don't heat up liquids (barely at all)...

If the oceans are heating, it's because more light is getting to the surface (or geothermal events are warming them from below). You don't heat water with air (well).

Basic math: Q=m⋅c⋅ΔT.... or the difference in mass between ocean and atmosphere sets the rate of heating. A gallon of saltwater is 8.34 lbs. A gallon of air is 0.01 lbs. Which means the liquid can heat the air, but not the other way around (at least not significantly).

if the Ocean is increasing in heat -- it's proof that the atmosphere is not capturing more CO2, but that the water is capturing increased light. And that disproves AGW CO2 theory, not proves it. The whole point of AGW was the idea that the upper atmosphere was capturing infrared light... not that the oceans are.

The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy and then re-emit it in all directions, meaning that some extra energy is in the atmosphere, and some extra energy is transmitted back to the surface, which is most oceans.

It's just about radiation absorption.

 

[DaveE]

The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy and then re-emit it in all directions, meaning that some extra energy is in the atmosphere, and some extra energy is transmitted back to the surface, which is most oceans.

It's just about radiation absorption.

I don't think you seem to understand the basic physics. Gasses heat liquids and solids extremely poorly because of differences in density.

And you're wrong, "The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy"... it also captures inbound energy (light) as well as outbound (even more so).

If the oceans are warming first and more than the air, then it's not the air (CO2) that's doing it. That's just physics 101.

That doesn't mean the ocean isn't warming... it just means if it is, it isn't the CO2 that's causing it. (The same with land surface temps).

AGW said that the upper atmosphere would capture more light as heat, and it and the poles would heat up more than the equator and lower atmosphere. What we've seen is that land/sea has been heating up (especially around urban heat islands), which kind of flies in the face of the actual theory.

And actually it is about radiation absorption: that's what the greenhouse effect is.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't think you seem to understand the basic physics. Gasses heat liquids and solids extremely poorly because of differences in density.

And you're wrong, "The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy"... it also captures inbound energy (light) as well as outbound (even more so).

If the oceans are warming first and more than the air, then it's not the air (CO2) that's doing it. That's just physics 101.

That doesn't mean the ocean isn't warming... it just means if it is, it isn't the CO2 that's causing it. (The same with land surface temps).

AGW said that the upper atmosphere would capture more light as heat, and it and the poles would heat up more than the equator and lower atmosphere. What we've seen is that land/sea has been heating up (especially around urban heat islands), which kind of flies in the face of the actual theory.

And actually it is about radiation absorption: that's what the greenhouse effect is.

Our pathetic addiction to fools fuel has altered the radiative balance of the atmosphere. That energy has to go somewhere.

Measuring Earths energy imbalance.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

First of all can I make it clear - I'm completely convinced human activity, primarily through fossil fuel CO2 emissions over the last 200 years is causing global warming and that we have to at least try to do something to stem the trend. It's why we've got a Tesla, why my kids are going vegetarian and being much more careful about their consumer choices, as are myself and my wife - if to a lesser degree.

I also don't want to 'disrespect' the views of others - just to concentrate on the facts, which means science.

So here's the situation; a person I know is questioning the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. He isn't doesn't deny global warming is happening and doesn't deny CO2 is contributing to it but he's, lets say, wary, that there is too much of a mass stampede to try to fix things through the CO2 factor. He's also a chemical engineer, so he has a scientific background. For example, he has questioned the correlation between the rise in CO2 and the change in sea temperatures and suggests that a warming atmosphere has a smaller effect on ocean temperatures than is factored and alleges that scientists are not addressing this 'gap' in the data.

I am guessing that this point of view is not exclusive to him. So I am hoping that someone here can point me to some useful data to respond to his points.

For what it's worth, my point of view is that we can't just sit around pondering - if there is even a chance that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and it can be mitigated, we need to try and not tomorrow but now. The benefits apart from the climate change issue include a cleaner and more pleasant (healthier air) environment and the switch to clean renewable energy creates a lot of new jobs everywhere.

‘Astounding’ ocean temperatures in 2023 intensified extreme weather, data shows

Record levels of heat were absorbed last year by Earth’s seas, which have been warming year-on-year for the past decade

www.theguardian.com

Sorry but I disagree with your friend. Reported an article saying that Oceans absorb 90% of the Energy Imbalance caused by the GHE. So AGW is responsible for the increase of Temperature of the Oceans.
To this concern I wish to remind that the continuous warming of the Oceans causes stronger hurricanes.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

First of all can I make it clear - I'm completely convinced human activity, primarily through fossil fuel CO2 emissions over the last 200 years is causing global warming and that we have to at least try to do something to stem the trend. It's why we've got a Tesla, why my kids are going vegetarian and being much more careful about their consumer choices, as are myself and my wife - if to a lesser degree.

I also don't want to 'disrespect' the views of others - just to concentrate on the facts, which means science.

So here's the situation; a person I know is questioning the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. He isn't doesn't deny global warming is happening and doesn't deny CO2 is contributing to it but he's, lets say, wary, that there is too much of a mass stampede to try to fix things through the CO2 factor. He's also a chemical engineer, so he has a scientific background. For example, he has questioned the correlation between the rise in CO2 and the change in sea temperatures and suggests that a warming atmosphere has a smaller effect on ocean temperatures than is factored and alleges that scientists are not addressing this 'gap' in the data.

I am guessing that this point of view is not exclusive to him. So I am hoping that someone here can point me to some useful data to respond to his points.

For what it's worth, my point of view is that we can't just sit around pondering - if there is even a chance that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming and it can be mitigated, we need to try and not tomorrow but now. The benefits apart from the climate change issue include a cleaner and more pleasant (healthier air) environment and the switch to clean renewable energy creates a lot of new jobs everywhere.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1746279536772419614

I also report this tweet that you can show to your friend.

Huge 2023 record ocean surface warming.

To this concern I wish to remind that 2023 was also hottest year on record. So I think that my previous post where I said that 90% of Energy Imbalance caused by the GHE is absorbed by the Oceans is right.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The point of AGW is that greenhouse gases capture outbound energy and then re-emit it in all directions, meaning that some extra energy is in the atmosphere, and some extra energy is transmitted back to the surface, which is most oceans.

It's just about radiation absorption.

To be more precise the infrared shortwaves trapped within the atmosphere by GHGs bounce back and forth between the Earth Surface and the atmosphere. 90% of the Energy Imbalance caused by the GHE is absorbed by the Oceans.

 

[DaveE]

You rubes don’t understand the basics of physics. Liquids can’t capture gas heat well.

If CO2 was this mirror effect you seem to think it is, it would be reflecting the direct light out and preventing it from coming in, better than holding it in.

And if you cared about the environment, you should be outraged at the idiot left that prevented more adoption of clean nuclear, hydro, and better forms of base power than unreliable solar and wind which need to be backed up by fossil fuels.

 

[nwdiver]

You rubes don’t understand the basics of physics. Liquids can’t capture gas heat well.

So why are coastal cities more temperate than non-coastal cities? Large bodies of water DON'T work well as a temperature buffer? It's just a coincidence that they're near the ocean?

 

[DaveE]

So why are coastal cities more temperate than non-coastal cities? Large bodies of water DON'T work well as a temperature buffer? It's just a coincidence that they're near the ocean?

You’re reading that backwards.

(And apologies/slight correction/clarification… they don’t capture energy well from a gas… I’d explained it in the first post, but shorthanded it in the post you quoted).

Water/solids by nature of more mass, can heat up a lot of air. (That’s how it works to moderate air temps).

But it takes a lot of air heating to warm solid or liquid just a little.

So in AGW theory, the atmosphere should heat a lot (due to CO2 catching the energy and blocking it from getting to the surface), and it result in very little land/sea temp increases. (Conduction works poorly from air to land/sea).

Thus seeing a lot of land/sea temp increases, and not nearly as much upper atmosphere, is saying CO2 is not the forcing factor you are observing (Solar output, Geothermal or others more likely).

 

[nwdiver]

You’re reading that backwards.

(And apologies/slight correction/clarification… they don’t capture energy well from a gas… I’d explained it in the first post, but shorthanded it in the post you quoted).

Water/solids by nature of more mass, can heat up a lot of air. (That’s how it works to moderate air temps).

But it takes a lot of air heating to warm solid or liquid just a little.

So in AGW theory, the atmosphere should heat a lot (due to CO2 catching the energy and blocking it from getting to the surface), and it result in very little land/sea temp increases. (Conduction works poorly from air to land/sea).

Thus seeing a lot of land/sea temp increases, and not nearly as much upper atmosphere, is saying CO2 is not the forcing factor you are observing (Solar output, Geothermal or others more likely).

Doesn't the ocean generally already absorb more energy than the air during the day because 'the sun'? And CO2 would just make the air warmer so something that already doesn't 'work well' (water - air heat transfer) would now 'work even less well'? So CO2 is going to reduce the rate at which the oceans can release heat. Which would make them _______ over time....

What else could be the cause of the warming of the oceans?

You're conflating adding heat with losing less heat. CO2 doesn't increase the heating of the oceans... it reduces the rate of heat loss. Which since the input of thermal energy from the sun hasn't decreased means the oceans get warmer because that's how numbers work.

... you don't have to make more money to have more money.... you can also spend less... 'numbers'

 

[SageBrush]

You're conflating adding heat with losing less heat. CO2 doesn't increase the heating of the oceans... it reduces the rate of heat loss. Which since the input of thermal energy from the sun hasn't decreased means the oceans get warmer because that's how numbers work.

He is conflating heat with temperature, conflating kinetic energy with radiation, and does not realize that water itself reflects radiation where it gets trapped by greenhouse gas molecules.

In short, he is FOS, just like every other pseudo-erudite AGW denialist

 

[DaveE]

Doesn't the ocean generally already absorb more energy than the air during the day because 'the sun'?

That's called solar forcing (not Greenhouse effect).

And yes, if the surface temps are going up, that's an indication of solar forcing and variations in solar output or Milankovitch cycles -- but not of CO2 forcing.

And CO2 would just make the air warmer so something that already doesn't 'work well' (water - air heat transfer) would now 'work even less well'? So CO2 is going to reduce the rate at which the oceans can release heat. Which would make them _______ over time....

Again, you have that backwards.

Transfer from gas -> liquid is low because you're going from less mass to more mass. (It takes a lot of gas to heat a little water). But it doesn't mean that liquid/solid to gas is poor. Quite the opposite. You're going from more mass to less, so it has far more effect.

CO2 does not reduce the rate at which oceans release heat directly.

In an indirect way -- if CO2 theoretically heated up the air a lot, it could reduce the differential between ocean and air and reduce the radiative cooling of the ocean->air -- but that means that Ocean temps would be going up far slower than upper atmosphere temps. And thus you wouldn't see people showing how surface temps are higher (they'd only be a little higher) they'd be showing the MUCH much larger upper atmosphere temp rises that are driving it.

But they aren't showing upper atmosphere or air temps, because they are not going up as much as Ocean/Land temps have. Which shows things like urban heat island effect, or solar forcing or something other than CO2. But most climate advocates don't understand enough basic physics to understand what they're saying is hurting their cause to anyone with a clue.

What else could be the cause of the warming of the oceans?

• Solar output
• variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
• Volcanism
• Meteorological events
• Plate Tectonics
• Ocean Variability
• Flora and Fauna

All but the last one, more impactful than the greenhouse effect. And CO2 is the weakest of the greenhouse gasses.

That's the point. When you hear hooves think horses not Zebras. (Unless you're on the Serengeti).

You're conflating adding heat with losing less heat. CO2 doesn't increase the heating of the oceans... it reduces the rate of heat loss. Which since the input of thermal energy from the sun hasn't decreased means the oceans get warmer because that's how numbers work.

I'm not. I'm understanding the basics.

The upper atmosphere is not in contact with the ocean. It's not the insulator -- the lower atmosphere is. The only thing the upper atmosphere (where the CO2 is) can do is heat the lower atmosphere, which could have a minor impact on the effect you're talking about. But that still means we would observe massive heating in the upper and lower atmosphere before we would perceive any changes in ocean or surface temps. And we haven't seen them, or you can damn well be sure they would be reporting on it, and screaming about the doom and gloom of it.

The point is that a suns output increases and decreases, as does our distance, tilt and wobble. These are all massive inputs on climate/weather. (CO2 is very minor).

You're seeing ocean/land warming leading upper and lower atmosphere. That shows warming -- but not CO2 as the driver of it. (In fact, it shows the opposite). Many climate folks have said that models are broken because they underweight solar forcing -- and this more likely shows they are correct, or we'd be seeing the opposite warming. (The poles going up more thna urban centers, and the upper atmosphere more than the ocean/land). But most online parents home dwelling Greta wannabe's don't know the basics of the science they've bought into completely.

 

[DaveE]

He is conflating heat with temperature, conflating kinetic energy with radiation, and does not realize that water itself reflects radiation where it gets trapped by greenhouse gas molecules.

In short, he is FOS, just like every other pseudo-erudite AGW denialist

Hey tumbleweed.... I'm not. And if water was reflecting the radiation you're talking about -- that means surface temperatures wouldn't be rising as much as the atmospheric temps (because it would be reflected off). That still means that surface temps shouldn't be rising more than atmospheric temps.

And it's not being a denialist to know what I'm talking about. You should try it. I believe the earth is warming -- it started 150 years before we put out our first gigaton of CO2, and it's been rising pretty steadily all that time. Do I think CO2 contributes? Sure... but I aslo think why ever revision of the IPCC on CO2 forcing factors has been down, revision after revision -- and why our temps are still off the bottom of most models, and why every one of their predictions of doom and gloom has been wrong, is they overweighted CO2's forcing levels, and underweighted others. That's not denying CO2 or warming -- just the severity of impact.

But I notice when the dim of wit can't refute the science/facts offered, they often attack the source, or change the subject. But if you know so much -- explain how CO2 can warm the ocean more than it warms the upper atmosphere (where it mostly is). Telekinetic powers? Please explain.

 

[nwdiver]

That's called solar forcing (not Greenhouse effect).

... how does the ocean lose the heat it just received from the sun to maintain the same temperature? If Energy in doesn't equal energy out the oceans warm. 1 m^2 of ocean will get a few kWh/day of thermal energy from the sun. It also must lose the same amount or the temperature rises. How is that energy 'lost'? If it receives 3kWh and only loses 2.99kWh what happens to the temperature of the ocean? Would not more CO2 result in the oceans losing less energy?

 

[DaveE]

... how does the ocean lose the heat it just received from the sun to maintain the same temperature? If Energy in doesn't equal energy out the oceans warm. 1 m^2 of ocean will get a few kWh/day of thermal energy from the sun. It also must lose the same amount or the temperature rises. How is that energy 'lost'? If it receives 3kWh and only loses 2.99kWh what happens to the temperature of the ocean? Would not more CO2 result in the oceans losing less energy?

You are not reading well...

(1) The more energy captured by CO2 up high, the less gets down to the ocean. So the ocean should always be heating less than the upper atmosphere (relatively) -- assuming the same radiation and the only thing that changed was CO2
(2) Yes, I know that a little less than 1/2 the capture is on the way out (energy is always stronger in than out). But the point is there's no way that CO2 is capturing more energy AND the ocean is getting more of that energy into it at the same time.
(3) Yes, there could be a slight insulating effect if the air temp went way up. But relative density means gas temp has to go up a lot to effect the liquid temp a little. (That counts for both conduction and insulation). So the only way what you're saying works -- that the ocean is heating up -- is if that's beacuse the air temp has gone up by much, much more. It hasn't. So the argument you're making is moot.

Please, take a physics class.

 

[nwdiver]

You are not reading well...

(1) The more energy captured by CO2 up high, the less gets down to the ocean. So the ocean should always be heating less than the upper atmosphere (relatively) -- assuming the same radiation and the only thing that changed was CO2
(2) Yes, I know that a little less than 1/2 the capture is on the way out (energy is always stronger in than out). But the point is there's no way that CO2 is capturing more energy AND the ocean is getting more of that energy into it at the same time.
(3) Yes, there could be a slight insulating effect if the air temp went way up. But relative density means gas temp has to go up a lot to effect the liquid temp a little. (That counts for both conduction and insulation). So the only way what you're saying works -- that the ocean is heating up -- is if that's beacuse the air temp has gone up by much, much more. It hasn't. So the argument you're making is moot.

Please, take a physics class.

You're still confusing energy in with energy out.

(1) ok.... how does the ocean lose the heat it just received from the sun?
(2) ok.... how is that energy 'lost'?
(3) ok.... so warmer air means the oceans lose less heat? The oceans aren't being warmed by the air. They're getting energy from the sun and losing it to the air.

 

[DaveE]

If the air is warmer would the rate of energy loss of the oceans increase or decrease?

That's what I'm saying... for the ocean temp to increase, CO2 AGW theory says that you'd need to see a HUGE rise in air temp (especially up high and at the poles).

They keep showing the oceans increasing, but not showing that the air temps (especially upper air temps) increased as much for a reason. (Lower air temps are more influenced by weather and the ocean temps than climate).

My points aren't that it isn't warming. It's just that the warming we're getting is wrong to match what CO2 AGW theory said would happen.