NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index

slo1111 said:

I'm not certain how you interpret my response as suggesting it is a linear relationship. X is any number. Increase of GHG gasses in atmosphere results in higher amount of thermal radiation getting captures versus escaping.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that it is not based on a percentage. The amount of energy imbalance is lower
for each unit increase.

slo1111 said:

There are other methods used to measure CO2, mainly ice cores on glacers that have been around as long as us. If you have credible studies that refute there have been higher CO2 in the last 880,000 years, I would love to see it.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You said history it is fact that co2 levels have been higher.
This is a bogus statement.

Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...

https://www.ras.org.uk/search/.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out his novel work in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. ... According to Henrik Svensmark, the rate of nearby supernovae strongly ...

Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive?

Research by a Danish physicist suggests that the explosion of massive stars – supernovae – near the Solar System has strongly influenced the development of life. Prof. Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out his novel work in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

When the most massive stars exhaust their available fuel and reach the end of their lives, they explode as supernovae, tremendously powerful explosions that are briefly brighter than an entire galaxy of normal stars. The remnants of these dramatic events also release vast numbers of high-energy charged particles known as galactic cosmic rays (GCR). If a supernova is close enough to the Solar System, the enhanced GCR levels can have a direct impact on the atmosphere of the Earth.
Prof. Svensmark looked back through 500 million years of geological and astronomical data and considered the proximity of the Sun to supernovae as it moves around our Galaxy, the Milky Way. In particular, when the Sun is passing through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, it encounters newly forming clusters of stars. These so-called open clusters, which disperse over time, have a range of ages and sizes and will have started with a small proportion of stars massive enough to explode as supernovae. From the data on open clusters, Prof. Svensmark was able to deduce how the rate at which supernovae exploded near the Solar System varied over time.
Comparing this with the geological record, he found that the changing frequency of nearby supernovae seems to have strongly shaped the conditions for life on Earth. Whenever the Sun and its planets have visited regions of enhanced star formation in the Milky Way Galaxy, where exploding stars are most common, life has prospered. Prof. Svensmark remarks in the paper, "The biosphere seems to contain a reflection of the sky, in that the evolution of life mirrors the evolution of the Galaxy.". . .

He also notices that most geological periods seem to begin and end with either an upturn or a downturn in the supernova rate. The changes in typical species that define a period, in the transition from one to the next, could then be the result of a major change in the astrophysical environment.
Life's prosperity, or global bioproductivity, can be tracked by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air at various times in the past as set out in the geological record. When supernova rates were high, carbon dioxide was scarce, suggesting that flourishing microbial and plant life in the oceans consumed it greedily to grow. . . .
The data also support the idea of a long-term link between cosmic rays and climate, with these climatic changes underlying the biological effects. And compared with the temperature variations seen on short timescales as a consequence of the Sun's influence on the influx of cosmic rays, the heating and cooling of the Earth due to cosmic rays varying with the prevailing supernova rate have been far larger.
The director of DTU Space, Prof. Eigil Friis-Christensen, comments: "When this enquiry into effects of cosmic rays from supernova remnants began 16 years ago, we never imagined that it would lead us so deep into time, or into so many aspects of the Earth's history. The connection to evolution is a culmination of this work."

Jack Hays said:

Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive? - Royal Astronomical ...

https://www.ras.org.uk/search/.../2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out his novel work in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. ... According to Henrik Svensmark, the rate of nearby supernovae strongly ...

Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive?

Research by a Danish physicist suggests that the explosion of massive stars – supernovae – near the Solar System has strongly influenced the development of life. Prof. Henrik Svensmark of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) sets out his novel work in a paper in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

When the most massive stars exhaust their available fuel and reach the end of their lives, they explode as supernovae, tremendously powerful explosions that are briefly brighter than an entire galaxy of normal stars. The remnants of these dramatic events also release vast numbers of high-energy charged particles known as galactic cosmic rays (GCR). If a supernova is close enough to the Solar System, the enhanced GCR levels can have a direct impact on the atmosphere of the Earth.
Prof. Svensmark looked back through 500 million years of geological and astronomical data and considered the proximity of the Sun to supernovae as it moves around our Galaxy, the Milky Way. In particular, when the Sun is passing through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, it encounters newly forming clusters of stars. These so-called open clusters, which disperse over time, have a range of ages and sizes and will have started with a small proportion of stars massive enough to explode as supernovae. From the data on open clusters, Prof. Svensmark was able to deduce how the rate at which supernovae exploded near the Solar System varied over time.
Comparing this with the geological record, he found that the changing frequency of nearby supernovae seems to have strongly shaped the conditions for life on Earth. Whenever the Sun and its planets have visited regions of enhanced star formation in the Milky Way Galaxy, where exploding stars are most common, life has prospered. Prof. Svensmark remarks in the paper, "The biosphere seems to contain a reflection of the sky, in that the evolution of life mirrors the evolution of the Galaxy.". . .

He also notices that most geological periods seem to begin and end with either an upturn or a downturn in the supernova rate. The changes in typical species that define a period, in the transition from one to the next, could then be the result of a major change in the astrophysical environment.
Life's prosperity, or global bioproductivity, can be tracked by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air at various times in the past as set out in the geological record. When supernova rates were high, carbon dioxide was scarce, suggesting that flourishing microbial and plant life in the oceans consumed it greedily to grow. . . .
The data also support the idea of a long-term link between cosmic rays and climate, with these climatic changes underlying the biological effects. And compared with the temperature variations seen on short timescales as a consequence of the Sun's influence on the influx of cosmic rays, the heating and cooling of the Earth due to cosmic rays varying with the prevailing supernova rate have been far larger.
The director of DTU Space, Prof. Eigil Friis-Christensen, comments: "When this enquiry into effects of cosmic rays from supernova remnants began 16 years ago, we never imagined that it would lead us so deep into time, or into so many aspects of the Earth's history. The connection to evolution is a culmination of this work."

Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:thumbs: I could happily read more about Svensmark's discoveries every day of the week! Thanks for posting this!

polgara said:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

:thumbs: I could happily read more about Svensmark's discoveries every day of the week! Thanks for posting this!

Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

You're welcome. It's an oldie but a goodie.:mrgreen:

longview said:

It have taken our complete unrestricted activity for 150 years to increase the CO2 level by 129 ppm,
The balance of the first doubling (151 ppm) will not be as easy or inexpensive as the first part.

Click to expand...

*cough*

The world's population circa 1900 was somewhere around 1.5 billion people. Not only do we have 4 times as many people on the planet, we have more people using more energy than at any previous time. In 1900, the vast majority of people did not have cars, TVs, computers, mobile phones, fridges, HVAC or dozens of other energy-consuming items. I.e. the carbon footprint per capita has gone up, and will continue to rise.

I.e. it is not looking like greenhouse gas emissions will slow down, at least not without major international efforts.

3. we do not actually have good lab laboratory data on how much energy imbalance the added greenhouse will cause....
There is a paper out there that measured the imbalance from 2000 to 2010.

Click to expand...

*cough*

I'm pretty sure I'm the one who pointed out that paper to you, because you claimed there was no evidence that CO2 correlated to sea level rise. Since you somehow managed to miss it, the authors estimate that the last time our atmosphere had 400ppm of CO2, sea levels were 9 feet higher than they are now.

More importantly, I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong link. You probably want this one, which is the first direct empirical observation of CO2 increasing atmospheric temperatures, and which... wait for it... confirms AGW, including many current predictions:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

And yes we can calculate the amount of trapped energy if we add more CO2,
the problem is that based on the observed data, the energy imbalance from doubling the Co2 level would only be
2.38 Wm-2, much lower than the IPCC number of 3.71 Wm-2, and right in line with skeptics like Judith Curry.

Click to expand...

Sure, if you ignore how the paper points out that the forcing effects of CO2 are tripled by its subsequent effects, such as pushing more water vapor into the atmosphere:

Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 2000 and 2010
have led to increases in clear-sky surface radiative forcing of over
0.2 W m^2 at mid- and high-latitudes. Fossil fuel emissions and fires
contributed substantially to the observed increase. The climate perturbation
from this surface forcing will be larger than the observed effect,
since it has been found that the water-vapour feedback enhances greenhouse
gas forcing at the surface by a factor of three and will increase,
largely owing to thermodynamic constraints.

Other factors do limit a greenhouse molecule's ability to absorb energy, In the case of CO2,
if the molecule is not at ground state the 15 um photon will pass, CO2 spends much of it's time not at ground state.
in a CO2 laser, we add helium to the mix to speed the steps to ground state, to limit population inversion.

Click to expand...

And... you think climatologists don't understand the properties of CO2? Seriously?

The CO2 molecule temporarily absorbs the energy that was rising out of the atmosphere, then radiates it. Since the direction of the resulting photon release is random, some of that heat radiates into space (i.e. the direction it was originally headed in), but the rest radiates back into the atmosphere or to the ground. Hence the problem.

4B, I am not concerned about greenhouse gasses, because the measured sensitivity is much lower than the modeled amount,
and we will replace fossil oil based fuels with man made one in the next few decades.

Click to expand...

You should be concerned about greenhouse gases, because that rosy outcome can't be taken for granted.

Even people who are optimistic about the use of low-emission and renewables know that it's going to be very difficult to scale back CO2 production, at a time when nearly 1/3 the Earth's population (notably in China and India) are rapidly industrializing, and want that sweet sweet Western greenhouse-gas-creating affluent lifestyle.

Oil prices have been creeping higher, and electricity prices creeping lower.

Click to expand...

Oil prices cratered in the last few years, and are currently around average. Plus, millions of people around the world are starting to drive cars.

we can alter the climate, we already have.

Click to expand...

...yes, we can pump massive amounts of warming substances into the skies. Removing CO2 is not impossible, but it's not clear if we can scale up enough to have a beneficial effect on the climate, let alone unexpected effects of whatever process we use.

longview said:

Thanks, I was unaware what the lower range was.
I think we are already seeing the real feedback of the planet, with the large increase in greening.

Click to expand...

A couple of years of record rainfall have had a noticeable greening effect around the Austin area.

slo1111 said:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Natural disasters have been on the decline and costing less over the last 10 years. Panic is not useful

Do you think cars are the only use of fossil fuels, Lighting was first, kerosene,
Gasoline was a waste product. Also the 150 years included present times.
Yep, You pointed out the paper, I glad your link works the other link is being serviced.

What you seem to have missed from the paper was the actual data.
With all the variables in, the energy imbalance for a change of 22 ppm was .2 Wm-2.
If the effects of the added CO2 were tripled, than they started out even smaller, because
again the amount of imbalance measured was .2 Wm-2 for a change in CO2 of 22 ppm.

As to climatologists understanding CO2, I am not sure, do they have quantum physics in the climatology degrees?
My point was that CO2 does exists in states where it cannot absorbed the 15 um photons, I.E. not ground state.
Also you phrasing is incorrect, always more than half of the re emitted photons are towards space.
less than half are towards the ground.

What you are missing is that "sweet sweet Western greenhouse-gas-creating affluent lifestyle"
can be had by all without adding any greenhouse gasses.
So I am optimistic, but optimism based on Science and logic.

I suspect our land use may have more to do with altering the climate, especially
if CO2 sensitivity is as low as the empirical data indicates.
We do not need to remove any CO2, we simply need to stop adding to it.
The greening of vast swaths of the earth will take up vast amounts of CO2.

Oil prices cratered in the last few years, and are currently around average. Plus, millions of people around the world are starting to drive cars.

Click to expand...

Think about your oxymoron statement,
Oil Prices cratered, and more and more people are starting to drive cars!
If more and more people drive cars, the demand for fuel and the price for fuel goes up.

WCH said:

A couple of years of record rainfall have had a noticeable greening effect around the Austin area.

Click to expand...

To be fair it needed a little greening.
On my last trip up that way, I was glad to see Canyon lake looked to be filling nicely.

Renae said:

Natural disasters have been on the decline and costing less over the last 10 years. Panic is not useful

Click to expand...

Not always true, it may depend on your goals.
If your goal is to scare people into giving up freedom and paying more taxes,
panic might be useful!

longview said:

To be fair it needed a little greening.
On my last trip up that way, I was glad to see Canyon lake looked to be filling nicely.

Click to expand...

Yes we did. Several years of drought had taken it's toll.

I really noticed the difference while flying in and out of ABIA.

AlbqOwl said:

That is absolutely my argument. We humans are not going to change our behavior sufficiently to significantly affect the CO2 in the atmosphere because most of that CO2 comes from sources that have absolutely nothing to do with us. So IMO what we should be doing is devoting our climate research money to finding ways for a growing population to adapt to what is. We need fast, safe, affordable means of creating potable water from ocean water. (Look at it as one way to reduce rising ocean levels. ) We do need to increase food production in many parts of the world, and if the oceans do rise--hasn't happen yet, has it--it will be gradual enough that we can gradually pull cities back from the brink or find other ways to deal with that.

Click to expand...

I agree. I would, however, add that it is critical to keep adding to our climate knowlege with the end goal to be able to control, maybe direct it is a better word. I think we are very far from that point without risking setting off some sort of chain reaction that really screws us, but this is long term in thousand years goal.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

slo1111 said:

I agree. I would, however, add that it is critical to keep adding to our climate knowlege with the end goal to be able to control, maybe direct it is a better word. I think we are very far from that point without risking setting off some sort of chain reaction that really screws us, but this is long term in thousand years goal.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I think if such a chain reaction existed, it would have been tripped long before Humans existed.
Humans will not change their behavior, if we are going to work towards something, the goal
should be where everyone on earth can have a 1st would lifestyle should they choose that.

ludin said:

You said history it is fact that co2 levels have been higher.
This is a bogus statement.

Click to expand...

I already corrected that I meant to write "human" history. What evidence do you have that CO2 has been higher in human history?

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.


[/QUOTE]

It is a very interesting theory. There seems to be contradictory results that are keeping it from greater acceptance. Since 1990 there has been increase in cosmic ray flux which should have cooled the earth. Unless there is confounding variables such as bad temp data or alternative factors that ovewhemled his proposed effect, we should have cooled rather than heated. In the later case, it would mean it plays a minor role to other variables.

Here is one study that highlights what I have written. What do you think?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00703-013-0260-x

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

slo1111 said:

I agree. I would, however, add that it is critical to keep adding to our climate knowlege with the end goal to be able to control, maybe direct it is a better word. I think we are very far from that point without risking setting off some sort of chain reaction that really screws us, but this is long term in thousand years goal.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No argument from me there. I just want the research money to go for honest science and not just that producing a pre-determined outcome suitable for politically motivated ambitions.

WCH said:

A couple of years of record rainfall have had a noticeable greening effect around the Austin area.

Click to expand...

That is happened to a lot of lakes in recent years. In the Texas Panhandle, Meredith at record lows, is approaching normal again. Texhoma thankfully is back within its banks after record flooding in recent years. All the boat docks at Lake Brownwood were high a dry at one point, but it is again normal.

New Mexico's largest lake, Elephant Butte, at its lowest point in 2015 following several years of extreme drought:


And now:

AlbqOwl said:

That is happened to a lot of lakes in recent years. In the Texas Panhandle, Meredith at record lows, is approaching normal again. Texhoma thankfully is back within its banks after record flooding in recent years. All the boat docks at Lake Brownwood were high a dry at one point, but it is again normal.

New Mexico's largest lake, Elephant Butte, at its lowest point in 2015 following several years of extreme drought:

And now:

Click to expand...

I was speaking of central TX lakes.

Here's a comparison from 2011 to 2016 of levels at Lake Travis.

Interactive: Lake Travis water levels then and now | Austin American-Statesman

We were at Elephant Butte in 2015. It was seriously low.

longview said:

Do you think cars are the only use of fossil fuels, Lighting was first, kerosene,
Gasoline was a waste product. Also the 150 years included present times.

Click to expand...

I am certain that while horses produce methane, overall the per capita generation of greenhouse gases was significantly lower in 1900.

For example, China was not producing significant amounts of greenhouse gases until they industrialized. Not only did they start burning coal, they also engaged in many other behaviors which vastly increased the amount of emitted GHGs -- e.g. buying cars instead of bicycles; massive increases in industrial products; pouring concrete everywhere; chopping down trees, and more.

Just based on the sheer number of people, it's obvious that we are generating far more GHGs than we did in an average year of the 20th century.

What you seem to have missed from the paper was the actual data.

Click to expand...

Nope... I saw it. The change directly attributable to CO2 is 0.2 wm^2. The compounding effects, feedbacks etc increases the forcing. Otherwise, the authors would not have said that their work upholds the basic concept of AGW.

As to climatologists understanding CO2, I am not sure, do they have quantum physics in the climatology degrees?

Click to expand...

lol

I'm pretty sure you are not the first person to consider this possibility. That said, it CO2 does generally absorb photons in the 15μm wavelength; and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, then... wait for it... the more heat it can trap in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't need to act as a near-perfect insulator in order to act as a greenhouse gas.

And of course, there are some gases which have more pronounced greenhouse gas effects than CO2. E.g. methane traps nearly 100 times more heat than CO2, though it also leaves the atmosphere in a shorter time frame (20 years).

What you are missing is that "sweet sweet Western greenhouse-gas-creating affluent lifestyle"
can be had by all without adding any greenhouse gasses.

Click to expand...

It can -- if those developing nations are willing to adopt sustainable technology. Given that, for example, the number of passenger cars in China has exploded in recent years (6.7 million units in 2008, to 24 million units in 2016), that outcome is certainly NOT a given.

I suspect our land use may have more to do with altering the climate....

Click to expand...

"Land use" refers to chopping down trees and plants which... wait for it... usually act as carbon sinks.

We do not need to remove any CO2, we simply need to stop adding to it.
The greening of vast swaths of the earth will take up vast amounts of CO2.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. It won't.

1) If CO2 stabilized at 400ppm, there would be effects on the planet, but it wouldn't be devastating. 500ppm or 1000ppm, which are certainly plausible given our current trajectory, would be a serious issue and may necessitate attempts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

2) The additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not generate anywhere near enough additional plant growth

Think about your oxymoron statement,
Oil Prices cratered, and more and more people are starting to drive cars!
If more and more people drive cars, the demand for fuel and the price for fuel goes up.

Click to expand...

Dude.

Seriously.

DUDE.

Saudi Arabia spent years ramping up production specifically in order to lower prices, and drive competitors (notably in the US) out of business. This has been going on since the middle of 2014. Are you just not paying attention? Do you never look at gas prices?

Visbek said:

Nope... I saw it. The change directly attributable to CO2 is 0.2 wm^2. The compounding effects, feedbacks etc increases the forcing. Otherwise, the authors would not have said that their work upholds the basic concept of AGW.

Click to expand...

What the paper said was,

The time series both show statistically significant trends
of 0.2 Wm-2 per decade

Click to expand...

That was the measured amount.

I'm pretty sure you are not the first person to consider this possibility. That said, it CO2 does generally absorb photons in the 15μm wavelength; and the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, then... wait for it... the more heat it can trap in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't need to act as a near-perfect insulator in order to act as a greenhouse gas.

Click to expand...

Once again CO2 can only absorb energy, if it is in the correct quantum state, (usually ground state).
If the molecule is not in the correct state it cannot absorb the energy.

It can -- if those developing nations are willing to adopt sustainable technology. Given that, for example, the number of passenger cars in China has exploded in recent years (6.7 million units in 2008, to 24 million units in 2016), that outcome is certainly NOT a given.

Click to expand...

No one is willing to adopt sustainable technologies, they will adopt them because they are the lowest cost option.

"Land use" refers to chopping down trees and plants which... wait for it... usually act as carbon sinks.

Click to expand...

I Think we have more trees growing now than in 1950, but land use includes all sorts of things,
buildings, concrete roads, irrigation, and ranching, ect.

Uh, no. It won't.

1) If CO2 stabilized at 400ppm, there would be effects on the planet, but it wouldn't be devastating. 500ppm or 1000ppm, which are certainly plausible given our current trajectory, would be a serious issue and may necessitate attempts to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

2) The additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not generate anywhere near enough additional plant growth

Click to expand...

How so? each pound of biomass requires 3 pounds of atmospheric CO2.
The earth is currently adding quite a bit of biomass, I think the round figure is 12 tons per acre per year.
So each acre of green space requires 36 tons of CO2 per year, or the amount of CO2 produced by 3800 gallons of gasoline.

Graph

Click to expand...

If you are trying to make a point with a graph, it should not end two years ago.
Oil hit a low of $29 in Jan 2016, and has rebounded to $46,
Crude Oil Price History

Methane
[h=1]NOAA’s Climate.gov Says Natural Wetlands, Tropical Agriculture Responsible For Methane Increases, Not Oil and Gas[/h]From Western Wire by Michael Sandoval July 18, 2017 “Agricultural and wetland emissions” from the planet’s tropical areas, not oil and gas activities in the United States, are more than likely responsible for a post-2007 global increase in methane levels, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate.gov. But regulating or mitigating those methane…

slo1111 said:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

- CO2 is in the atmoshere at levels higher than any time in history.

- It is a scientific fact that CO2, Methane, and other green house gasses trap thermal radiation.

Forget everything you have ever heard about global warming and the politics of it and consider these questions.

1. Do you accept that there is a finite amount of green house gasses (GHG) that can be put into an atmosphere before something adverse happens?

2. We are currently above 400 ppm in CO2. How high can we go before we experience profound changes? 500 ppm, 800 ppm, 10,000 ppm, 100,000 ppm? (that would be 10% of the atmoshere. We would die at that point. Oxygen is around 21%)

3. If you haven't ever considered #2, do you believe that since we have excellent labatory data on how much thermal radiation GHG can trap, and we can measure the thermal radiation lost to space, that we can calculate the expected trapped thermal radiation when CO2 increases to 300 ppm to 400 ppm?

4. GSG's are not the only factor in warming and cooling. As an example aresols and particles can reduce the amount of radiation from the sun by reflecting it back before traveling through the atmoshere.

A. Do you believe other factors eliminate GSG ability to trap heat? No, it can always trap heat, but you can change the amount of thermal radiation thus reduce or increase likelyhood of an interaction with a GSG particle.

B. Are you willing to not address GHG's because you feel with other factors are reducing the thermal radiation that could be trapped with increased GHG's?

C. Do you believe warming and cooling is too complex for humans to impact, alter, and address?


I propose all we need to consider before taking action to limit GSG is #2. There is obviously a finite amount of CO2 that we can put in the atmoshere before we experience large scale change. Other factors may play a role in warming and cooling, but it is scientific fact that a higher percentage of thermal energy radiating towards space will be captured as the number of GSG particles increase in the atmosphere.




Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

You know, I really hate the way they hide how insignificant the change is by using "since 1950" (278 ppm) instead of showing the absolute forcing value, which is now, around 32 or 33 W/m^2 with their formulas.

Lord of Planar said:

You know, I really hate the way they hide how insignificant the change is by using "since 1950" (278 ppm) instead of showing the absolute forcing value, which is now, around 32 or 33 W/m^2 with their formulas.

Click to expand...

Oh....

Not to state the obvious, but is we use 32 W/m^2 for 1750, that means CO2 increased in forcing from about 32.96 to 33.95 W/m^2 over the span of the graph. Only a 3% increase in CO2 forcing. Not a 70% change.