True. However, it's biological properties are irrelevant its greenhouse effect properties. True. However, there is one HUGE difference between H2O and CO2. The former is not a catalyzing agent for temperature change. It only amplifies a change that catalyzed by something else. CO2 is both a catalyzer for temperature change and it responds to temperature change. The Iris Effect is Lindzen's theory that tries to ignore CO2. There are two problems with it. First, it can't explain past climate change events. And second, it has been falsified. Sure. It definitely will. It will also ebb and flow under the influence of a climate forcing agent regardless of whether that agent is naturally modulated or anthroprogenically modulated.
The debate among scientists is how much forcing CO2 has. Some say it's a trails global temperature changes. You totally are losing me here. We are in an interglacial period. That is a warm period, not a cooling period. I'm not a scientist so quoting mathematical formulas means nothing to me. All I know is that we are still at a relatively circular orbit, the eccentricity of the orbit will get much greater than it is today. I'm not sure what phase of the precession is but I think were at the median, though I could be wrong about that. And I know we are not currently at our maximum axial tilt, and don't know what direction we're headed in with that respect. How is this extraordinary? It also jumped rapidly during the medieval warm period did it not? There was not excess CO2 at that time was there? Okay, now you are doing exactly what the scientist in the video I first posted said that the scientists are doing. You are conflating weather with climate change. Weather is a short period of time. WWII was only 70 years ago. You can't judge climate on a scale of decades. Secondly you are right about the Grand Solar Maximum. But it has gradually ebbed over centuries getting smaller with each cycle to where we are now, entering a Grand Solar minimum. Let me see if I can find a video or website... This guy is good, but he doesn't have the solar variance graph I was looking for. I'll try and find it separate. Well that's the talking point but it's not matching up with the predictions is it? We are in a pause that they weren't expecting. Again you've lost me. We are 11,600 years into an interglacial period (12K to 20K years), which is a warm phase which WILL BE followed by a glacial period lasting approximately 100K years. The cooling won't begin in our lifetimes except perhaps a little cooling due to the Grand Solar Minimum. (See graph above) As you can see by the graph above, the solar activity gets less and less. But as I also said, the effects will be in the future. It takes decades for the heat to disperse from the oceans.
I don't know the exact numbers but I heard life on Earth would end below 130 ppm. We were at what 180 before the industrial era? We're currently at 410. We may have saved life on Earth. According to that first video, the cloud formations will change because of the Iris Effect. It will act as a modulator bringing Earth back to equilibrium. It doesn't have to explain past climate change events. We have that explanation, the Milankovitch Cycles! ???? Hey, another thing you climate crisis people don't take into account. In 1000 years, how far will science have advanced? Look at the progress of humans in the last 100 years vs the previous 100 years. The difference is exponential! By then we will have figured out clean energy. If the planet were spiraling out of control because of CO2, by then we will probably have the technology to correct it. So this entire panic the world is ending nonsense really makes you people look like religious fanatics and are seeing the apocalypse from Revelations. Relax and enjoy life and the great weather we're having!
It does often trail temperature changes. That's because CO2 is in a feedback relationship with the temperature. If the temperature changes regardless of the cause CO2 emissions and absorptions will also change. This was the behavior (mostly anyway) during the glacial cycles. Milankovitch cycles provided the catalyzing force to make the temperature change. CO2 responded thus causing further temperature changes. The relationship between CO2 and global temperatures during the glacial cycles was one where CO2 trends generally lagged temperature trends. Though this picture is a little complicated because CO2 was actually leading in the NH and lagging in the SH. However, this does not mean that CO2 wasn't forcing a temperature change. All it means is that CO2 wasn't the initial catalyzing agent. The Paleo-Eocence Thermal Maximim (PETM) is an example of an era where CO2 was the initial catalyzing agent. A sudden and significant pulse of CO2 was released as a result of hyperactive volcanism. Once the short term cooling effect of the volcanism waned the long term warming effect of the CO2 kicked into high gear causing a rapid warming event that caused sudden pulses of sea level rise and widespread species extinctions. Correct. We are in an interglacial or warm period. Glacial/cool and interglacial/warm periods are not the same thing as the cool and warm phases of the composite Milankovitch cycle. We are in a cool phase of the cycle during a warm period. What that means is that there is miniscule but persistent negative radiative forcing that is trying to push the climate into a glacial descent. Glacial descents are slow and gradual whereas interglacial ascents are rapid. This is because CO2 goes into the atmosphere quickly but comes out slowly. The glacial cycles lag the composite Milankovitch phase by thousands of years. And the precise timing of the ascents and descents have a random element dictated by solar grand cycles, volcanic activity, biological activity, ocean currents, etc. The way Milankovitch cycles modulated the climate system is actually indirect. They don't effect the total amount of radiation reaching Earth at all. What they do is change the latitudinal and seasonal timing of the radiation. The effect is indirect because the timing and distribution of the radiation effects polar ice which then effects albedo. That's how Milankovitch cycles modulate the climate system. Another interesting aspect that most people aren't aware of is that the composite phase of the combined cycles has variable intervals. That's why the Milankovitch forcing doesn't exhibit regular timing. It's only approximately 100,000 years, but the actual interval on any one phase can be tens of thousands of years different than the neighboring cycles. Yes, it warmed, but only gradually. The rate of temperature change during the MWP and LIA is less than the change that is occurring today. The change today is occurring faster than at any period during the holocene (the current interglacial). In fact, the change today is occurring faster than it has during the late part of any interglacial period. The rate of warming today is most often found to occur during the transitions from glacial periods to interglacial periods. That's what makes the warming today unusual. There is really no hard and fast rule, but generally speaking 10 years provides a good lower bound for the dividing line between chaotic weather and stable climate. 30 years is an even better middle of the road dividing line because it generally incorporates at least one cool and one warm phase of a decadal climate cycle (like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). Observing the effects over a 70 year period is definitely climate and not weather. During this period (cycles 21 through 24) the geosphere accumulated 300e21 joules of energy. Most of this went into the oceans. The amount of energy the geosphere accumulated has actually accelerated during the cool phase of the solar grand cycle. There has been no significant pauses to the warming after 1990. The "pause" you hear about in the media generally refers to the temperature in the troposphere from 1998 to 2012. But the troposphere only accounts for < 5% of the thermal mass of the geosphere. As you can see above the hydrosphere (which accounts for > 90% of the thermal mass) accumulated over 100e21 joules of energy during the "pause" period. Anyway, the troposphere pause ended long ago. Again, the glacial cycles are not in phase with the composite Milankovitch cycles. So when I talk about the cool phase of the Milankovitch cycle don't equate that to the cool phase of the glacial cycle. But, yeah, you are correct. In the absence of anthroprogenic forcing it would likely take thousands of years for the cool phase of the glacial cycle to begin even though we already are in the cool phase of the composite Milankovitch cycle. It would likely take random events like solar grand minimum and hyperactive volcanism to kick start the descent though. The reason why this glacial cycle is different is because CO2 pulsed hard and fast. This will overwhelm the Milankovitch force by a lot and likely overwhelm even most hyperactive volcanism events as well. If CO2 stays above 400 ppm it is unlikely that a new glacial descent would even start. That's how dramatically the current CO2 pulse has affected the natural cycles. You're half right here. It takes decades for the heat to transfer from the hydrosphere to atmosphere. However, the heat accumulation in the entire geosphere is nearly instantaneous (only an 8 minute lag). The atmosphere responds slowly to perturbations in solar radiation, but the hydrosphere responds almost instantly. If solar radiation were the only factor you would expect ocean heat content to decline as the solar radiation declined and the heat gets transferred to the atmosphere. But we observe the opposite. Oceanic heat content has accelerated during the cool phase of the solar grand cycle. Also, scientists have already quantified the effect of a hypothetical solar grand minimum. It would definitely suppress the warming, but not by much. It would work to delay warming predictions by about 10 years. And the effect would be temporary because solar grand cycles typically only last a few decades. CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of years. So once the Sun transitions back into the warm phase of the cycle it would just magnify the CO2 warming even more.
280 ppm was the preindustrial level. And yes, vegetation gets severely suppressed below 150 ppm. Life in general struggles during glacial periods both because of lower CO2 and lower temperatures. At the very least we have delayed the glacial descent. So yes, in that context, we probably saved life on Earth. That's the problem with the Iris Effect. It predicts that Earth is self regulating to the extent that it suppresses the likelihood of extreme climate variations. But as we've seen from the paleoclimate record extreme climate variations are rather common. So the question is...what is different today that would activate the Iris Effect when clearly it wasn't working the past? And more relevant to today why is the Iris Effect not activating right now? The other problems are that the Iris Effect is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. In fact, most research today is suggesting that the cloud feedback will likely work to amplify temperature changes not suppress them. And remember, the Iris Effect is the brain child of Richard Lindzen who is a paid shill of both the fossil fuel and smoking industries. He is required to produce scientific-looking work that casts doubt on the link between GHGs and global warming and smoking and cancer. He is a smart guy so he knows how to effectively cast doubt on the issues. One thing you won't see from him is a convincing explanation of both past and present climate change. That's a pretty common trait of pseudoscientific work. Even his own peers at MIT have overwhelmingly rejected his work (see here). It doesn't have to explain climate change all by itself, but it does have to improve the explanatory/predictive power to be included in the scientific consensus. That's where it falls short. Not only does it not improve upon the scientific consensus it actually just makes it worse. Milankovitch cycles don't explain all climate change events either, but they do improve upon the understanding of the glacial cycles without harming explanatory/predictive power of the consensus theory in regards to climate change in the distant past. That's why Milankovitch cycles get incorporated into the consensus picture of reality and the Iris Effect does not. Sure, but that statement will in no way prevent the warming that will occur and the suppressive effect on GDP growth and Earth's carrying capacity for humans between now and when humans have achieved the technological capacity to geoengineer the climate. I'm not sure CO2 will cause the climate to spiral out of control though there are many scientists that disagree. The issue is that we don't know to when and to what extent tipping points will activate. We have essentially embarked on the largest experiment in human history and we didn't even conduct an environmental impact study regarding whether it safe to conduct or not. In fact, with each passing year we are learning that the experiment may have significant undesirable consequences; possibly even catastrophic according to some. So until we can be absolutely sure that CO2 will have a minimal effect shouldn't we work to curtail the experiment?
This would make a great college dissertation but all you are basically doing is parroting the global warming climate alarmist's propaganda which once again is all based on unproven theories, exaggerated mathematical formulas and faulty climate models. There's no way to debate these intricacies without a PhD in physics and mathematics. Many of your points are not only wrong but counterintuitive. For instance, of course the Melankovitch Cycles have an effect on the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives. Venus is closer to the Sun and receives more radiation than Mars which is farther. The eccentricity is the reason why we get glacial periods. But let's say for the sake of argument that you are completely right...does that mean the Earth is going to end in 12 years? 100? How many years? Give me a number. None of what the climate alarmists are proposing takes into account the exponential advancement in technology we can expect in the next one hundred, two hundred years. We probably won't need fossil fuels in 50 to 100 years. We will probably have the technology to scrub the atmosphere of CO2 or counter it's effects in some other way.So this entire fear mongering give up you gas cars, and basically 85% of your energy sources for a apocalyptic gloom and doom religious zealot fantasy is a frivolous proposal.
AGW is based on molecular physics and quantum mechanics. Climate models (assuming you mean computer) aren't the primary or even secondary line of evidence. And they didn't even become a widespread tool for research until the 1980's or more than 80 years after AGW was born. In fact, only about 1/3 of AGW's history is characterized by computerized climate models. Milankovitch cycles do not affect the total amount of radiation received by Earth. All they do is change the spatial and temporal distribution of that radiation. When the Earth's orbit is elliptical there is a bigger range of radiation between the seasons but the total integrated amount of the entire year is exactly the same. When Earth's orbit is circular the radiation is more evenly distributed over the seasons. Either way the same amount of radiation is received over the course of one whole orbital cycle. Eccentricity is part of the reason why get glacial periods, but it's not because the total amount of radiation is different. It is because the distribution throughout the year and over the latitudes is different. Speaking of Venus... It is further from the Sun and thus receives less radiation than Mercury yet it's surface temperature is much warmer. Likewise, it is much closer to the Sun than the Earth yet it's upper atmosphere is cooler than here on Earth. The reason why this happens is because of the greenhouse gas effect. The heat is getting trapped in the lower atmosphere and is blocked from warming the upper atmosphere. That's why it is warmer at the bottom than on Mercury and cooler at the top than on Earth. This same effect is playing out today on Earth. The troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere is cooling. That is the smoking gun signal for the GHG effect. No other physical process can explain this unique phenomenon. Almost certainly within about 5-6 billion years. This is when the Sun will expand to encompass the orbit of Earth and likely vaporize it. For life in general it will like be sooner. I'm going to say around 3 billion years. Since solar luminosity increases by 1% every 100 million years there should be so much radiation reaching the planet that regardless of all other climate forcing agents the oceans will likely boil off. I'm going to go with a large range of 2-4 billion years before life will be an impossibility on Earth. Note that this question is different than asking how long it will be before Earth's carrying capacity for humans or GDP growth rates decline. The concern with AGW isn't the Earth will end or that there will be a doomsday reckoning or anything. The concern is that it will put negative pressure humans ability to thrive. Can you prove that large sea level rises, significantly reduced crop yields, significantly reduced GDP growth, etc. are not going to be consequences of even the current 410 ppm of CO2?
And the truth shall set you free! So the entire global warming fanaticism is superfluous. No, not anymore than you can prove that it will cause large sea level rises, significantly reduced crop yields, significantly reduced GDP growth.
Well I don't normally do prognostication but my guess would be that would definitely put downward pressure on GDP.
I don't know. People and groups like the Heritage Foundation said that CFC alternatives would be more expensive, more corrosive, more flammable, and more toxic. The reality...they were less expensive, less corrosive, less flammable, and more environmentally friendly. I guess what I'm saying is don't underestimate the power of innovation. When companies are forced to innovate they typically step up in a big way. And remember, fossil fuels are finite and are often controlled by unstable political regimes. The more humanity incentivizes fossil fuel use the more dependent the economy becomes. The risk of catastrophic collapse increases and the environment gets harmed in the process. Right now the evidence suggests that the short term gain from burning fossil fuels will be more than offset by long term loss. It's probably best to encourage alternative energy sources sooner rather than later. The world economy is going to be forced into transitioning to a new economic growth model whether we like it or not. We might as well embrace it and get the United States poised to provide the technology that we we're the ones getting filthy stinking rich instead of someone else. My biggest fear in this regard is that China is going to figure this out before we do.
Global warming is like Darwinism in that you can't see it in action. You can't feel it happening. In fact, you need experts to tell you that it's happening. It not for those experts, we laymen would easily dismiss the idea that random mutations could accumulate into ever increasing functional complexities, let alone come into being by the same spontaneity. If not for the priestly prognosticators, all we would have are our own observations, measurements and test results. These would surely leave us to believe that anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is either an anthropocentric arrogance or a hoax. This is not the first time that experts in some narrow field of expertise were left to sincerely believe that the world as we know is depends upon their insights. I have personally heard preachers and politicians make the same claim. Almost everyone who devoted their lives to the science of their day wasted their lives on mumbo jumbo. So few were those who's work we could build upon that we can know their names. I take absolutely no consolation from the "scientific consensus". I am way, way past 'so you think you know better than the priests and the church'. The source of an idea may influence whether or not I test an idea, but who proffered the idea, or who brought the idea to my attention, plays no part in my testing of the idea. I form my own opinions. I don't need priests, politicians or scientists telling me what to think.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting evolution;that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. All of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time.
how can I get xagerate......every university in the world. every country in the world and every major corporation. You have, talk show hosts on your side, we have serious people and entire institutions. Hired lackies vs real humanoids.
I simply don't find that your claims carry and gravity. Who proffers and idea may influence whether or not I test the idea in the first place, but who or how many people proffer an idea plays absolutely no part in my testing of the idea. I am way past "so you think that you know better than the priests the politicians, the church or the government". I form my own opinions; I don't need a priest, a politician or a scientist to tell me what to believe. We do not live in a climatically optimum time period. Our plants are starving. Humanity would benefit from atmospheric CO2 levels several times what they are now. We would also benefit from global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even as high as they were during the Phoenician high period. Anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 and global warming are neither significant or harmful.
Well then, I agree with all the major corps and the entire accredited educational system and 197 countries, our military and you don’t. Case closed.
That's fine for you, but I was never one to choose my opinions from off of the shelf. I form my own opinions the church, the state and "the entire accredited educational system" be damned. I am quite comfortable with increasing atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures; in fact, I'm rooting for them.
You’re fine with immigrants from desolate areas, increased taxes for fema, and disease we have no cures for. If it was just warm weather, that would be fine. Being that you really don’t know all the real effects of global warming, your opinion is dully noted and rejected.
None of that is happening, and long before it does, we will benefit from higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. We would benefit from CO2 levels several times what they are now. We would benefit from global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even as high as they were during the Phoenician high period. We do not live in a climatically optimum time period. Our plants are starving. We live in a CO2 drought. It's been getting warmer for the last 300 years, but this is still a relatively cold period. We would benefit greatly from more CO2 and warmer global temperatures.
Deniers really don’t understand global warming because they don’t understand evolution. The biological effects of climate change as the rate increases puts extreme pressure on species capability to adapt. So it’s not just about change, it’s the change in the rate of increase exacerbated by the greenhouse effects. It’s not just about warming. Warmth creates more energy making storms, summer or winter, more extreme in both directions and harder to predict. Many micro organisms including bacteria and diseases that accompany them adapt more quickly then man can creating more virulent diseases then they can handle. This, along with the flooding of coastal waters and polluting farm lands has a dramatic affect on immigration. But, keep thinking your smarter then the people whose job it is to spend their lives work studying these activities and you’ll always debate in ignorance. This is eighth grade science, so evolution and climate change might be beyond you. After all, cleaning your guns is more. important then a clean environment for most deniers.
You guys continue to amaze everyone how much smarter you claim to be then people whose job it is to put satillites into out space to observe the effects of AGW and collate the evidence, not just from climate change science, but from everyother science field that’s affected by it. You guys are amazingly dismissive of the entire world community......discussing details with you guys is rediculous because you just cut and paste trivial little findings that has nothing to do with the big picture or final conclusions of all the major institutions in the entire world.
Myself, I came to the conclusion years ago that it does not really matter what people think in the long run so I pretty much ignore deniers anymore. If they are correct then we have nothing to worry about and all the data, scientists and professionals worldwide are wrong and if they are correct then there is really nothing we can do regardless. The nations of the world cannot even agree there is an issue so they certainly wont do anything in coordination, which would be required. Once the tipping points were crossed things got real so now is prep time.
Well, it does matter . First, because they ARE wrong, and secondly, they have managed to disrupted changes we need to make. They have for decades. Their entire foundation of existence is founded on lies. Climate change is just the latest and greatest example.... universal healthcare is cheaper , stronger gun laws result in Fewer gun deaths , conservatives are the mother of recessions, and even pollution unrelated to climate change is bad. It’s really reduculous to give deniers any quarter. You’re wrong. Nations do agree on the fundamental issues areound climate change. First, we will pay for it as conditions worsen. Second, it’s cheaper and better for the economy my to prevent problems then clean them up later. It’s silly to think otherwise and bury our heads in he sand.
Yer preachin' to the choir...I just no longer have reasonable hope and no longer even care. I will be dead when this gets critical, so it does not much matter.
I hear you and sorry if it sounded too presumptuous . I just feel differently. In my life time, we have had to deal with everything from 9-11 to immigration to terrorism, all related to our insatiable appitite for oil, which is the big contributor to climate change, . I don’t like dealing with Lyme disease made worse by climate change. I don’t like our tax dollars going for pollution cleanup, when less could go to prevention. I don’t have one foot in the grave, yet. Hope you understand.
