Climate Change

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:681, topic:7916”]

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

Depending on density! When more heat rises than can be dispersed, it needs to rise higher to reach cooler air and the cooler air is unable to descent and cool off the surface.

Don’t forget that the surface heat is accumulated during the day. It is already hot and needs to cool of… If it is unable to cool off, it stays warm and the next day the warming starts at a higher temperature. Over long periods of time that results in a gradual rise in small increments of warming. The problem is that a few degrees temperature rise over long periods of time can have disastrous consequences to the “climate balance” and result in wild fluctuations in weather patterns which have been established over millenia.

What you are talking about is called Greenhouse Gas Forcing.

Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in
the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient
simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the
NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface
response time to the warming than do ocean regions

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:686, topic:7916”]

What you are talking about is called Greenhouse Gas Forcing.

And that is not relevant? It is caused by CO2 saturation, no?

For starters it was no Ice Age you malicious scrambler of facts and all around crazy maker.
It was an anomalous period, colder temperatures, glacier grew some, but it was not a global temperature drop, nor was it anything like the multi-degree temperature drops that signify a real “Ice Age” when mountain glaciers turn in massive region wide and deep ice sheets.

“Medieval… or Little Ice Age” is just a sexy term people love and that sells copy, it is not a descriptive.

There’s much more to understanding about that period than Mike is capable of sharing.

Volume 1, The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change, pp 504–509
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf

What actually started the Little Ice Age?

It all may have started with sea ice, and the changes may have happened all by themselves without the influence of volcanoes or the Sun, researchers behind a new study say.

Elise Kjørstad

Friday 23. October 2020 - 12:12

The ninth century seems to have experienced a warmer climate, which has been called the Medieval Warm Period.

But from the 14th century things were different. … The Little Ice Age can be divided into two phases, according to an article in The New Yorker. It began with a cooling period in 1300 - 1400. The coldest period was from the end of the 1500s to 1850. …

Ugly ducklings

Generally speaking, the Little Ice Age is said to have begun because of an increase in volcanism and reduced activity of the Sun. …

Lots of ice on the go

In their new study, Miles and his colleagues looked at the transport of sea ice from the Arctic over a 1400 year period. …

“We discovered that an unusually large amount of sea ice flowed out of the Arctic Ocean from the beginning of the 14th century. It is very interesting, and the biggest event we found during the last 1400 years,” says Miles.

“It happened right around the start of the Little Ice Age. This indicates that it was very important, and was perhaps a necessary kickstart for the Little Ice Age.” .,…

meanwhile back in the real here and now of this developing situation

Every time there’s an agenda that can’t be sold to the public just for what it is, they cry that the sky is falling, or it is about to if we don’t do something starting right now.

I remember construction of the interstate highway system being sold to the public as something we desperately needed for self defense. They claimed that if we were attacked we wouldn’t be able to move troops and equipment to the coasts fast enough without the big roads. BS of course. We have always moved military people and goods by rail and more recently by air.

I laugh every time I see an ad for solar panel installation on the home. They claim that they can reduce my electricity bill to zero. Well, yes they can on a sunny day or with a huge battery bank, but of course they suggest that we stay connected to the grid just in case. I have done the math and the payback period for the initial installation on my home is just over 30 years. That doesn’t include any maintenance or battery replacement for those 30 years. Unrealistic. Never mind that the interest alone on the money I would have to borrow would be more than my current power bill. Once again, we see an agenda with a wrong solution foisted on those who will pay for it.

Gosh, does that sound like what is happening today?

Oh the glib facade of willful ignorance.

https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-weather-and-climate-change/

One of the most visible consequences of a warming world is an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. The National Climate Assessment finds that the number of heat waves, heavy downpours, and major hurricanes has increased in the United States, and the strength of these events has increased, too.

A measure of the economic impact of extreme weather is the increasing number of billion-dollar disasters, which is shown below. The map shows all types of weather disasters, some of which are known to be influenced by climate change (floods, tropical storms) and some for which a climate influence is uncertain (tornadoes). …

Extreme Weather | National Climate Assessment

Introduction to Third National Climate Assessment.

As the world has warmed, that warming has triggered many other changes to the Earth’s climate. Changes in extreme weather and climate events, such as heat waves and droughts, are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the U.S. has seen increases in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, heavy downpours, and in some regions, severe floods and droughts. …

Mapped: How climate change affects extreme weather around the world

https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/weather-extreme-events/

So Mr. Logic what make you think it’s okay to ignore the gigatonnes of atmospheric insulating greenhouse gases we have been injecting into our atmosphere over the past century and more? Pray tell, please do explain how your logic works?

I gotta wonder if you ever feel any of the cognitive dissonance tingle? But I won’t ask.

Why scientists are blaming climate change for extreme weather
September 5, 2021

A little reminder from “Worldometers”

WORLD POPULATION

7,891,100,263 Current World Population

94,952,897 Births, this year

170,921 Births, today

39,863,501 Deaths, this year

71,757 Deaths, today

55,089,396 Net population growth, this year

99,164 Net population growth today

ENVIRONMENT

3,524,858 Forest loss, this year (hectares)

4,745,412 Land lost to soil erosion, this year (ha)

24,609,783,682 CO2 emissions, this year (tons)

8,133,465Desertification, this year (hectares)

6,637,164 Toxic chemicals released in the environment, this year (tons)

FOOD

854,561,353 Undernourished people in the world

1,715,498,643 Overweight people in the world

790,954,480 Obese people in the world

13,671 People who died of hunger, today

$ 270,225,744 Money spent for obesity related diseases in the USA, today

$ 84,505,756 Money spent on weight loss programs in the USA, today

WATER

3,013,146,987 Water used, this year (million L)

570,734 Deaths caused by water related diseases, this year

788,722,107 People with no access to a safe drinking water source

ENERGY

209,052,019 Energy used today (MWh), of which:

177,956,883 - from non-renewable sources (MWh)

31,481,411 -from renewable sources (MWh)

1,309,930,342,954 Solar energy striking Earth, today (MWh)

42,876,523 Oil pumped today (barrels)

1,462,928,351,448 Oil left (barrels)

15,256 Days to the end of oil (~42 years)

1,086,835,749,945 Natural Gas left (boe)

57,202 Days to the end of natural gas

4,302,730,963,552 Coal left (boe)

148,370 Days to the end of coal

Let’s see, you say it is causing warming.

The warming is caused by a greenhouse gas.

The greenhouse gas is causing the warming.

That is called Greenhouse Gas Forcing.

Radiative forcing is the change in energy flux in the atmosphere caused by natural and/or anthropogenic factors of climate change as measured by watts / metre2. It is the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect on planets and plays an important role in computational models of Earth’s energy balance and climate.

To put this into a crazy context, every second the sun produces the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization.

About 30% of the solar energy that reaches Earth is reflected back into space. The rest is absorbed into Earth’s atmosphere.

Incoming energy from the sun is 341 W/m-2. Reflected sunlight is 102 W/m-2. Absorbed sunlight is 239 W/m-2.

The absorbed heat is what we want to talk about because it creates longwave radiation and latent heat. The longwave radiation is what the greenhouse gasses react with and send radiation back to the earth that would otherwise leave the earth. The outgoing longwave radiation is 239 W/m-2.

This is the simple math. There is a wrench in the gearworks of the system. It does not explain The Little Ice Age and will not work with the Little Ice Age. And the Co2 did not cause the Little Ice Age. Mankind did not start the Little Ice Age. As you can see CC posted guesses of what caused the Little Ice Age. That’s 60 years of guessing that can’t pass the mustard. The one that does is a change in the sun’s output. But God forbid going down the pathway that says the sun is the driving force of energy for earth and works in cycles like everything else in the solar system. That is why you never hear about the Grand Solar Minimum that the sun is in right now.

The science to the subject is down if you have a question, just ask. It’s time to brings up to your question.

What you are talking about is called Greenhouse Gas Forcing.

Write4u - And that is not relevant? It is caused by CO2 saturation, no?

A little salt used while cooking and you don’t claim your meal is a meal of salt, do you?

Science is about measurement. Greenhouse gas is mostly water. And water is twice as good at removing protons from radiation than Co2. Not only does it remove protons, but it also removes Co2. There is three times as much water as Co2. That means it is six times as good at removing heat (protons) from the air. And that’s if there were no clouds or high humidity levels.

What we are talking about is called the Humidity Paradox . How is climate change affecting global humidity levels? | World Economic Forum

First thing we want to find out is. What is earth’s mean average humidity level? And then correct all the charts and data that is being poured upon the public.

According to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, the air can generally hold around 7% more moisture for every 1C of temperature rise.

So, water is not just six time more efficient than Co2. Considering the earth’s surface is 2/3 covered by clouds. It may be twenty times more efficient than Co2.

Meaning the water could be causing over 80% of the heat of greenhouse gasses. And yes they try and allow for this in the computer models. But the models can give out any results you want by picking what data sets that must be used.

The more warmth, the more water in the air. The more water in the air the more snow. And the more clouds. More clouds and we get more heat for the blanket. … evidence that suggests that it is very likely — with an approximately 97.5% probability — that clouds will amplify global heating. Earth's clouds are likely to increase global heating, scientists find | Space

Nothing to do with Co2.

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:696, topic:7916”]

Nothing to do with Co2.

I don’t know what you are trying to advance here.
Are you trying to tell us global warming is not happening?

Global warming is a term used for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects. Scientists are more than 95% certain that nearly all of global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other human-caused emissions.

What is Climate Change and Global Heating and How Does it Work to Affect Our Lives - Job One for Humanity?

image


Radiative forcing (warming influence) of different contributors to climate change thru 2019, as reported in the Sixth IPCC assessment report.

Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (around 1750) have increased the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by almost 50%, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 419 ppm in 2021.[6] The last time the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was this high was over 3 million years ago.[7] This increase has occurred despite the absorption of more than half of the emissions by various natural carbon sinks in the carbon cycle.[8][9]

What is it that is not happening? Shall we just ignore this information?
Things are just fine, while towns are under 10 ft of water from the most recent hurricane?

Who from hell do you listen to?

[quote=“yonkey, post:5, topic:7916, full:true”]

So you mean an economy with more socialism? I can see that happening actually, just based on how governments all want to cooperate on this issue.

How about an economy with less capitalism? I don’t see that happening based on the competition for monopoly of resources.

Greed (parasitism) is a self-destructive survival mechanism. Humans are an invasive species with uncontrolled greed. We tend to kill whatever resource we use and leave a wasteland where had a presence.

From the Dust-Bow to Global Warming. Humans tend to rape everything they can exploit.

When Was The Dust Bowl?

The Dust Bowl, also known as “the Dirty Thirties,” started in 1930 and lasted for about a decade, but its long-term economic impacts on the region lingered much longer.

The Homestead Act of 1862, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land, was followed by the Kinkaid Act of 1904 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. These acts led to a massive influx of new and inexperienced farmers across the Great Plains.

Many of these late nineteenth and early twentieth century settlers lived by the superstition “rain follows the plow.” Emigrants, land speculators, politicians and even some scientists believed that homesteading and agriculture would permanently affect the climate of the semi-arid Great Plains region, making it more conducive to farming.

Crops began to fail with the onset of drought in 1931, exposing the bare, over-plowed farmland. Without deep-rooted prairie grasses to hold the soil in place, it began to blow away. Eroding soil led to massive dust storms and economic devastation—especially in the Southern Plains.

Hello ibelieveinlogic

It is amazing how Co2 is the cause of all bad weather. Yet, it effects on weather is so small it can not be measured by the scientists. Its is reaching the point of being nothing more than a joke for the general people and a policy for the politicians.

What are the goals of the IPCC. Here is one of the main goals in their policymaking. Strengthening the Global Response in the Context of Sustainable Development and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty

So why should the IPCC be involved in policymaking that has nothing to do with figuring out earth’s weather. Policymaking should come after we know for sure what the problems are. So far I don’t see a problem with mother nature helping producing more food and having better vegetation.

Years ago, I figure I had to work to the fist of March for the governments and taxes. So, I got about 10 months of pay checks that I spend on my family. Today, I would have to work until the first of May for the governments and regulations. That gives me only 8 months for my family. The Co2 is a bunch of high tax dollar paid for BS. The goal is to make it only 7 months of income for the working man. At what point does the working man say it is not worth it and say I will just let the government take care of my family.

We are basely paying the government to pay for one-sided science to be able to tax us to death. Take that carbon money and spend it in other countries. The democrats are soldiers for the rich and powerful. They blame everything on big business. But the governments are the biggest business we have today.

Are they blind or just stupid?

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:699, topic:7916”]

We are basely paying the government to pay for one-sided science to be able to tax us to death. Take that carbon money and spend it in other countries. The democrats are soldiers for the rich and powerful. They blame everything on big business. But the governments are the biggest business we have today.

The Democrats are the soldiers for the rich and powerful? Is that why every Republican president starts his term with a tax cut for the rich and powerful?

Are they blind or just stupid?

Global Warming has been going on for millions and millions of years. So has Global Cooling. Greenhouse gasses have been warming the earth for millions and millions of years. Mainly it is the water in the greenhouse gasses.

Now what are the datum point for measuring this century-scale rise in average temperature of the Earth’s climate system?

IPCC Datum point - 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.

You got it, ( expressed relative to pre-industrial levels ). So set your data to the temperature in The Little Ice Age. When crops were failing because of the extreme cold.

Just like. Where is the H2o in the Physical drivers of climate change chart you posted. Not there. Why? Because of the word “ drivers ”. Because H2o will increase 7% for each degree. It is said not said to be a driver.

Next. Physical drivers of Climate Change . Go to the words “ climate change ”. What does that mean? The H2o is not a change in the natural climate. Greenhouse gasses are part of the natural climate for millions and millions of years. Now new changes to the natural greenhouse gasses are considered “climate change”. Therefore, the main greenhouse gas, H2o is not a climate change gas.

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.

NEXT

Global warming is a term used for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects. Scientists are more than 95% certain that nearly all of global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other human-caused emissions.

BREAKDOWN

Global warming is a term used for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system and its related effects.

That is correct.

BREAKDOWN

Scientists are more than 95% certain that nearly all of global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Air temperature and skin temperature of the earth is how global warming is measured. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been warming the earth for millions and millions of years. It would be what we call part of Mother Nature.

BREAKDOWN

and other human-caused emissions

We are down to the beef. Yes, other human-caused emissions are causing warming. Not enough to measure. We can measure the amount added to the air. But that we have not been able to measure the affect of what % that has changed the natural temperature rise of greenhouse gasses. Believe me. The scientists have tried and will keep trying to measure the human-caused effects of greenhouse gasses.

CONCLUSION

Scientists are more than 95% certain that nearly all of global warming is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) (I agree, mainly H2o, history shows this has been going on for millions of years) and other human-caused emissions. (I again agree. The data shows this. But how much is the effect. What percentage. It is too small to measure).

People showing pictures of weather and blaming it on anthropogenic climate change are unscientific and it is wrong on so many levels. The real sad part is the greed involved. People writing articles for the greed and not the science.

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:701, topic:7916”]

Mainly it is the water in the greenhouse gasses.

Yes, H2O is water.

But we are not talking about water (H2O). We are talking about CO2…difference!

It was said that the rich were paying taxes because they wanted to. Their tax accounts could have them owing no taxes. Trump lowered the taxes for everyone. And the economy turned around. The idea is that for ever dollar you keep circulating year-round. It will generate $16 in taxes. A dollar can not hardly move without being taxed. Send the money to the government and the dollar is no longer moving around in the economy. It is better to tax just a little and the government ends up with more tax money by the end of the year. That is proven. So, every Republican President is helping the people and the country by having a good economy. The Democrats want an economy like Venezuela and Cuba. Take what you can, as long as you can. The hell with the next generation.

And you are right about the Democrats vs. Republicans. But the tables have turned. The Democratic Party is now the party of the rich.

Note. When taxes first started. It was only a tax for the rich. Set at a 90% rate. The rich did not pay their taxes. They had it paid by their companies. That was until the head of the Wool Association who was paid $1M per year lost to the IRS who claimed the taxes paid by the Wool Association was considered income and must also be taxed. But the war was over, and the taxes rates were lowered.

The H2o gasses are the main gas in greenhouse gasses. You should be talking about H2o. The science is still out on the Co2.

Of course, you do not want to talk about H2o because if you say the Co2 created X amount of heat. You would have to find 20 x X of heat for the H2o. Gives you a headache with the math.

It is like this. The earth has warmed since The Little Ice Age. The claim is the Co2 increased in the air because the Industrial Age caused more Co2. The warming has also put more H2o in the greenhouse gasses. Subtract the H2o warming, and you have nothing left for warming for the Co2. Why do you think they have not been able to measure the effect of Co2 warming from The Little Ice Age to today. They can measure the difference. Hell, these guys can measure anything no matter how small or big. It is just they have to allow for the H2o and there is nothing left for the Co2.