In what way does this negate the fact that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will increase global temperatures?
1 Like
It certainly supports food production.
If you look at the temperature history of the planet, you will see that temperature and CO2 concentration are uncorrelated. And, if you look at the absorption data for CO2 in the range of emissions at planet temperatures, they are seen to be saturated. Put it this way, if you put a sheet of paper in front of a flashlight, no light gets through. If you add a second sheet, nothing new happens as all of the energy has already been absorbed by the first sheet of paper. If toilet paper is used, the light will be slowly absorbed. But, sheet after sheet, there will come a point where adding another sheet will not produce any more change.
I honestly feel like this is a bit emotional. I am not following because if you want to talk about alienating young people, so does thinking homosexuality, consensual sex or sex outside marriage is a sin. They arenāt buying that. For many so is thinking being transgender is wrong and the Bible is inerrant and a host of other things. So is thinking there is a biblically created male-female order. So is thinking there is an actual hell. Christians cannot just change what they believe because some people might not like it or find it offensive. You believe what you believe and stand for truth as you know it. Unfortunately, that ends badly many times.
Iām sure in an honor and shame society where the burying the dead was even far more important than it is to us, a would be follower of Jesus found it shocking and alienating when he was told to ālet the dead bury the dead.ā We can soften Jesus all we want but the gospel portrait is clear. Kingdom of God first over everything, even oneās wife and children. If the kingdom of God is really going to take priority over my family, rest assured it also takes priority over the amount of carbon in the atmosphere in 2 decades. But pitting them against one another is wrong. Rather, being a good father/husband/steward would hopefully come naturally to following Jesus and living a Godly life. But this whole stuff about alienating or offending the sensibilities of millennials. zoomers or Covid kids? My response is they need to get over themselves. Some young person (who most likely knows zero about atmospheric science and is only driftwood in this regard) finds something we say offensive on climate change? Whippity do. The Gospel takes precedence over cancel culture and angry millennials with butthurt feelings. If āclimate deniersā are alienating the young, YECS must be the worst Christians in the world. This all assumes intellectual knowledge is the real culprit keeping people from a relationship with God. Something that is at least questionable. If the world hates you, it hated HIM first.
Vinnie
400 ppm in the atmosphere is not worrying, although it is higher than the levels experienced during the last 800ā000+ years. What is worrying is that the amount of carbon dioxide has increased in 60 years from <320 to 420 ppm and the direction is still the same, going up. 100+ ppm more in 60 years.
If the rise continues, we are going to have a world that is closer to what the Earth used to be 20+ millions years ago. At least 4-6 degrees C higher average temperatures globally, much higher temperatures close to poles.
If the rise continues and we approach levels of 500-600 ppm, it is likely that all or most ice will melt from the Antarctica. A quick search gave estimates of 60-70 m rise in sea levels if Antarctica melts. That is much. Total melting will not happen in a decade or even a century but the melting probably includes periods when parts of the ice sheat collapse and that will rise sea levels rapidly + cause a major tsunami.
Photosynthesis happens at coasts even in the warmer climate. The plants just will change, from terrestrial plants to algae.
They are?
Those look highly correlated to me.
The more important bit here is that climate in the past has been influenced by the Milankovitch cycles which are changes in the Earthās tilt, orbit, and other mechanisms. As temperatures rise it releases more CO2 from the oceans which increases temperatures even more.
The difference now is that CO2 increases are no longer in response to the Milankovitch cycles. We are increasing CO2 independent of this mechanism. This will necessarily capture more heat. This was established by Svante Arrhenius clear back in 1896:
If that were the case then the Earth would be a cinder. It isnāt. Heat gets out. Earth does find an equilibrium between heat in and heat out.
What determines that equilibrium is the height in the atmosphere where that heat is able to escape. Below this altitude heat is reabsorbed before it can escape, but there is a altitude at which the atmosphere is thin enough that heat can finally escape. The higher this altitude the more heat that is trapped below this layer. CO2 increases the altitude at which heat escapes which increases global temperatures. Itās the same concept for why the Sun shines.
This is the saturation myth. Itās false.
6 Likes
Take a look at the temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the recent Younger Dryas era As the last ice age ended, temperatures rose sharply and CO2 followed along. Then, suddenly, and as yet not understood, the temperatures plunged for about 1,000 yearsā¦but, the CO2 concentration remained constant. Sea levels also rose sharply with the initial temperature rise then stabilized in the cold, and resumed rising when temperatures started to rise again. For what it is worth, there are analyses of the sea-level data that show the second derivative of the sea-level rise is now negative.
If you look at the above graph, in several cases, is can be seen that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. In other cases the dating methods have sufficient uncertainties so that it is not possible to tell which came first. It is not obvious that there is any of those cases where the CO2 concentration CLEARLY preceded the temperature rise.
Why should anyone believe anything you say given all of the misinformation you have given thus far? You even tried to pass off the saturation myth, for crying out loud.
When you increase CO2 you trap more heat than would otherwise be trapped. This is just plain physics. Thereās no getting around it. Telling us that CO2 is plant food does not change this fact. Even if other mechanism cause cooling, the cooling would have been more severe if CO2 was removed at the same time. Even worse, spreading stuff like the saturation myth only further discredits what you are saying.
Which I already addressed.
"The more important bit here is that climate in the past has been influenced by the Milankovitch cycles which are changes in the Earthās tilt, orbit, and other mechanisms. As temperatures rise it releases more CO2 from the oceans which increases temperatures even more.
The difference now is that CO2 increases are no longer in response to the Milankovitch cycles. We are increasing CO2 independent of this mechanism. This will necessarily capture more heat. This was established by Svante Arrhenius clear back in 1896"
In the past, the rise in temperature came first due to the Milankovitch cycles. This warmed the oceans, causing them to release CO2. This increased CO2 further increased the warming.
How does this change anything we are discussing? We are increasing CO2 independent of the Milankovitch cycles. This will necessarily trap more heat than would otherwise get trapped. It doesnāt matter that temperatures rose first in the past because the same mechanism is not causing the current increase in CO2.
2 Likes
Here is another plot of temperature and CO2 concentration with references. Data, mostly from some time ago.
And I have already addressed this. Do you have a response?
Iām curious why we donāt hear more about this ā it doesnāt help the deniers! Itās about pan evaporation test data and the effects of grounding of all commercial air traffic, post 9/11:
In the above plot, there is little correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.
Most would think this was a more relevant time scale to be looking at:
1 Like
The above plot covers 4.5 billion years, a period in which many other things changed, most notably solar output. Itās a bit ridiculous to use that graph to compare to modern conditions.
2 Likes
How about this article? Water is the ultimate greenhouse gas.
- TITLE: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature ChangesAUTHORS: Paulo Cesar SoaresKEYWORDS: Global Warming, CO2, Vapor GreenhouseJOURNAL NAME: International Journal of Geosciences, Vol.1 No.3, December 29, 2010ABSTRACT: The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The comparison of temperature changes and CO2 changes in the atmosphere is made for a large diversity of conditions, with the same data used to model climate changes. Correlation of historical series of data is the main approach. CO2 changes are closely related to temperature. Warmer seasons or triennial phases are followed by an atmosphere that is rich in CO2, reflecting the gas solving or exsolving from water, and not photosynthesis activity. Interannual correlations between the variables are good. A weak dominance of temperature changes precedence, relative to CO2 changes, indicate that the main effect is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere due to temperature rising. Decreasing temperature is not followed by CO2 decrease, which indicates a different route for the CO2 capture by the oceans, not by gas re-absorption. Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase. The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis. The absence of immediate relation between CO2 and temperature is evidence that rising its mix ratio in the atmosphere will not imply more absorption and time residence of energy over the Earth surface. This is explained because band absorption is nearly all done with historic CO2 values. Unlike CO2, water vapor in the atmosphere is rising in tune with temperature changes, even in a monthly scale. The rising energy absorption of vapor is reducing the outcoming long wave radiation window and amplifying warming regionally and in a different way around the globe.
Is this going to be an never ending gush of misinformation?
Water is the ultimate greenhouse gas, but it canāt influence climate over long time periods. A water molecule is in the atmosphere for a couple of weeks, at best. It then precipitates out. Therefore, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a result of temperature. It can not force long term climate trends. CO2, on the other hand, as a residence time measured in decades. It can influence long term climate trends.
The rest I have already talked about.
Denial just aint a river in Egypt.
2 Likes
If you consider the American Journal of Science āmis-informationā, there is not much to talk about. Here is the Berner Referenceā¦AJS 301 182 (2001).
There is an updated Scotese paper in Earth Science Reviewsā¦215,2021.
The misinformation is the implication that CO2 does not cause warming because you donāt see a correlation between CO2 and global temps on that graph.
3 Likes
Ok, but it does raise questions about the statement that the ālast 3 years are the warmest on recordā. My view is that there are two useful time frames for climate discussions. One is the last 3 My the time since the plate movements closed off the Isthmus of Panama that lead to the Gulf Stream and the warming of Western Europe.
The second time frame would be the time since the last glacial maximumā¦LGMā¦About 21,000 years ago. The advent of C-14 dating based on the 5,000 year half-life of C-14 makes may kinds of analytical methods useful for data since that time. In particular the Younger Dryas periods. The insensitivity of CO2 levels to those temperature oscillations directly opposes the notion that CO2 is connected directly to global temperatures. I have seen some data suggesting that, perhaps, about 0.25 degrees C of the total 1.0 warming since the little ice age could be attributed to Industrial Revolution CO2. There does seem to be this persistent DENIAL of the existence of the Little Ice age and the high temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period MWP that were HIGHER than current temperatures. And, the Minoan Warm Period, and the Roman Warm Period.
1 Like
Talk to me about Dimming the Sun.