Climate - The Movie

[longview]

On the one hand there is NASA and the other hand is your claim that CO2 is not causing global warming. What source seems more likely to be reliable?

No. Not foolish. It does indicate that I respect the interpretations of experts over the random ramblings of unknown Internet personalities.

NASA's GISS would not have much reason to exists if added CO2 were not decreasing the downward longwave radiation, (Which it is).
They have a vested interest in pretending that added CO2 will increase the downward longwave radiation, but the reality is that
there is no way to validate via experiment the GISS position. There is however, empirical evidence that the downward longwave radiation
decreased as the CO2 level increased.
In Science, the empirical data is always superior, Science is after all a methodology of describing observations without resorting to supernatural
explanations!

You picked some incorrect statement about CH4 and presented it, the Official data from NOAA, shows your statement incorrect.
Take it anyway you like, Your "Experts" were playing fast and loose with numbers to arrive at something that sounded menacing.

 

[Spock]

NASA's GISS would not have much reason to exists if added CO2 were not decreasing the downward longwave radiation, (Which it is).
They have a vested interest in pretending that added CO2 will increase the downward longwave radiation, but the reality is that
there is no way to validate via experiment the GISS position. There is however, empirical evidence that the downward longwave radiation
decreased as the CO2 level increased.
In Science, the empirical data is always superior, Science is after all a methodology of describing observations without resorting to supernatural
explanations!

You picked some incorrect statement about CH4 and presented it, the Official data from NOAA, shows your statement incorrect.
Take it anyway you like, Your "Experts" were playing fast and loose with numbers to arrive at something that sounded menacing.

It is all a vast conspiracy to discredit those truly objective analysts who do not find the data or analysis about AGW convincing?

 

[longview]

It is all a vast conspiracy to discredit those truly objective analysts who do not find the data or analysis about AGW convincing?

No conspiracy at all, just a parade of the willing. Different people who have different motives, that AGW posing a threat
allows them to advance their position, ether finically or politically.
Do you consider it a conspiracy that millions of people go to work every day?

 

[Spock]

No conspiracy at all, just a parade of the willing. Different people who have different motives, that AGW posing a threat
allows them to advance their position, ether finically or politically.
Do you consider it a conspiracy that millions of people go to work every day?

Why do you think you can advance a complicated data set that you think should be patently obvious support for your position that CO2 is unrelated to global warming? Why do you care about converting anonymous individuals on the Internet to your minority opinion?

I have no reason to believe your assertions about "forcing" or your interpretations about the effect of CO2. At some point, we all decide that experts on a subject with a greater experience and familiarity should be recognized as reliable sources. I don't have to know the entire technology behind an MRI to accept that it will provide a physician valuable health information or to know the chemical process for producing waterproof concrete to use it in construction.

I am happy accepting that climate scientists in academia are generally ethical and concerned with doing good science. The AGW hypothesis, at this point, gives a useful model to explain observed earth changes. I'm good with that.

 

[longview]

Why do you think you can advance a complicated data set that you think should be patently obvious support for your position that CO2 is unrelated to global warming? Why do you care about converting anonymous individuals on the Internet to your minority opinion?

I have no reason to believe your assertions about "forcing" or your interpretations about the effect of CO2. At some point, we all decide that experts on a subject with a greater experience and familiarity should be recognized as reliable sources. I don't have to know the entire technology behind an MRI to accept that it will provide a physician valuable health information or to know the chemical process for producing waterproof concrete to use it in construction.

I am happy accepting that climate scientists in academia are generally ethical and concerned with doing good science. The AGW hypothesis, at this point, gives a useful model to explain observed earth changes. I'm good with that.

I follow the data! That is the scientific method.
Look at the Motto of the Royal Society.
Royal Society History

What does its motto ‘Nullius in verba’ mean?​

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' was adopted in its First Charter in 1662. is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Your approach, is exactly to take someone else's word for something, even when the experiments show they are in error.
The data is showing that Added CO2 not only is not doing what is claimed, but is doing the opposite.
My own questioning of this started because of my education related to CO2 lasers, and the Quantum energy states involved.
CO2 gets "stuck" in a population inversion, because the very energy state that absorbs 15 um photons, is quite stable.
Excited CO2 would likely spend 99%of it's time in an excited (transparent state).
There is a possibility that CO2 would pass off it's energy to H2O via vibrational transfer, but H2O is at high concentrations in the
lower atmosphere.
I am not saying that CO2 does not cause warming at some levels, but within the scope of our observations (since 2002),
added CO2 has been decreasing downward longwave radiation.
All the words in the world will not change the observed data. The only remining question is why is this observation happening?
In science, when the theory and the observation disagree, it is time for a new theory!

 

[Spock]

I follow the data! That is the scientific method.
Look at the Motto of the Royal Society.
Royal Society History

Your approach, is exactly to take someone else's word for something, even when the experiments show they are in error.

YOU claim the experimental evidence is wrong. Others do not agree.

The data is showing that Added CO2 not only is not doing what is claimed, but is doing the opposite.

Your opinion.

My own questioning of this started because of my education related to CO2 lasers, and the Quantum energy states involved.
CO2 gets "stuck" in a population inversion, because the very energy state that absorbs 15 um photons, is quite stable.
Excited CO2 would likely spend 99%of it's time in an excited (transparent state).
There is a possibility that CO2 would pass off it's energy to H2O via vibrational transfer, but H2O is at high concentrations in the
lower atmosphere.
I am not saying that CO2 does not cause warming at some levels, but within the scope of our observations (since 2002),

There are consistent observations going back millions of year that associate global temperature with CO2 levels.

added CO2 has been decreasing downward longwave radiation.
All the words in the world will not change the observed data. The only remining question is why is this observation happening?
In science, when the theory and the observation disagree, it is time for a new theory!

Go back to school and apply your physics to climate science at a good university or publish the definitive analysis of CO2. Your bench studies probably do not translate directly to atmospheric science, but that is just my observer opinion.

 

[longview]

YOU claim the experimental evidence is wrong. Others do not agree.


Your opinion.

There are consistent observations going back millions of year that associate global temperature with CO2 levels.

Go back to school and apply your physics to climate science at a good university or publish the definitive analysis of CO2. Your bench studies probably do not translate directly to atmospheric science, but that is just my observer opinion.

See yours is an appeal to authority argument, because you are incapable of arguing the science.
The data is just data not an opinion, the opinion is what the data represents.
The data is that between 2002 and 2020, the CO2 level increased, while the Downward longwave Radiation decreased,
that is not opinion. An Opinion would be why the opposite of the predicted response happened.
Physics and logic apply to the climate sciences just like all the other hard sciences.

 

[Spock]

See yours is an appeal to authority argument, because you are incapable of arguing the science.

I don't pretend to understand the physics of CO2 heat trapping.

The data is just data not an opinion, the opinion is what the data represents.

Interpreting the data is part of the science.

The data is that between 2002 and 2020, the CO2 level increased, while the Downward longwave Radiation decreased,

I don't care and I doubt others care either that you conclude the data argues against the Greenhouse Effect.

that is not opinion. An Opinion would be why the opposite of the predicted response happened.

Physics and logic apply to the climate sciences just like all the other hard sciences.

That presumes that the physics you claim exist are correct or relevant.

 

[longview]

I don't pretend to understand the physics of CO2 heat trapping.

Interpreting the data is part of the science.

I don't care and I doubt others care either that you conclude the data argues against the Greenhouse Effect.


That presumes that the physics you claim exist are correct or relevant.

Let's review the past dozen of so posts?
I have shown the data and position with supporting links, you have your words of others opinions.
If you do not understand the physics, why are you pretending to argue a position?

 

[Lord of Planar]

9 year half-life is quick?

Atmospheric levels of methane post a record rise in 2021

cen.acs.org

Simple calculation of methane is that it has 28 times the effect of CO2 and lasts 9 years compared to 100 years of CO2 so that would make it 1/11 * 28 = 2.5 times as influential as just CO2 on the atmosphere.

The whole RE and GWP metrics are a joke. They are used to scare ignorant people N2O and CO2 are more potent than CH4.



This is a graphical representation of the three major non-condensing greenhouse gasses using the numbers out of the IPCC AR4. The AR5 and AR6 are little different when plotted. What they do for RE (radiative efficiency) is calculate the slope using the current value and the current value plus 1 ppb. The IPCFC represents these as watts/m^2/ppm. The formula for CH4 yielded. the AR4 numbers for CO2, N2O, and CH4 are 1.4e-5, 3.03e-3, and 3.7e-4. My graph is in ppb rather than ppm, so there is a 1,000 to 1 difference. My numbers are exceptionally close to the AR4 numbers.

Notice that the RE is an idiotic metric to us because it departs very quickly from the actual forcing curve. This is one of the tricks the IPCC uses to influence those who do not understand the science.

If you do the math, you see that under the AR4 numbers, 27.4 times that of CO2, but that is only because CH4 is at such a lower concentration that the tangent off the curve is steeper.

They do a similar trick with GWP (global warming potential) which makes CH4 look even more dangerous, because they use a ton rather than a ppb for the slope calculation. The molar weight of CO2 is 2.75 times that of CH4, so you get an approximate GWP(0 year) by multiplying the 27.4 by the 2.75, or 72.7.

Anyone pushing these numbers are other intentionally misleading the pu8blic, or ignorant of what they really represent.

 

[Lord of Planar]

On the one hand there is NASA and the other hand is your claim that CO2 is not causing global warming. What source seems more likely to be reliable?

I am not claiming CO2 does not cause warming. It does. The amount just is so low, it is no concern to me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is all a vast conspiracy to discredit those truly objective analysts who do not find the data or analysis about AGW convincing?

LOL...

You have never actually read the peer reviewed papers. have you. just like others, you believe what some lying pundit tells you.

The scientists are almost always objective in their finding. Look carefully at their wording. They almost never claim facts. they elude to the ideas so they can keep getting funding by those who are paying for the agenda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't pretend to understand the physics of CO2 heat trapping.

Interpreting the data is part of the science.

I don't care and I doubt others care either that you conclude the data argues against the Greenhouse Effect.


That presumes that the physics you claim exist are correct or relevant.

You really should learn the physics involved or stop debating this topic. You just make yourself look bad.

 

[Spock]

Let's review the past dozen of so posts?
I have shown the data and position with supporting links, you have your words of others opinions.
If you do not understand the physics, why are you pretending to argue a position?

Interpreting the data is part of the explanation. If you are convinced your position is correct, provide the academic papers that support your claims and interpretations.

You really should learn the physics involved or stop debating this topic. You just make yourself look bad.

I think I can rely upon climate scientist to understand climate science. Getting into obfuscated and arcane arguments with outliers is just silly.

 

[Spock]

I am not claiming CO2 does not cause warming. It does. The amount just is so low, it is no concern to me.

The warming appears to be measurable, significant and persistent which I would call concerning.

 

[Spock]

LOL...

You have never actually read the peer reviewed papers. have you. just like others, you believe what some lying pundit tells you.

The scientists are almost always objective in their finding. Look carefully at their wording. They almost never claim facts. they elude to the ideas so they can keep getting funding by those who are paying for the agenda.

There is a case to be made for delegation of understanding.
I don't need to read the research on antibiotics to expect that a physician would be capable of prescribing the appropriate one.

 

[Spock]

The whole RE and GWP metrics are a joke. They are used to scare ignorant people N2O and CO2 are more potent than CH4.

View attachment 67501233

This is a graphical representation of the three major non-condensing greenhouse gasses using the numbers out of the IPCC AR4. The AR5 and AR6 are little different when plotted. What they do for RE (radiative efficiency) is calculate the slope using the current value and the current value plus 1 ppb. The IPCFC represents these as watts/m^2/ppm. The formula for CH4 yielded. the AR4 numbers for CO2, N2O, and CH4 are 1.4e-5, 3.03e-3, and 3.7e-4. My graph is in ppb rather than ppm, so there is a 1,000 to 1 difference. My numbers are exceptionally close to the AR4 numbers.

Notice that the RE is an idiotic metric to us because it departs very quickly from the actual forcing curve. This is one of the tricks the IPCC uses to influence those who do not understand the science.

If you do the math, you see that under the AR4 numbers, 27.4 times that of CO2, but that is only because CH4 is at such a lower concentration that the tangent off the curve is steeper.

They do a similar trick with GWP (global warming potential) which makes CH4 look even more dangerous, because they use a ton rather than a ppb for the slope calculation. The molar weight of CO2 is 2.75 times that of CH4, so you get an approximate GWP(0 year) by multiplying the 27.4 by the 2.75, or 72.7.

Anyone pushing these numbers are other intentionally misleading the pu8blic, or ignorant of what they really represent.

Source?

 

[longview]

Interpreting the data is part of the explanation. If you are convinced your position is correct, provide the academic papers that support your claims and interpretations.

I think I can rely upon climate scientist to understand climate science. Getting into obfuscated and arcane arguments with outliers is just silly.

There is no interpretation for a decrease in downward longwave radiation as the CO2 levels increases.

 

[Spock]

You really should learn the physics involved or stop debating this topic. You just make yourself look bad.

I think the individuals who provide unreferenced "data" and claim to understand the climate process better than the climate experts are more likely to be wrong than someone who admits to some unfamiliarity with the research.

 

[Spock]

There is no interpretation for a decrease in downward longwave radiation as the CO2 levels increases.

That is pure gibberish.......

 

[Lord of Planar]

The warming appears to be measurable, significant and persistent which I would call concerning.

Yes. Agreed. However, I think you do not know the definition of "SIGNIFICANT?" Significant only means it is important. generally, when speaking in numeric terms, significant is 5% or greater of the effects. Or that it is measurable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is a case to be made for delegation of understanding.

So you admit, you are not qualified to make such determinations.

well guess what. I am.

I don't need to read the research on antibiotics to expect that a physician would be capable of prescribing the appropriate one.

I get tired of such idiotic arguments. When it comes to medicine, we have hundreds of millions of various patients. We only have one earth and it is too large to do proper laboratory verification.

you are way out of your league trying to argue this topic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Source?

I made the graph almost 20 years ago from the IPCC data. I said as much. It's just simple math. While I am at it, I made a mistake I want to correct. I said "My graph is in ppb rather than ppm." I had that backwards. it should have read: "My graph is in ppm rather than ppb."

Chapter 2 of the fourth assessment report. Working group 1 page 212:




Let me run you through a simple math problem for the RE. The IPCC reported in ths AR4 CO2 to be at 379 ppm. They reported the forcing formula to be 5.35 x ln(ratio of CO2 level) So let us apply that to 379 ppm and 379.001 ppm.

5.35 x ln(379.001/379) = 0.0000141160763639875 in excel.

It is nothing but algebra to do the greenhouse gasses. Nothing complicate, you just need to understand the science and how to apply the math to it.

Did you graduate from high school? If so, you should be able to do this stuff. especially if you are going to call yourself Spock. How dare you denigrate a science fiction hero?

 

[Spock]

Yes. Agreed. However, I think you do not know the definition of "SIGNIFICANT?" Significant only means it is important. generally, when speaking in numeric terms, significant is 5% or greater of the effects. Or that it is measurable.

If you claim "significant" is defined only as greater than or equal to 5%... that is both nonsense and your arbitrary judgment.

 

[Spock]

I made the graph almost 20 years ago from the IPCC data. I said as much. It's just simple math. While I am at it, I made a mistake I want to correct. I said "My graph is in ppb rather than ppm." I had that backwards. it should have read: "My graph is in ppm rather than ppb."

Chapter 2 of the fourth assessment report. Working group 1 page 212:

View attachment 67501289


Let me run you through a simple math problem for the RE. The IPCC reported in ths AR4 CO2 to be at 379 ppm. They reported the forcing formula to be 5.35 x ln(ratio of CO2 level) So let us apply that to 379 ppm and 379.001 ppm.

5.35 x ln(379.001/379) = 0.0000141160763639875 in excel.

It is nothing but algebra to do the greenhouse gasses. Nothing complicate, you just need to understand the science and how to apply the math to it.

Did you graduate from high school? If so, you should be able to do this stuff. especially if you are going to call yourself Spock. How dare you denigrate a science fiction hero?

The lesson here is that you constructed a graph 20 years ago that is derivative and have no substantiation for it.