Climate Change: Some Observations

How much can increased atmospheric carbon be expected to warm the earth? If the atmosphere is sensitive, it will heat a lot. If insensitive, new carbon will have limited effect. Climate change proponents argue that if the atmosphere is sensitive, we must phase out use of fossil fuels.

The opponents agree with all of the science laid out here, but think the atmosphere is not sensitive to increased carbon, meaning that carbon emissions will not have a profound impact on water and clouds and the greenhouse effect. Skeptics believe other factors, like the sun and the ocean, are predominant in creation of weather and temperature.

We know from the historical record that “the climate changes all the time, in different and unpredictable” ways.

Click to expand...

The earth's temperature fluctuated by 6.5 degrees C over the last 10,000 years, from higher than it is now to lower. During this time man made CO2 played no role in the change.

Historically, our current CO2 levels are at an all time low, 270 to 400 ppm. In the past it has been much higher.

Sea levels have been rising for at least 700 years. Levels have risen 130 meters beginning about 12,000 years ago. Most of this rise was from melting glacial ice.

Temperatures warmed 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. Most of this, 0.5 degrees, occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century. For the past 18 years there has been no increase in temperature. None of this is unusual from an historical perspective.

It is impossible to distinguish temperature changes since 1850 from random fluctuation. That is to say, the temperature has gone up, but this could be due to entirely random changes. It seems to me that assigning a cause to the temperature increase without first eliminating the possibility that it is random fluctuation is foolish. If the temperature increase is due to CO2 one would expect there to be a reasonably good association between CO2 and atmospheric temperature. But there's not. Since 1880 it's clear that CO2 will go up but temperature will go up, down, or remain the same regardless. In other words, the temperatures followed the CO2 for a time, but if temperature changes are random eventually the temperature will go off in a different direction, and, as a matter of fact, it already has.

Plotted on the same scale as an outdoor thermometer, these changes in temperature are hardly even visible. Most people can't even feel a change of 0.7 degrees.

The idea that an accurate assessment of mean global temperature down to the tenth of a degree could be made using data from weather stations using thermometers read to the nearest 0.5 degree and randomly scattered over the earth's land mass with an irregular and incomplete coverage whose make, location, and situations are sometimes changed and not entirely known is a pretty incredible conceit; some would flatly say it's impossible.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...ing-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/

LowDown said:

The earth's temperature fluctuated by 6.5 degrees C over the last 10,000 years, from higher than it is now to lower. During this time man made CO2 played no role in the change.

Historically, our current CO2 levels are at an all time low, 270 to 400 ppm. In the past it has been much higher.

Sea levels have been rising for at least 700 years. Levels have risen 130 meters beginning about 12,000 years ago. Most of this rise was from melting glacial ice.

Temperatures warmed 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. Most of this, 0.5 degrees, occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century. For the past 18 years there has been no increase in temperature. None of this is unusual from an historical perspective.

It is impossible to distinguish temperature changes since 1850 from random fluctuation. That is to say, the temperature has gone up, but this could be due to entirely random changes. It seems to me that assigning a cause to the temperature increase without first eliminating the possibility that it is random fluctuation is foolish. If the temperature increase is due to CO2 one would expect there to be a reasonably good association between CO2 and atmospheric temperature. But there's not. Since 1880 it's clear that CO2 will go up but temperature will go up, down, or remain the same regardless. In other words, the temperatures followed the CO2 for a time, but if temperature changes are random eventually the temperature will go off in a different direction, and, as a matter of fact, it already has.

Plotted on the same scale as an outdoor thermometer, these changes in temperature are hardly even visible. Most people can't even feel a change of 0.7 degrees.

The idea that an accurate assessment of mean global temperature down to the tenth of a degree could be made using data from weather stations using thermometers read to the nearest 0.5 degree and randomly scattered over the earth's land mass with an irregular and incomplete coverage whose make, location, and situations are sometimes changed and not entirely known is a pretty incredible conceit; some would flatly say it's impossible.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...ing-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/

Click to expand...

I only have one question. Petrocarbons are burned at 25% efficeincy at the rate of over 100 million barrels a day, double that counting Natural Gas and tell me where the 75% of the energy lost as waste goes? Don't forget that space is a vacuum and a great insulator. Can't get any simpler.

DaveFagan said:

I only have one question. Petrocarbons are burned at 25% efficeincy at the rate of over 100 million barrels a day, double that counting Natural Gas and tell me where the 75% of the energy lost as waste goes? Don't forget that space is a vacuum and a great insulator. Can't get any simpler.

Click to expand...

Vacuum is only a good insulator for convection heat, radiant heat sees a vacuum as less resistance to flow.
This is why they mirror vacuum bottles!

longview said:

Vacuum is only a good insulator for convection heat, radiant heat sees a vacuum as less resistance to flow.
This is why they mirror vacuum bottles!

Click to expand...

I live in a trailer with an aluminum skin, a great conductor. Howcum if I leave my heat burning it gets too hot inside? A miniscule amount of heat compared to waste atmospheric heat. Why are flat plate solar collectors more efficient than evacuated tube collectors.

DaveFagan said:

I live in a trailer with an aluminum skin, a great conductor. Howcum if I leave my heat burning it gets too hot inside? A miniscule amount of heat compared to waste atmospheric heat. Why are flat plate solar collectors more efficient than evacuated tube collectors.

Click to expand...

You have to check a Physics book, Radiant energy passes a vacuum just fine.
Last time I checked, evacuated tube collectors are more efficient than flat plates, for the same surface area.

DaveFagan said:

I only have one question. Petrocarbons are burned at 25% efficeincy at the rate of over 100 million barrels a day, double that counting Natural Gas and tell me where the 75% of the energy lost as waste goes? Don't forget that space is a vacuum and a great insulator. Can't get any simpler.

Click to expand...

As much heat radiates from the earth into space as the earth receives from the son or otherwise the earth would be heating up continuously.

How much energy does 100 million barrels of oil represent? One barrel yields 1680 kWh, so 100 million barrels would yield 1.68e14 Wh.

How much energy does the earth get from the sun every day? 4.17e18 Wh. So the energy from petrocarbons introduced into the earth's environment is 0.004% of the energy that the earth receives from the son daily. It makes no detectable difference.

LowDown said:

As much heat radiates from the earth into space as the earth receives from the son or otherwise the earth would be heating up continuously.

How much energy does 100 million barrels of oil represent? One barrel yields 1680 kWh, so 100 million barrels would yield 1.68e14 Wh.

How much energy does the earth get from the sun every day? 4.17e18 Wh. So the energy from petrocarbons introduced into the earth's environment is 0.004% of the energy that the earth receives from the son daily. It makes no detectable difference.

Click to expand...

Now double it to include Natural Gas. Double again or more for coal. Add biomass and nuclear and it is a difference. Now add the increased absorption of heat from the sun by the reduced ice mass of high reflectance white to dark water. Now calculate the increased Greenhouse Effect from methan hydrates warming and vaporizing into the atmosphere. By the way the Greenhouse was proven in the 1800s. Do the math on these and get back to me.

LowDown said:

The earth's temperature fluctuated by 6.5 degrees C over the last 10,000 years, from higher than it is now to lower. During this time man made CO2 played no role in the change.

Click to expand...

Half-truth: Natural changes in atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) did play a significant role. Furthermore 21st century temperatures are close or comparable to the average of the Holocene thermal maximum, a startling reversal of the long-term cooling trend of the past millenia.

Historically, our current CO2 levels are at an all time low, 270 to 400 ppm. In the past it has been much higher.

Click to expand...

Half-truth: For the past million-plus years concentrations had not exceeded 320ppm until the 20th century, nor had they ever risen as rapidly as they have in the past hundred years.

Sea levels have been rising for at least 700 years. Levels have risen 130 meters beginning about 12,000 years ago. Most of this rise was from melting glacial ice.

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated: Your evidence of 700 years of sea level rise? For most of that period (c.1100-1700 CE) global average temperatures were generally declining, implying an increase in polar and glacial ice.

Temperatures warmed 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. Most of this, 0.5 degrees, occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century. For the past 18 years there has been no increase in temperature. None of this is unusual from an historical perspective.

Click to expand...

False and intentionally misleading: 2015/16 is hotter than 1997/98 by a level consistent with the preceeding decades' temperature trend, despite a slightly smaller El Nino event, and the same holds true using comparable La Nina periods.

It is impossible to distinguish temperature changes since 1850 from random fluctuation. That is to say, the temperature has gone up, but this could be due to entirely random changes. It seems to me that assigning a cause to the temperature increase without first eliminating the possibility that it is random fluctuation is foolish....

Click to expand...

False and intentionally misleading: Entirely random fluctuation is almost never similar to the temperature record. Even a semi-random series with variation parameters similar to the temperature record is very rarely similar to the temperature record. But since climatic variations are not random - as any schoolkid could tell you, they depend on changes in the sun, atmospheric composition, oceanic circulation etc. - that whole exercise tells us absolutely nothing about the temperature record and nothing about the climate.

Plotted on the same scale as an outdoor thermometer, these changes in temperature are hardly even visible. Most people can't even feel a change of 0.7 degrees.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant: The consequences which that accumulation of energy in the climate system will entail don't depend on "feeling" the temperature change. Even fewer people can "feel" changes in the stock market :lol:

The idea that an accurate assessment of mean global temperature down to the tenth of a degree could be made using data from weather stations using thermometers read to the nearest 0.5 degree and randomly scattered over the earth's land mass with an irregular and incomplete coverage whose make, location, and situations are sometimes changed and not entirely known is a pretty incredible conceit; some would flatly say it's impossible.

Click to expand...

Half-truth (at best): Monitoring stations have a thorough coverage of the planet except at the poles; regions of denser coverage are accounted for with area weighting; half a degree is ample accuracy to measure local max/min temperature swings of ten to twenty degrees with a very low margin of error; and the raw data has been analysed by at least three different major organisations (NOAA/NCEI, GISS and HadCRUT) with remarkably consistent results. Furthermore, since 1979 the atmospheric satellite records have provided even more data on temperature distributions and trends, with larger error margins but without some of the peculiarities (eg. urban heat island effect) of the surface network. Annual surface temperatures have 95% confidence intervals of about +/- 0.25 degrees and longer-term trends have confidence intervals of about +/- 0.1 degrees:

DaveFagan said:

I only have one question. Petrocarbons are burned at 25% efficeincy at the rate of over 100 million barrels a day, double that counting Natural Gas and tell me where the 75% of the energy lost as waste goes? Don't forget that space is a vacuum and a great insulator. Can't get any simpler.

Click to expand...

The proof that carbon in the atmosphere was increasing is not called to question in the OP.

Making the absolute connection between that steady increase and the variable increase-decrease-static changes in temperature is your assignment. So far, that seems to be am IM Assignment.

It is only by starting with the conclusion that the argument is air tight.

DaveFagan said:

Now double it to include Natural Gas. Double again or more for coal. Add biomass and nuclear and it is a difference. Now add the increased absorption of heat from the sun by the reduced ice mass of high reflectance white to dark water. Now calculate the increased Greenhouse Effect from methan hydrates warming and vaporizing into the atmosphere. By the way the Greenhouse was proven in the 1800s. Do the math on these and get back to me.

Click to expand...

Do all of your calculations add up to 0.7 degrees in 2000 years?

Mithrae said:

Half-truth: Natural changes in atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) did play a significant role. Furthermore 21st century temperatures are close or comparable to the average of the Holocene thermal maximum, a startling reversal of the long-term cooling trend of the past millenia.




Half-truth: For the past million-plus years concentrations had not exceeded 320ppm until the 20th century, nor had they ever risen as rapidly as they have in the past hundred years.



Unsubstantiated: Your evidence of 700 years of sea level rise? For most of that period (c.1100-1700 CE) global average temperatures were generally declining, implying an increase in polar and glacial ice.



False and intentionally misleading: 2015/16 is hotter than 1997/98 by a level consistent with the preceeding decades' temperature trend, despite a slightly smaller El Nino event, and the same holds true using comparable La Nina periods.



False and intentionally misleading: Entirely random fluctuation is almost never similar to the temperature record. Even a semi-random series with variation parameters similar to the temperature record is very rarely similar to the temperature record. But since climatic variations are not random - as any schoolkid could tell you, they depend on changes in the sun, atmospheric composition, oceanic circulation etc. - that whole exercise tells us absolutely nothing about the temperature record and nothing about the climate.



Irrelevant: The consequences which that accumulation of energy in the climate system will entail don't depend on "feeling" the temperature change. Even fewer people can "feel" changes in the stock market :lol:



Half-truth (at best): Monitoring stations have a thorough coverage of the planet except at the poles; regions of denser coverage are accounted for with area weighting; half a degree is ample accuracy to measure local max/min temperature swings of ten to twenty degrees with a very low margin of error; and the raw data has been analysed by at least three different major organisations (NOAA/NCEI, GISS and HadCRUT) with remarkably consistent results. Furthermore, since 1979 the atmospheric satellite records have provided even more data on temperature distributions and trends, with larger error margins but without some of the peculiarities (eg. urban heat island effect) of the surface network. Annual surface temperatures have 95% confidence intervals of about +/- 0.25 degrees and longer-term trends have confidence intervals of about +/- 0.1 degrees:

Click to expand...

Why use the Earth Stations instead of satellite readings when available? This seems like a complication of the process that is not needed.

Why are the outcomes of the GISS Earth Station readings changed retroactively by the administrators resulting in a better match with the predictions of those administering the programs?

European Glaciers receding today are receding to levels of 5000 years ago. This would seem to indicate a return to a higher temperature present at lower CO2 concentrations.

Does a temperature that rises and falls independently of atmospheric CO2 concentration de-couple the implied causal connection?

code1211 said:

Why use the Earth Stations instead of satellite readings when available? This seems like a complication of the process that is not needed.

Click to expand...

I myself refer to both sets of records on a regular basis. But when push comes to shove they measure slightly different things - mostly around 0-4000m weighting for the lower troposphere satellite records - and if you're interested in surface temperatures, you should primarily use the surface temperature records, not the atmospheric ones.

code1211 said:

Why are the outcomes of the GISS Earth Station readings changed retroactively by the administrators resulting in a better match with the predictions of those administering the programs?

Click to expand...

They aren't.

code1211 said:

European Glaciers receding today are receding to levels of 5000 years ago. This would seem to indicate a return to a higher temperature present at lower CO2 concentrations.

Does a temperature that rises and falls independently of atmospheric CO2 concentration de-couple the implied causal connection?

Click to expand...

Only if you assume that there's only a single factor influencing climate :lol: The Holocene's long-term trend of warming to a maximum and subsequent cooling is probably due primarily to changes in insolation due to orbital variation - a trend which has been reversed during the industrial era.

code1211 said:

Do all of your calculations add up to 0.7 degrees in 2000 years?

Click to expand...

No. Do any of your calculations actually add up?

Mithrae said:

I myself refer to both sets of records on a regular basis. But when push comes to shove they measure slightly different things - mostly around 0-4000m weighting for the lower troposphere satellite records - and if you're interested in surface temperatures, you should primarily use the surface temperature records, not the atmospheric ones.



They aren't.



Only if you assume that there's only a single factor influencing climate :lol: The Holocene's long-term trend of warming to a maximum and subsequent cooling is probably due primarily to changes in insolation due to orbital variation - a trend which has been reversed during the industrial era.

View attachment 67211769

Click to expand...

We've covered the retroactive changes made to the temperature record by the NASA folks here before. Are you saying that the changes were not made at all, that the results did not better match the predictions or that the motivation was unrelated to creating the desired outcomes?

The various data sets all seem to reflect warming and all seem to have similar results, but the GISS data set seems to routinely deviate on the warmer end of the variation between sets.

I don't assume that the climate changes are caused by only one factor. The AGW activists seem to, though. By their statements on the topic, we are led to believe that controlling the actions of man as it relates to the emissions of CO2 will lead us to being able to control and direct the climate of the planet.

DaveFagan said:

No. Do any of your calculations actually add up?

Click to expand...

I don't make calculations. You seemed to imply that you had some information that tied the increase in CO2 to the rise of temperature.

It seems that many calling others to be alarmed about AGW make assertions like the one you made.

I was only wondering if you had the actual goods or were just typing for the sake of typing.

To ask a question, I only need to have a question. Asking a question reflects nothing more than curiosity.

code1211 said:

We've covered the retroactive changes made to the temperature record by the NASA folks here before. Are you saying that the changes were not made at all, that the results did not better match the predictions or that the motivation was unrelated to creating the desired outcomes?

The various data sets all seem to reflect warming and all seem to have similar results, but the GISS data set seems to routinely deviate on the warmer end of the variation between sets.

Click to expand...

If you don't trust GISS, then use the temperature records produced by HadCRUT or NOAA. Surely that's a no-brainer? The difference between the three is negligible in any case - on a ten-year mean, perhaps three or four hundredths of a degree from 1900 to present. Correspondingly, such minute changes do not exactly look like some devious element in a world-altering conspiracy: It is utterly absurd to suggest that large numbers of scientists would engage in collective fraud with such insignificant results and nothing to gain.

code1211 said:

I don't assume that the climate changes are caused by only one factor. The AGW activists seem to, though. By their statements on the topic, we are led to believe that controlling the actions of man as it relates to the emissions of CO2 will lead us to being able to control and direct the climate of the planet.

Click to expand...

I obviously can't speak for "AGW activists," but I for one would say that just because there's maybe a dozen dials for planetary climate which you can't turn, doesn't mean you should keep twisting the couple you can faster than they've ever been turned before. If the results of turning those dials is unknown, unnecessarily doing so would be stupid. If (as seems to be the case) the results are likely to be negative on balance, that's all the more reason to hasten the transition away from 19th century combustion fuel technology and into 21st century energy technologies.

Oil for fuel, 100 million barrels a day at 25% efficiency and the other 75% as waste heat to atmosphere. Coal, more heavily used on Earth than oil. Same story. Natural Gas, about the same amount as Oil. Same story. Biomass, wood etc., same story. Nuclear. those huge plumes from the cooling tower are hot water vapor into the air. At one time I calculated petro usage to add one tenth of a degree every ten years. So, coal probably adds a tenth. Natura Gas adds a tenth. Biomass adds a tenth. Nuke adds a tenth. That's five tenths every ten years. Let's say I could have an error of 100% and usage would only add half that five tenths every ten years. Two and a half tents every ten years and 2.5 degrees after 100 years. The static radiation of the Earth is reduced by the Greenhouse gases so less heat goes into space. That would be a positive input into temperatures. The ice sheets melt and white area becoming dark area changes the albedo of the Planet trapping more heat and another positive input into temperatures. The incresed temps in the far Northern Hemisphere causse Methane hydrate to evaporate into the atmosphere increasing the Greenhouse Effect. There are huge craters in Siberia where the Methane hydrates have released with explosive fury. Generally, their evaporation is not obviously apparent. Now, match all of these heat inputs with solar minimums and maximums and see if the status quo data is skewed.. Have a nice day.

code1211 said:

I don't make calculations. You seemed to imply that you had some information that tied the increase in CO2 to the rise of temperature.

It seems that many calling others to be alarmed about AGW make assertions like the one you made.

I was only wondering if you had the actual goods or were just typing for the sake of typing.

To ask a question, I only need to have a question. Asking a question reflects nothing more than curiosity.

Click to expand...

Oil for fuel, 100 million barrels a day at 25% efficiency and the other 75% as waste heat to atmosphere. Coal, more heavily used on Earth than oil. Same story. Natural Gas, about the same amount as Oil. Same story. Biomass, wood etc., same story. Nuclear. those huge plumes from the cooling tower are hot water vapor into the air. At one time I calculated petro usage to add one tenth of a degree every ten years. So, coal probably adds a tenth. Natura Gas adds a tenth. Biomass adds a tenth. Nuke adds a tenth. That's five tenths every ten years. Let's say I could have an error of 100% and usage would only add half that five tenths every ten years. Two and a half tents every ten years and 2.5 degrees after 100 years. The static radiation of the Earth is reduced by the Greenhouse gases so less heat goes into space. That would be a positive input into temperatures. The ice sheets melt and white area becoming dark area changes the albedo of the Planet trapping more heat and another positive input into temperatures. The incresed temps in the far Northern Hemisphere causse Methane hydrate to evaporate into the atmosphere increasing the Greenhouse Effect. There are huge craters in Siberia where the Methane hydrates have released with explosive fury. Generally, their evaporation is not obviously apparent. Now, match all of these heat inputs with solar minimums and maximums and see if the status quo data is skewed.. Have a nice day. Asking a question gets answers.

Mithrae said:

If you don't trust GISS, then use the temperature records produced by HadCRUT or NOAA. Surely that's a no-brainer? The difference between the three is negligible in any case - on a ten-year mean, perhaps three or four hundredths of a degree from 1900 to present. Correspondingly, such minute changes do not exactly look like some devious element in a world-altering conspiracy: It is utterly absurd to suggest that large numbers of scientists would engage in collective fraud with such insignificant results and nothing to gain.



I obviously can't speak for "AGW activists," but I for one would say that just because there's maybe a dozen dials for planetary climate which you can't turn, doesn't mean you should keep twisting the couple you can faster than they've ever been turned before. If the results of turning those dials is unknown, unnecessarily doing so would be stupid. If (as seems to be the case) the results are likely to be negative on balance, that's all the more reason to hasten the transition away from 19th century combustion fuel technology and into 21st century energy technologies.

Click to expand...

The highlighted idea is the whole point in this.

The use of fossil fuels has produced the greatest benefit for mankind than any other single factor.

The growth in the world population since 1900 is evidence of that along with the unprecedented creation of world wide wealth and the myriad advances in technology that accompany it all.

Take away fossil fuels and for the most part, the various advances in technology and the growth of population does not occur.

You assert that this uncertain connection should force us to abandon the thing that has provided the greatest comfort to the greatest number in the history of mankind.

I just disagree with that conclusion.

DaveFagan said:

Oil for fuel, 100 million barrels a day at 25% efficiency and the other 75% as waste heat to atmosphere. Coal, more heavily used on Earth than oil. Same story. Natural Gas, about the same amount as Oil. Same story. Biomass, wood etc., same story. Nuclear. those huge plumes from the cooling tower are hot water vapor into the air. At one time I calculated petro usage to add one tenth of a degree every ten years. So, coal probably adds a tenth. Natura Gas adds a tenth. Biomass adds a tenth. Nuke adds a tenth. That's five tenths every ten years. Let's say I could have an error of 100% and usage would only add half that five tenths every ten years. Two and a half tents every ten years and 2.5 degrees after 100 years. The static radiation of the Earth is reduced by the Greenhouse gases so less heat goes into space. That would be a positive input into temperatures. The ice sheets melt and white area becoming dark area changes the albedo of the Planet trapping more heat and another positive input into temperatures. The incresed temps in the far Northern Hemisphere causse Methane hydrate to evaporate into the atmosphere increasing the Greenhouse Effect. There are huge craters in Siberia where the Methane hydrates have released with explosive fury. Generally, their evaporation is not obviously apparent. Now, match all of these heat inputs with solar minimums and maximums and see if the status quo data is skewed.. Have a nice day. Asking a question gets answers.

Click to expand...

How long has this heating of the global climate that you note been going on? How many additions of +1 degree every 20 years have we already experienced?

DaveFagan said:

Now double it to include Natural Gas. Double again or more for coal. Add biomass and nuclear and it is a difference. Now add the increased absorption of heat from the sun by the reduced ice mass of high reflectance white to dark water. Now calculate the increased Greenhouse Effect from methan hydrates warming and vaporizing into the atmosphere. By the way the Greenhouse was proven in the 1800s. Do the math on these and get back to me.

Click to expand...

Doubling it twice and adding everything in still is a miniscule amount of energy against the solar energy flux. The threat from methane hydrates isn't materializing, and increasing methane will only add so much; it has a narrow absorption spectrum. Besides which, the absorption spectrum of water vapor overlaps it. Yes, of course the greenhouse effect has been validated many times, but so what? The catastrophic global warming hypothesis still depends on the assumptions they make about how greenhouse gas forcings interact being correct. Estimates of climate sensitivity published in the IPCC 5th report go as low as 1.4, so even that science undercuts CAGW to a large degree. Tell people that lower sensitivity is possible, as the IPCC report says, and they'll call you a climate denier.

code1211 said:

How long has this heating of the global climate that you note been going on? How many additions of +1 degree every 20 years have we already experienced?

Click to expand...

In my lifetime, the population of the Planet has doubled, with twice as many people doing twice as many things simultaneously. All expending energy. The point is that the Planet is not the same as in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Our activities have increased exponentially, not linearly. Also, you have distorted my answer. I specifically gave a conservative number of 2.5 degrees in a hundred years, not relating to Greenhouse Effect and allowing considerable room for error. I am attempting to approach the warming with simple logic and to minimize the math to matters of common sense and observable phenomena.
/

LowDown said:

The earth's temperature fluctuated by 6.5 degrees C over the last 10,000 years, from higher than it is now to lower. During this time man made CO2 played no role in the change.

Historically, our current CO2 levels are at an all time low, 270 to 400 ppm. In the past it has been much higher.

Sea levels have been rising for at least 700 years. Levels have risen 130 meters beginning about 12,000 years ago. Most of this rise was from melting glacial ice.

Temperatures warmed 0.7 degrees in the 20th century. Most of this, 0.5 degrees, occurred in the last quarter of the 20th century. For the past 18 years there has been no increase in temperature. None of this is unusual from an historical perspective.

It is impossible to distinguish temperature changes since 1850 from random fluctuation. That is to say, the temperature has gone up, but this could be due to entirely random changes. It seems to me that assigning a cause to the temperature increase without first eliminating the possibility that it is random fluctuation is foolish. If the temperature increase is due to CO2 one would expect there to be a reasonably good association between CO2 and atmospheric temperature. But there's not. Since 1880 it's clear that CO2 will go up but temperature will go up, down, or remain the same regardless. In other words, the temperatures followed the CO2 for a time, but if temperature changes are random eventually the temperature will go off in a different direction, and, as a matter of fact, it already has.

Plotted on the same scale as an outdoor thermometer, these changes in temperature are hardly even visible. Most people can't even feel a change of 0.7 degrees.

The idea that an accurate assessment of mean global temperature down to the tenth of a degree could be made using data from weather stations using thermometers read to the nearest 0.5 degree and randomly scattered over the earth's land mass with an irregular and incomplete coverage whose make, location, and situations are sometimes changed and not entirely known is a pretty incredible conceit; some would flatly say it's impossible.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12...ing-rise-of-dangerous-manmade-global-voguing/

Click to expand...

[h=2]Internal climate variability as a confounding factor in climate sensitivity estimates[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on December 29, 2016 | 72 comments[/FONT]
by Frank Bosse
Towards eliminating multi-decadal natural oscillations in determination of the Transient Climate Response (TCR) to CO2.
Continue reading →

code1211 said:

The highlighted idea is the whole point in this.

The use of fossil fuels has produced the greatest benefit for mankind than any other single factor.

The growth in the world population since 1900 is evidence of that along with the unprecedented creation of world wide wealth and the myriad advances in technology that accompany it all.

Take away fossil fuels and for the most part, the various advances in technology and the growth of population does not occur.

You assert that this uncertain connection should force us to abandon the thing that has provided the greatest comfort to the greatest number in the history of mankind.

I just disagree with that conclusion.

Click to expand...

You're confusing cause and effect there. The things which have provided the greatest comfort to the greatest number are firstly democracy, secondly technological advances and abundant energy only thirdly. Technology and energy harnessed to the will of the glorious leader are scant comfort to folk in North Korea, I imagine, and without scientific and technological advances there would be no coal or petroleum engines to begin with.

Abundant energy has been instrumental in human progress of course, but where is it written that this energy can only come from the combustion of fossil fuels? Or even that 'abundant' needs to mean increasing supply, rather than decreasing demand?

21st century nuclear technology, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and maybe even carbon capture and storage if it proves to be effective and economical can all be viable components of an energy mix. Better city design, telecommunications, and greater efficiency in products, vehicles and international transport are all modern approaches to energy consumption.

Exaggerating and glorifying fossil fuels as the pinnacle of human civilization is pretty much a rejection of the very technology and progress which you incorrectly attribute to them in the first place. Even aside from climate change, the smoke and fumes from combustion is dirty stuff to begin with - it's always been a trade-off, a necessary evil at best which societies have struggled over time to enforce cleaner regulations upon. Let's not get all dewy-eyed over coal stacks belching black clouds, shall we? :lol: Or international wars fought to ensure the security of oil reserves?

While they might always have some role in for example aviation, at least for the foreseeable future, the transition away from combustion fuels has always been desirable and inevitable. Their contribution to climate change just makes it a little more pressing.

Mithrae said:

. . . Abundant energy has been instrumental in human progress of course, but where is it written that this energy can only come from the combustion of fossil fuels? Or even that 'abundant' needs to mean increasing supply, rather than decreasing demand?

21st century nuclear technology, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and maybe even carbon capture and storage if it proves to be effective and economical can all be viable components of an energy mix. Better city design, telecommunications, and greater efficiency in products, vehicles and international transport are all modern approaches to energy consumption.

Exaggerating and glorifying fossil fuels as the pinnacle of human civilization is pretty much a rejection of the very technology and progress which you incorrectly attribute to them in the first place. Even aside from climate change, the smoke and fumes from combustion is dirty stuff to begin with - it's always been a trade-off, a necessary evil at best which societies have struggled over time to enforce cleaner regulations upon. Let's not get all dewy-eyed over coal stacks belching black clouds, shall we? :lol: Or international wars fought to ensure the security of oil reserves?

While they might always have some role in for example aviation, at least for the foreseeable future, the transition away from combustion fuels has always been desirable and inevitable. Their contribution to climate change just makes it a little more pressing.

Click to expand...

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels


Review and Summary of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”
By Andy May
The best-selling book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels was first published November 27, 2014 by Penguin. The author, Alex Epstein, took a BA in Philosophy from Duke University in 2002. He is the President of the Center for Industrial Progress, a former fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He was also named as one of the top 10 in Rolling Stone’s 2013 “Global Warming Denier Elite.” High praise indeed! He was fourth on the list.
Epstein presents a very well written discussion of the climate change debate. He destroys the 97% consensus myth, explains that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect decreases logarithmically with concentration and shows that the climate computer models used to compute man’s influence on climate have never successfully predicted anything. He also shows that global warming has not increased extreme weather of any kind and that the dangers from extreme weather are less today than at any time in man’s history largely due to fossil fuels. He discusses Craig Idso’s pioneering research proving that increasing carbon dioxide acts as a powerful fertilizer for many plants. But readers of this review know these facts, so we will focus on his discussion of the merits of fossil fuels. He is a good writer and has superhuman skills at laying out a compelling logical argument. He would have put Daniel Webster and Clarence Darrow to shame. I highly recommend the book.
According to ExxonMobil’s 2016 report, in 2014 fossil fuels produced 82% of the energy in the world. Fossil fuels have produced more than 80% of the energy used in the US for over 100 years according to the EIA. They predict that in 2040 fossil fuels will still produce 78% of the world’s energy. Oil will grow at a 0.7% annual rate and natural gas will grow 1.6% per year. Coal will slightly decline. Yet, many in society think fossil fuels are bad for us and the world. . . . .