Here’s the problem with this misleading analogy. Let’s assume the numbers are correct and instead say the ratio is reduced to one molecule per 33 hundred molecules which is mathematically correct. Thirty three hundred molecules of any physical substance is so small it would be impossible to see without an electron microscope. How is that relevant? If the 3 molecules in ten thousand are carbon dioxide and the ten thousand represent the earth’s atmosphere no comparison is valid until you scale up both numbers to accurately reflect the gigantic amounts of each in our atmosphere. On this “real world” scale adding one molecule of carbon dioxide per ten thousand molecules of earth’s atmosphere ads billions of tons of carbon to a world that is already becoming poisoned by it.
The originators of this intentionally misleading analogy knew this when they came up with this hair brained idea but there’s money to be made from the petroleum industry who will pay well for academic sophistry.
[quote=“michaelmckinney1951, post:665, topic:7916”]
Here’s the problem with this misleading analogy.
Example ; Ozone and the terrible results of Ozone depletion.
Some of the molecules that destroy ozone occur naturally, but people have created others. The total mass of ozone in the atmosphere is about 3 billion metric tons. That may seem like a lot, but it is only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere.
The peak concentration of ozone occurs at an altitude of roughly 32 kilometers (20 miles) above the surface of the Earth. At that altitude, ozone concentration can be as high as 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent). Oct 18, 2018
At the enormous volumes any percent other than “trace” elements, translates into enormous quantities and effects. In the case of Ozone it gives protection from UV rays. Remove some of the Ozone and living things begin to die from UV exposure.
During the time of the Ozone hole, my boss, mountain climbing in Alaska, contracted skin cancer in the short time he was there. Scary stuff, that.
Have you looked at what our ancestors looked like 3 million years ago? Homo sapien sapiens did not yet exist. You can’t plan for the continuation of us as we are. No one can. Our indigenous friends try to get us to think 7 generations ahead. Let’s work on that.
On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Gradual changes in Earth’s climate of this kind have been frequent during the Earth’s 4500 million year existence and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways.
I’d like to hear an explanation for that chart, but every other chart I’ve looked up that claims to show warming isn’t happening, has always turned out to be missing something or misinterpreted. So, yawn.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:668, topic:7916”]
This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere
Of course today the Northern Ice sheets are melting and getting smaller. What shall we make of that?
I notice there’s no citation offered to do a little more digging. Please share sources.
Also what does any of that have to do with what humanity has done these past couple decades and especially this past half century?
Logic, unfortunately this is the beginning of one of the most radical climate resets Earth has experienced?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/paleoclimate-timeline/
It’s ridiculous pointing to ancient events, when we understand the problem is here and now. Increasing Earth’s atmospheric insulation, here and now that’s what’s going to totally upend Earth’s biorhythms of the past ten thousand years - also we should be concerned about how that’s going to impact us humans with our life spans measured in decades.
Time History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, by CIRES & NOAA
From Wikipedia: “Timeline of glaciation” and also “Ice Age”
CC BY-SA 3.0, File:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons
Climate history over the past 500 million years, with the last three major ice ages indicated, Andean-Saharan (450 Ma), Karoo (300 Ma) and Late Cenozoic. A less severe cold period or ice age is shown during the Jurassic-Cretaceous (150 Ma).
To me, the graph above shows that we had warming from a low about 430 mya to a high about 60 or 70 mya and we have had cooling since then. Of course those who tout global warming will show us charts covering much shorter timelines and they do show recent warming. I think it best to consider short term charts in the context of the longer term trends.
No that five million year graph you had at Climate Change - #668 by ibelieveinlogic
The graph is shown at Ice age - Wikipedia and in some other articles on topics relating to global temperatures. I believe the text below the graph is from one of the other articles showing the same graph. I looked, but did not find it in a quick search. There are several graphs in those articles. At the time I posted it I thought I had it attributed - but obviously not. My bad.
Okay, thanks. I was curious about the details, I looked through it and it was a good refresher.
Still all that being what it is, that period represents a very different global dynamic - sort of semi steady natural back ground. The past two centuries and all the greenhouse gases we put into our atmosphere and ocean is a radical upending of all that came before. Bigger than any volcanos and such. We can’t escape that bottom line reality.
Putting down some of my Climate Change thinking. Pick what you want to debate.
What we are taking about is Co2. How does Co2 hold heat? My understanding is that does that by holding extra photons. What it does is radiates at certain wavelengths by getting rid of extra photons. Thus, keeping energy moving in all directions. This sending of photons in all directions ends up in keeping some heat from escaping into space. Sort of like the effects of a tesla valve. But that works both ways. As the sunlight energy is entering the atmosphere its infrared wavelengths hit the infrared wavelengths of the carbon and warms the upper atmosphere by sending the wavelengths in all directions. This is how a blanket effect is formed.
The heating effect of Co2 has never worked mathematically in climate change. Today we have scientists’ viewpoints that scopes from carbon dioxide not being affected by sunlight. To carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation.
Co2 will affect the infrared (heat) energy whether being absorbed or just stripping away from sunlight spectrum. It has to do with the infrared radiation photons. All objects in the universe emit some level of IR radiation, even humans. The sun is the main source.
The easiest way for me to explain it is sunlight and vegetation. The sunlight will hit vegetation, which is red in color. The leaf’s vibration wavelength is the same wavelength of the red wavelength of sunlight. The red wavelength will be absorbed. That absorbing will heat the leaves. All the other wavelengths will reflect off the leaf. The minus of the red wavelength will make the leaf look green to us. Plants reflect infrared light very strongly. The plants consume the photons. Co2 strips the photons and can only hold six photons. The extra photons are re-emitted as heat.
We have the infrared radiation radiating in all directions from the Co2 forming a blanket of infrared radiation that the sunlight would have to travel through to get to earth. The thinking here is that this blanket of infrared radiation would strip all the wavelengths matching the Co2 radiation from the sunlight. Thus, pulling the photons creating a lot of heat.
The temperature of the sun is 10 M degrees F. Space is minus 455 F. Temperatures of outer space around the earth is 50.3 degrees. Interstellar space is not much above absolute zero. Some parts of space are hot! Gas between stars, as well as the solar wind, both seem to be what we call “empty space,” yet they can be more than a thousand degrees, even millions of degrees. Satellites sent to Mars traveled through gasses reaching 5 million degrees. The second law of thermodynamics suggest that the sunlight would keep heating the gasses which have no method of transferring the heat other than infrared radiation. Until the gas is near the temperature of the sunlight minus the infrared radiation.
What we were told is that the upper atmosphere was getting hotter all the time because of the Co2 and other greenhouse gasses. Logically that seemed reasonable.
The history is for years we had stories about the missing Climate Change heat being in the oceans, then when that did not work out as planned the missing heat was in the upper atmosphere which was increasing Co2 at 5% per decade.
The upper air data was built upon; weather balloons, microwave sounders, infrared sounders and gps radio occultation. Then we got the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). Which we will be able to gather data for a complete 11-year sun cycle.
The new data showed the upper atmosphere is cooling. Trends in the polar summer mesosphere temperature and pressure altitude from satellite observations - ScienceDirect
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics - September 2021
(While increases in greenhouse gases are considered the main reason for the increase in surface temperature, in the upper atmosphere increases in these gases cause cooling. This is because the upper atmosphere is optically thin to outgoing longwave energy and will therefore radiate more energy, leading to more efficient cooling.)
I don’t see it that way. What I am seeing is that the infrared radiation photons are the reason for increase in surface temperatures. And they come from the sun. In the Co2 pathway the radiation blanket causes the heat to stay near the surface. This is the reason for increased surface temperature.
I should just say that their explanation is against the second law of thermodynamics. So, we really need to look deeper into what they are trying to say.
Hot air rises. Cold air sinks. The hot air in the upper atmosphere is cooling because of more Co2 is the new explanation. That radiation of more energy will lead to more efficient cooling. If you are not confused, you should be.
Now there are two questions at hand.
- The cooling is said to be in response to human-made greenhouse gas emissions. How would that work? The sunlight hits the gas emissions and gets the wavelengths pulled from the sunlight that match the Co2. When those wavelengths are stripped from the sunlight. Then there is only a small amount of wavelengths of the right frequency in the sunlight when it meets other Co2 molecules. Thus, the sun’s heat from that frequency is mostly radiated back into space.
- The sunlight hits the earth less the Co2 frequency. Once the radiant heat leaves the earth the Co2 frequency is replaced back into the radiant heat. Thus, it is warming the air as it leaves the ground heading upward. In other words, it picks up its missing protons that it left in the upper atmosphere. Then forms a second blanket in the lower atmosphere that keeps the heat from rising as fast.
Kind of works like sunlight and colors.
One theory that has been out for decades. Once the Co2 has stripped sunlight of wavelengths (protons). It does not matter how much more Co2 is in the air because there are no wavelengths (protons) left to heat the Co2.
Remember the first climate models operated in the late 60’s and they were simple. By mid-70’s it was still nothing more than rain and Co2. By the mid-80’s. Land surface and ice was added. By the first IPCC report the oceans and swamps were added. The second IPCC report added ocean depth, sulphates, and volcanic activity. By the third IPCC report rivers, overturning ocean circulation, and aerosols were added. By the fourth report. Vegetation, and atmosphere chemistry was added. All this time predictions were hotter than reality. We just got the sixth IPCC report and again the predictions are still getting further away than where the earth is at or going. 55 years and all predictions keep projecting hotter weather than happen. Why?
At the method we are going about the science we still have fifty to sixty years to go before the climate models will be up and working.
How many scientists in the world are working on climate change? The IPCC has about 230 contributing authors.
A 2019 study found scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change to be at 100%. That’s wonderful. A step in the right direction. We now have 100% in a study that agrees that man-made change is the cause of man-made changes. We need to stop contributing funds to education that is producing people with great lack of intelligence or common sense.
I picked out a headline for an example - (A report, authored by more than 300 experts, spells out a litany of impacts linked to climate change). Climate Change cannot yet be measured. Mother Nature’s Global Warming cannot yet be predicted beyond Ice Core data. That is why the Climate Models were chosen as the only possible way such a complicated problems would ever be answered.
400 years ago, we had the start of the Little Ice Age that lasted until the 19th century. So far, the IPCC has come up with little. Several causes that may have something to do with the cooling during the Ice Age. But nothing for sure. They say it have increased glaciation and cooling of the northern hemisphere. Today the glaciers from the Little Ice Age are melting. The cause of forming of the Little Ice Age glaciers are not talked about. To me that is unethical.
What does history tell us? Wikipedia - Every year had unusual weather patterns, including high precipitation, drought, and extreme cold or extreme heat. Mid-summer snowstorms, crop failures, food shortages. Historians agree it was one of the coldest time periods in the last 1000 years. Drought was also a huge problem in North America. The largest drought of the past 800 years. It was so hot that European newcomers were dying in the heat, and travelers had to travel at night to stay cool. Massachusetts Bay had frozen, and you could walk on the ice from Manhattan Island to Staten Island. In China, centuries old warm-weather crops such as oranges were now failing because of the cold. It was one of the coldest periods in recorded Chinese history.
I would think that we would want to understand the climate of the Little Ice Age that my great-grand parents lived in before we took on massive political regulations based upon the unknown science of Co2.
This site talks about trying to save the glaciers of the Little Ice Age by changing the Co2 is not logical. The Little Ice Age caused by a 3.6-degree F drop in temperature. We have the Co2 levels at plant killing levels. The Medieval Warm Period had warmer temperatures than we had in 1990. And we know it was not caused by greenhouse gasses. This evokes the idea that if natural global warming and all its effects occurred in the past without humans causing them, then perhaps we are not responsible for this one.
Some scientists think that sun cycles and the sunspots caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. What do we have to look forward to in solar cycle 25? Between Nov 2024 & Mar 2026, around July 2025 we should peak. We should expect the sun’s magnetic field to reverse.
Key point. The last time the sun was at where it will be by July 2025, we had the Little Ice Age. What we are proposing to do with Co2 regulations would be the opposite of what we should be doing if this is correct. Ref: Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020 Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020 | Live Science
I am no expert on this at all, an amateur is over rating me a lot. Ok, I have researched data. Come to a logical conclusion. Now I must find the top professionals and compare what knowledge gathered from many professionals’ reports to that of the top professionals. The best I have found is Dr. Judith Curry.
The Doctor made a prediction back in 2019 about the IPCC’s prediction of 3C warming in the 21st century. She used a baseline from history with natural variabilities which were not used in IPCC AR5. And the Doctor said, “In any event, endlessly repeating the 1985-2005 solar cycle doesn’t seem to be a particularly good bet.” Doctor said there are some predictions for solar cooling in the 21st century. Meaning the solar cooling will come later than 2025. We will not be going into another Little Ice Age. And instead of a 3C warming we will most likely be at 1C warming.
We also got the UNDRR report on 2021 drought. GAR Special Report on Drought 2021 | UNDRR
(Human-caused climate change is expected to have a discernable effect on drought, but that effect is not generally expected to be detectable today, according to the UNDRR report.) What exactly does “not detectable” mean? What I have been stating along. There is not enough climate change to measure yet.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:677, topic:7916”]
Co2 will affect the infrared (heat) energy whether being absorbed or just stripping away from sunlight spectrum. It has to do with the infrared radiation photons. All objects in the universe emit some level of IR radiation, even humans. The sun is the main source.
It is not the heat trapped in the air that creates the “greenhouse” effect. It is the heat rising from the surface that cannot escape and is trapped below the denser CO2 rich atmosphere.
Let’s give an expert the chance to explain the physics of the greenhouse effect.
How the greenhouse effect works
Professor Dessler
Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geosciences
Climate change, remote sensing, climate change policy
The physics of climate change
TAMU Physics Dept. seminar; Sept. 24, 2015
Sep 25, 2015, Professor Dessler, PhD
Then why don’t you shut up with the opining about scientific matters that you aren’t the least bit interested in - beyond their potential impact on rhetorical gamesmanship and winning the political battle.
Half of what you wrote up there was repeating well understood lies,
Oh yeah the mythical “Some Say” monster.
Curry, 
surely you’re joking Mr Yohe.
Judith A. Curry was chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology unti she retired in 2017.
She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.
Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts’ denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, another denier site.
She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn’t even read it in the first place.[1]
Curry has agreed with Trump’s description of climate change as a “hoax”, writing in 2016 that the UN’s definition of manmade climate change “qualifies as a hoax”.[2]
By BlueRock
on January 3rd, 2011…the vehement reaction of climate scientists, while perfectly understandable, might be akin to the violent reaction of the human immune system to some bacteria and viruses ”” a reaction that’s sometimes more damaging than the original microbe.
Where are you going with that? Are you suggesting that all of climate science will collapse because every (?) reputable climate scientist that has expressed an opinion has excoriated Curry?
Rather than stretching for metaphors, focus on the facts and you should see what the vast majority of the reality-attached community can see: Curry has abandoned science in favour of… something, hard to say what.
Read RealClimate: Frontpage and skim down for Curry’s comments and Schmidt’s replies to them. It’s evident which one of them is all about science and the other all about empty rhetoric, filled with slander and lazy falsehoods. Or even better, check out this.
Ok, lets see if I got this right. What I am saying is that HEAT (wavelengths of protons) rises and when it hit a layer of Co2 gasses, the wavelengths that match the Co2 gasses strip off the protons. Then the Co2 radiates the protons in all directions, even back to earth. The rest of the HEAT continues to rise without the Co2 wavelength protons.
I view the (“denser CO2 rich atmosphere” write4u) as not a boundary trapping the wavelengths but as gasses interacting with the rising HEAT. As being close by and interacting with the wavelengths. When two wavelengths connect the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature. There is a lot of space in the air for protons. About 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second and don’t hit anything.
Protons are much larger and the scientific thinking about them is “When the protons are re-emitted they are sent about the inside of the Earth’s atmosphere in random directions, although the majority of them fly toward Earth’s surface.”
To understand the protons, most of the research has been done on proton therapy. The photon therapy is used for conventional radiation therapy. Protons can also be used for proton therapy. It is just photon is better than proton for use in therapy for cost reasons. Proton therapy costs $30K to $120K where photon costs $8K to $12K. But the two are close in electrical properties.
The reason I think that most of the protons turn towards earth is because of their electric properties and the earth’s magnetic fields flow. Which is larger, the photon or proton. Doesn’t matter. At the sizes we are talking about. Size does not matter. Only the fields matter and how the fields react to other fields like gravitational fields.
I think we are close to being on the same page. Just, the heat I don’t see as being “trapped” but stripped and re-emitted. All greenhouse gases, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, do the same by absorbing and re-emitting photons of infrared radiation. Water vapor accounts for 60-70%. And water will re-emit twice as many protons from the same amount of radiation. Water vapor is confirmed as the major player in climate change.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Most likely ending up the same results, just wordage.
I’m sitting here watching a farm show on TV. An idea hit me a couple of days ago, and has been reinforced by the last several posts, that a little bit of global cooling would probably hurt us more than a little bit of global warming. I say this because most major crops don’t grow when there’s snow covering the ground.
If we were to get decreasing temperatures in the northern parts of North America we could have summer snow cover in the plains of the USA and Canada. The world depends on this area producing crops in quantities not even dreamed of when I was young. Much of our global food supply wouldn’t be produced at all with snow on the ground for even 10 months of the year in this area. It wouldn’t have to be ice a mile thick, just snow 6 inches thick to cause major food shortages.
We will survive the lack of a plan B in Afghanistan much better than the lack of a plan A or B for climate change. I hear no one proposing any possible plans for warming or cooling. Most of us agree the climate will change, but not on which way, when, for what reasons or whether we can or even should try to prevent it.
To me it seems best to seek some agreement on how we could be at least a little bit proactive whichever way it goes. We need to understand the consequences of change either way if we want to be able to respond effectively. Maintaining stable governments in Brazil and Argentina might be better than trying to do that in Venezuela.
What world do your minds live in?
A). Haven’t you noticed what a little heat is doing to our farm land, this year alone…
B). A little cooling is geophysically impossible at this point!
2021 is merely the beginning of the upheaval steamrolling at us.
And these guys represent the mentality of the movers and doers these days.
They live in a fantasy reality consisting of money and resources moving around the world via data. No wonder they’ve made such a disaster of the human experiment.
The question of Global Warming being better than Global Cooling is never asked. The question is Global Warming good or bad is avoided in research. What we seem to be dealing with are goldilocks. You know, it’s to hot, it’s to cold.
Everything is blamed on Climate Change. So, what is the difference between Climate Change and Global Warming?
Climate change
Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.’ The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and climate variability attributable to natural causes. See also Climate variability, Global warming, Ocean acidification (OA) and Detection and attribution.
Global warming
The estimated increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) averaged over a 30-year period, or the 30-year period centered on a particular year or decade, expressed relative to pre-industrial levels unless otherwise specified. For 30-year periods that span past and future years, the current multi-decadal warming trend is assumed to continue. See also Climate change and Climate variability.
Key point – (… expressed relative to pre-industrial levels unless otherwise specified).
Pre-industrial – if you don’t know when that was. It was in the Little Ice Age.
In other words. The datum line or point set for IPCC Climate Science is to compare today’s weather to the weather of The Little Ice Age.
Why would the IPCC set the datum point in the middle of an Ice Age?
Well, if you did that you would not have to deal with Global Cooling. What is the IPCC definition of Global Cooling? After all the IPCC came about because of the Global Cooling that was publicly talked about in the early 70’s.
What did climate science have to work with?
Earth’s Natural Climate Cycle - Mother Nature
Pleistocene Epoch - 2.6 million years ago until 11,700 years ago
Holocene Interglacial (current)
Quaternary Period – past 2.6M yrs
glacial–interglacial cycles – Lasting 100K yrs
Intermediate Cycle
Intermediate Cycle – In-between Glacial & Interglacial. Last about 12K yrs
Glacial – Large ice sheets
Interglacial Period or interglaciation – Without large ice sheets
For the public the Glacial Cycle was Global Cooling
And the Interglacial Period was the Global Warming
Mother Natural was divided into two cycles with Intermediate Cycle in the Global Warming.
Simple enough. Then about 2007 the IPCC went political on us. And the Global Warming was no longer part of the Earth’s Natural Climate Cycle.
This was something new. The datum point for Climate Change started in the Little Ice Age. All weather would be on the hot side of normal. And “For 30-year periods that span past and future years, the current multi-decadal warming trend is assumed to continue.”
To have your report included in the IPCC. It must follow their guidelines. Global Cooling does not fit the guidelines.
And Global Cooling. Just try and find Global Cooling. Starting in 2007 it seems that everything had the Global attachment. But no Global Cooling. Global Cooling is not in the IPCC glossary that I have found. A search of the Sixth Repot one had Global Cooling used one time in a dedication to a lecture in 1958.
What are the goals of the IPCC. Here is one of the main goals. Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty
Better stop here, the point being there is no plan B. Don’t need a plan B because plan A is not what you think it is.