Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes atmospheric CO2 is a rather small percentage however it is THE MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS IN OUR ATMOSPHERE. Or it was until surpassed most recently by CH4.
Although, if you want to understand atmospheric gas concentrations we are going to have to agree on the standard unit of measure, which is PPM in the case of CO2
Thats because you may not be aware of both long and short wave radiation. A greenhouse gas is such because it is of the right size and shape that it reflects a very specific type of radiation or frequency. The frequency of radiation that enters the atmosphere from the sun is different than the frequency of radiation that reflects from the earths surface
Yes atmospheric CO2 is a rather small percentage however it is THE MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS IN OUR ATMOSPHERE. Or it was until surpassed most recently by CH4.
Although, if you want to understand atmospheric gas concentrations we are going to have to agree on the standard unit of measure, which is PPM in the case of CO2
PPM or % not matter? (% of makeup or PPM are a stat of measure). you lose me there?
View attachment 58309
Secondly CO2 was always a % of atmosphere, correct? Before Oil. How do we know they measured it correctly in 1821? Now it a bit higher? 0.0394% or 394ppm very small.
THE MAIN GREENHOUSE GAS IN OUR ATMOSPHERE: I am no expert (here to learn) but I have been told this gas is produced by plants.
Thats because you may not be aware of both long and short wave radiation. A greenhouse gas is such because it is of the right size and shape that it reflects a very specific type of radiation or frequency. The frequency of radiation that enters the atmosphere from the sun is different than the frequency of radiation that reflects from the earths surface
ahhhh.......OK. I read a bit. Solar radiation passed thru more easily 70% than infared radiation gets back out 30%?
if you say so...........hmmmmm. How can we argue this? later?
I'm afraid your post is highly ambiguous, if you could be more specific maybe i can figure out what your question might be
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.
While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.
The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.
What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )
The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.
How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address
Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious
I'm afraid your post is highly ambiguous, if you could be more specific maybe i can figure out what your question might be
Don't have question. Solar radiation is incoming (~70% gets thru?), The reflected energy is outgoing they named it infared (different wavelength?) 30% gets out. Earlier you said CO2 causes more to be trapped outgoing. More CO2 = more trapping? more GW? need data to prove this theory. I don't have any data. I don't have a graph. I may look into it someday.
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.
While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.
The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.
What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )
The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.
How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address
Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Yes, well, that is the topic of contention among scientists and politicians. There's no doubt about that.
Just for argument's sake, hypothetically, let's say the following is true:
Given the above:
- All of climate change is due to natural causes.
- Scientists' predictions re: the impact of the changes, be they left unchecked, are largely accurate.
- Humanity can do things now that will slow and lessen the impact of the change.
Yes, the cost of doing stemming climate change may well be quite high. IMO, it's not as high as the cost of finding oneself (or one's descendents finding themselves) on a humanly uninhabitable (or nearly so) planet. I'm all for preserving life as I know it, including the economic aspect of that life, but not at the cost/risk of denying life on this planet to some later generation of my descendents.
- What would be the resulting impact on our economies? Would that impact not be tantamount to their being wrecked?
- What would be the impact on our planet? If the impact is devastating to life as we know it, have you found another planet to which we can immigrate?
Quite simply, I don't buy into the idea that "if we aren't at the crisis point right now, there is no call to do something about whatever is happening." I don't want to wait for a crisis to manifest; I want to do the most I can now in an effort to avert a potential crisis. If it costs me something, say, $50/year, $500/year, $5,000/year, or even $50K/year to do that, okay; I can live with that; whatever is my fair share of the cost, I'm willing to pay it in an effort to secure a future for my great grandkids. Heck, if I can spend any of those sums on entertaining myself each year, and I know damn well I do, I can certainly waive the entertainment and contribute the same sum to (or trying to) quelling climate change.
Reference Material:
- Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change
- The Economic Effects of Climate Change (Tol, Yale University)
- The Economics of Global Climate Change (Harris et al, Tufts)
- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Summary for Policymakers
- Want To Know How Sea Level Rise Will Impact Your Hometown? There’s A Map For That
- Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
- The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change
Actually there is virtually no contention among climate scientists about climate change...
Actually there is virtually no contention among climate scientists about climate change...
Well, you are correct about that. I should have been more clear....the contention is between (1) scientists and (2) politicians and their constituencies, who mostly are not scientists, and the point of contentions is whether the scientists know enough about what they do/did and have said when identifying the results of their analysis of climate change, that anyone who can effect policy should take them seriously enough to do what they are recommending be done.
Actually there is virtually no contention among climate scientists about climate change...
Well, you are correct about that. I should have been more clear....the contention is between (1) scientists and (2) politicians and their constituencies, who mostly are not scientists, and the point of contentions is whether the scientists know enough about what they do/did and have said when identifying the results of their analysis of climate change, that anyone who can effect policy should take them seriously enough to do what they are recommending be done.
Ah, well the thread is a science based discussion and not a political one. If you would like to discuss the politicians or the publics lack of understanding of the science you are welcome to start a thread about that
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.
While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.
The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.
What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )
The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.
How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address
Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
I'll direct you to a friends website
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...
Of course climate change is real and has been as long as there has been a climate. It's not static and never has been.
The question is how much of the current change is natural and how much is anthropogenic.
Which begs the question just how to reverse our damage without destroying our economies and just how long will it take? Remember, we don't want nukes, wind and solar aren't paying off, fossil fuels are evil, and geothermal and hydroelectric aren't available everywhere. Just what will we move to without sacrificing modern electrical needs because telling the public we will have mandatory blackouts will be a hard sell.
Firstly, thank you for your post. secondly, forgive me if I disagree with a few points and clarify a few others.
While climate is not stable the tyspe of climate change we see today as compared to the paleo climate record is considerably different than what has been seen in the past.
The question of how much of todays climate shift can be attributed to mans activities is actually an easy one. Nearly all of it.
What it boils down to is that since the advent of the industrial age mankind has been burning fossil fuels as fast as we can dig them up. While a stable oscillation within the carbon temp system of the planet is easily observed in the paleoclimate record what time frames within the industrial age show is the expected result in burning fossil carbon reserves. An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming at predicted levels to carbon increases has occurred in the industrial age ( see Arrhenius )
The fact that nearly all of the excess carbon in the atmosphere is attributable to mans activities is very well knows but I can understand the question as the science is somewhat advanced.
How to reverse the problems with respect to how it effects our economies is a political question this particular thread isn't really designed to address
Wind and solar are paying off quite well. I'm not sure what data leads you to believe otherwise but I am curious
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
I'll direct you to a friends website
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to ...
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.
I would love to see your evidence that anthropogenic sources are the cause of all the climate change we see today.
I think these, taken in total, do that, at least to the extent of "substantially all of it that matters" if not "all." To the best of my understanding, there is a portion of climate change that is natural.
The first link is a MODEL. That means it is not factual data. Do you know what data is?
The second link is OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?
The third link is OPINION. See above.
The fourth link is OPINION. See above.
The fifth link is OPINION based on computer models which is yet again NOT DATA!
I am asking for some simple empirical evidence for your assertions and you can't present one bit. Do you not understand basic scientific protocols? Do you understand that science is only interested in facts, not opinions? Do you knwo the difference between opinion and fact?
Well now wait a minute, Solar radiation is incoming but its measured in watts per meter as is the outgoing radiation. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I didn't mention anything about trapping or outgoing. although your comment was somewhat unclear. CO2 = a longer residency time of the total solar irradiation. Once again the data and experiments you are talking about are all extremely old science, say 125 years ago Arrhenius calculated the consequences of varying amounts of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. He eventually became the chair of the Nobel Prize Committee.
If you are trying to make a statement then please lets use standard weights and measures, otherwise you might as well be talking gibberish. If you are trying to pose a question, then kindly base it on a correct premise.
