DaveCan - forgive me for saying this, but is your MAGA hat fitting a bit too tight these days? While I’ve been downwind of some pretty aromatic human flatulence - and have even emitted some myself - I think the total volume of methane released at both ends of the billions of cows, pigs, sheep and chickens in industrialized agriculture is probably a far bigger problem than those from humans. I dunno if you have - or our planning on - kids / grandkids, but even if those of us not expecting another 40yrs aren’t affected by this accelerating crisis, which has many components that humans could control, but I fear are not willing to do so in time - these very near term generations almost certainly will.
I asked you for the specific effects of CO2 "shock" on earth to see if what I've observed align with what you observed.
Those (in bold) are not happening for the first time in 100s of thousands of years even though the recent sharp increase in CO2 is new.
You brought up thermal lag regarding CO2 and global temperature rise. So I've asked you previously which time period CO2 increase are we experiencing now in the form of global temperature rise. And your answer was -> .
That's if you leave out the nature's feedback such as convection and precipitation just to name couple.
As I've pointed out, per your take on CO2's responsibility for global temperature rise, it should have been rising consistently since the beginning of industrial revolution because CO2 level did. The observed temperature said "no" regardless of which decade in the chart you look at. And your explanation for that was "thermal lag". So I said, even if thermal lag is causing the temperature increase to lag behind CO2 increase, the increase slope would resemble the increase slope of CO2. Well, it doesn't. There are explanations for that which I already posted.
There is also a hypothesis by Ewing and Donn in 1956 about end of interglacial period once the arctic sea becomess ice free as reported in Harper's Magazine 1958 article The Coming Ice Age.
You keep repeating (3rd or 4th time?) the same argument that if CO2 started increasing at the start of the industrial revolution, why did we not see an immediate temperature increase and expect if you do keep repeating it, it will become fact, or that it justifies not making any effort to understand the issue in more depth or the consequences of 40% more CO2. It will not.
If you take a massive body (the ecosphere) and you very rapidly increase a key GHG by c. 35% in mass terms (which is what has happened since 1870), and that gas then starts the process of warming the planet, you will NOT get an instant temperature change because the effect of the GHG is integrative - i.e. cumulative and you have a very large mass to heat up - there is a lot of thermal inertia involved. Since the gas will be around for hundreds of thousands of years - unlike water vapour effects which are localized and transitory - you can expect a temperature increase profile that starts off slowly and then accelerates which is exactly what we are seeing now. Where does it end? Climate scientists can model it and come up with scenarios (low,mid, high etc).
You will understand my scepticism at your invoking of 'nature's feedback' mechanism's when you refuse to grasp the concept of thermal inertia/lag.
You have offered no factual information for your position, other than to make statements that reflect a deep misunderstanding of the fundaments.
I am not a doomsday profit on CC and do not think the earth will end on the 3rd of March 2022, but I think there will be a heavy environmental price to pay for the CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere for the next few thousand years - the planet will fundamentally change. Certain parts of the world will suffer more than others that's for sure. The right thing to do is to make a strong effort to limit the damage - go wind, go nuclear, go solar, go electric cars etc.
Anyway, you can read up about thermal inertia here (halfway down the page)
Volumetric heat capacity - Wikipedia
"That's if you leave out the nature's feedback such as convection and precipitation just to name couple."
No one doubts 'gaia' will adjust to compensate for it. But there is a misconception within the anti-climate science fraternity that 'nature will take care of it'. Nature will move the planet to a new control point (see Lovelock et al) and there will be unpleasant side effects if efforts are not made to limit the emission of anthropogenic GHG. And, we are at least stuck with this problem for thousands of years.
Yes - I have that article - fascinating. I believe a lot of holes have been punched in that hypothesis over the last 20 or 30 years, but who knows. We could wake up in 20 years and the Atlantic Thermohaline system has reconfigured and we are plunging into an ice age millennia before its due.
Ya never know!
Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia
I never said "immediate". I asked you how long it take for global temperature rise to follow CO2 rise. I still haven't seen an answer from you in numbers. I mentioned the shape of chart multiple times but somehow those got ignored by you.
Per your posts, there is recent increase in global temperature which I agree to. Also per your posts, it's caused by the increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution. In that case, what caused the recent decrease in global temperature and recent "pause" in global temperature rise? Would you say those are due to decrease and pause of CO2 level at some point since the industrial revolution?
Earth thermal system is rather complex, difficult for layman like me to understand. We could be speeding into a hot hell or a freezing glaciation period. How do we prepare ourselves? The climate is changing for sure. It has been snowing in the Sahara and Arab peninsula for several years.
I don’t know, but surmise there are short term countervailing effects that are moderating the temperature increases - eg PDO and ADO which we touched on yesterday. The Sun’s output changes over an 11 year cycle. What will not change now however for thousands of years is the additional forcing effect of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
You are trolling now . . . that statement is absolute nonsense.
Probably time to close our discussion down since Ayn Rand metaphysical dogma never really mixes well with fact based rational discussion . . .
You mean the 10MPG muscle cars are not really in man's rational self interest?
So if it doesn't fit your personal belief and not willing to concede, it's trolling? What doesn't fit is the claim that CO2 is the driving force behind global warming vs. observed temperature and the level of CO2.
I've tried to explain this whole thermal inertia thing to you about 4 times. There's no point in discussing it unless you go away and read up on it a bit and get a feel for the stuff that's going on.
And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'belief' and that's the nub of the issue here - too much of the belief stuff and not enough of the rational fact based stuff. Here are facts I have put on the table
~5 x 10^15 tons of ecosphere - a huge mass of material that takes decades to respond to thermal inputs i.e. greenhouse effects brought on by increased CO2. This is where the thermal inertia thing comes in - it takes time to heat up that much stuff so if CO2 goes up, you will not see an instant increase in temperature. think about boiling your kettle - same principle.
~2.5 trillion tons of excess CO2 (a potent GHG) injected into the atmosphere in the geological blink of an eye i.e. over the last 150 years
~0.2% global temperature forcing (vs 0.1% max from the Sun's 11 year luminosity cycle) due to excess CO2. If we go above 500ppm CO2, it will go higher.
~250~400 thousand years to sequestrate the excess CO2 we have pumped out in the last 150 years (the 'CO2 shock') back into the mantle through weathering
~ record temperature increases over the last 50 years and a strong upward trend (despite your protestations claiming it has declined - it has not. Only the rate of change has moderated for some of the reasons mentioned: PDO, ADO, Solar cycle, and aerosol/particulates from coal, diesel and other pollutants
~CO2 levels currently at > 400 ppm that were not last seen since 650k years ago
~CO2 levels headed in some estimates to ultimately above 500 ppm - levels not seen for circa 35 million years.
~ Volcanism was raised as a potential reason for increased CO2 - it has been shown that it accounts for only 10% of all CO2 produced annually and is entirely natural
Let me try one last time: its not the CO2 that's heating up and directly changing the earth's temperature. The CO2 simply acts as a thermal blanket so solar radiation that gets to the surface of the planet is not re-radiated out again to the same extent. CO2 traps that radiation and reduces the amount of heat that re-radiates back out to space (the green house effect). The additional CO2 we have injected into the atmosphere has caused thermal forcing above pre-industrial CO2 levels that is about 0.2% - so double that of the solar cycle forcing (which in itself is a short term 11 year cycle and which the planet has evolved to deal with). The anthropogenic CO2 forcing amounts to about 2 Watts per square meter or 2 Megawatts per square kilometre. As explained earlier, this forcing will be around now for thousands of years.
I don't see 'belief' in any of this.
See here for a more complete description of the greenhouse effect Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'belief' and that's the nub of the issue here - too much of the belief stuff and not enough of the rational fact based stuff. Here are facts I have put on the table
~5 x 10^15 tons of ecosphere - a huge mass of material that takes decades to respond to thermal inputs i.e. greenhouse effects brought on by increased CO2. This is where the thermal inertia thing comes in - it takes time to heat up that much stuff so if CO2 goes up, you will not see an instant increase in temperature. think about boiling your kettle - same principle.
~2.5 trillion tons of excess CO2 (a potent GHG) injected into the atmosphere in the geological blink of an eye i.e. over the last 150 years
~0.2% global temperature forcing (vs 0.1% max from the Sun's 11 year luminosity cycle) due to excess CO2. If we go above 500ppm CO2, it will go higher.
~250~400 thousand years to sequestrate the excess CO2 we have pumped out in the last 150 years (the 'CO2 shock') back into the mantle through weathering
~ record temperature increases over the last 50 years and a strong upward trend (despite your protestations claiming it has declined - it has not. Only the rate of change has moderated for some of the reasons mentioned: PDO, ADO, Solar cycle, and aerosol/particulates from coal, diesel and other pollutants
~CO2 levels currently at > 400 ppm that were not last seen since 650k years ago
~CO2 levels headed in some estimates to ultimately above 500 ppm - levels not seen for circa 35 million years.
~ Volcanism was raised as a potential reason for increased CO2 - it has been shown that it accounts for only 10% of all CO2 produced annually and is entirely natural
Let me try one last time: its not the CO2 that's heating up and directly changing the earth's temperature. The CO2 simply acts as a thermal blanket so solar radiation that gets to the surface of the planet is not re-radiated out again to the same extent. CO2 traps that radiation and reduces the amount of heat that re-radiates back out to space (the green house effect). The additional CO2 we have injected into the atmosphere has caused thermal forcing above pre-industrial CO2 levels that is about 0.2% - so double that of the solar cycle forcing (which in itself is a short term 11 year cycle and which the planet has evolved to deal with). The anthropogenic CO2 forcing amounts to about 2 Watts per square meter or 2 Megawatts per square kilometre. As explained earlier, this forcing will be around now for thousands of years.
I don't see 'belief' in any of this.
See here for a more complete description of the greenhouse effect Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I've learned a few things along the way..
Importantly,
Hysteria will kill you
Assumption will kill you
Hope will kill you
Many many many many ways to die and be miserable along the way without a choice otherwise once gone down the wrong path.
The only real solution is to lower and reverse the birthrates and as well innovate.
It's all coming, however, one must be straighter than a strung piano for the entirety of the life.
Interesting article on the innovation..
Solar plant produces kerosene from sunlight, water and CO2
Importantly,
Hysteria will kill you
Assumption will kill you
Hope will kill you
Many many many many ways to die and be miserable along the way without a choice otherwise once gone down the wrong path.
The only real solution is to lower and reverse the birthrates and as well innovate.
It's all coming, however, one must be straighter than a strung piano for the entirety of the life.
Interesting article on the innovation..
Solar plant produces kerosene from sunlight, water and CO2
Last edited:
ROFL.. It's funny when I make a comment and the responses assume things I did not say, such as "Invite your friend Donald Trump, "Tight Maga Hat" etc etc.. Of course if I mentioned politics which I did not, I'd probably get a warning or something.. I just think it's funny all the hysteria, and of course the blame game because all that's ever happened to this planet is of course the President Of the US's fault right? This is the hysteria of the Libtards, y'all have your very own upside down sideways world and assume and blame everyone but yourselves for messing things up. (I guess I just made a derogatory political statement back at ya, now we're even.)
My farting comment was a joke btw, and I never mentioned politics in my first and second post. I just really could care less about things that nothing can be done about, because countries $hit on each other and not everyone will conform, plus maybe the Caldera in Yellowstone will finally blow then it's game over anyhow lol.. But I guess that would be DT's fault as well, same as if an asteroid hit or any number of things.
I myself couldn't care less if the Earth boils and takes most all of us out. Ain't going to worry about it all for now and just live my last days as best I can. I already drive a little fuel sipper and have the lowest energy consumption in all my surrounding neighborhood so say's NB Power. So there!, other than my flatulence I'm doing my part
PS. They just had some significant snow in the middle of August in BC, just some random nobody cares info for the masses.
My farting comment was a joke btw, and I never mentioned politics in my first and second post. I just really could care less about things that nothing can be done about, because countries $hit on each other and not everyone will conform, plus maybe the Caldera in Yellowstone will finally blow then it's game over anyhow lol.. But I guess that would be DT's fault as well, same as if an asteroid hit or any number of things.
I myself couldn't care less if the Earth boils and takes most all of us out. Ain't going to worry about it all for now and just live my last days as best I can. I already drive a little fuel sipper and have the lowest energy consumption in all my surrounding neighborhood so say's NB Power. So there!, other than my flatulence I'm doing my part
PS. They just had some significant snow in the middle of August in BC, just some random nobody cares info for the masses.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.