Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[abu afak]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

`

 

[Oddball]

A tiny, tiny fraction of what would be burned by a plant that uses it for fuel.

Horseshit....Show your math....TANSTAFL.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Oddball]

You warmer crackpots don't give fuck number one about the environment....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's a list of all the times Einstein said he had consensus and there was no way to test relativity:

End of list

 

[jc456]

How Do Scientists Know That Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming?​

Scientists use old fashioned detective work to figure out humans are responsible for Climate Change.
Oct 24, 2022 - NBC Miami

"....Scientists can Calculate how much heat different suspects Trap, using a complex understanding of chemistry and physics and feeding that into computer simulations that have been generally accurate in portraying climate, past and future. They Measure what they call Radiative forcing in Watts per Meter Squared.

The first and most frequent natural suspect is the sun. The sun is what warms Earth in general providing about 1,361 watts per meter squared of heat, year in year out. That’s the baseline, the delicate balance that makes Earth livable. Changes in energy coming from the sun have been minimal, about One-Tenth of a Watt per Meter Squared, scientists calculate.

But Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is now Trapping heat to the level of 2.07 Watts per Meter Squared, more than 20 Times that of the changes in the sun, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane, another powerful heat-trapping gas, is at 0.5 Watts per Meter Square.

The sun’s 11-year cycle goes through regular but small ups and downs, but that doesn’t seem to change Earth’s temperature. And if anything the ever so slight changes in 11-year-average solar irradiance have been shifting downward, according to NASA calculations, with the space agency concluding “it is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past century.”

[...more at link...]

How Scientists Know That We Are Responsible for Global Warming​

`

How come it was only 39 degrees in Chicago today?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How come it was only 39 degrees in Chicago today?

That’s climate change, not global warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then maybe you should stop doing that, eh? It's all you've been doing here for many years now. We explain in simple words where you messed up, and it whooshes right over your head. Everyone thinks of you as a clown.

I don't try to lecture the experts on, say, string theory, because I saw a conspiracy theory on the internet. I'm smart enough to understand my limitations.

Deniers? They're not smart enough to understand their limitations. Their cult keeps telling them what very special and smart snowflakes they are, and the cultists are hooked on receiving that emotional affirmation.

So you can't show us how doubling CO2 generates 3C increase in temperature in a lab per the AGWCult catechism because of black holes or string theory?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 778729

This claim, which you got from Instagram, is complete bullshit. The lithium content in the mines today is 21 times the amount that your post suggests.
See: PolitiFact - Instagram post misleads about lithium mining and Tesla cars

 

[abu afak]

How come it was only 39 degrees in Chicago today?

The above jc456 post/'challenge' is oft repeated and is Spectacularly STUPID for Anyone, much less someone who has Haunted this section for Years with Tens of THOUSANDS of Posts.

Yes, that's right...
A single cold front moving thru in ANY locale that drops the temp also 'proves it can't be true.'

A SINGLE cold Day in April in Chicago that hits 39 degrees disproves GW!!!"

He is Not only STUPID, but TOO STUPID to even respond to or 'debate' on the topic.

Now go FVCK Yourself fncceo

`

 

[jc456]

This claim, which you got from Instagram, is complete bullshit. The lithium content in the mines today is 21 times the amount that your post suggests.
See: PolitiFact - Instagram post misleads about lithium mining and Tesla cars

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Why can’t doubling CO2 show any temperature increase in a lab?

A. Black hole
B. String Theory
C. Because it doesn’t

 

[Crick]

Are you disputing my claim and my link?

 

[jc456]

Are you disputing my claim and my link?

Stupid. I posted it live, the destruction of your link

 

[Crick]

Stupid. I posted it live, the destruction of your link

No, you did not.

Electric cars are frequently criticized for hidden environmental impacts, from carbon dioxide emitted during manufacturing to the source of electricity while charging. A point of criticism is the environmental risks associated with mining lithium, a vital component of electric car batteries. One Instagram post focused on heavy machinery used as part of the mining process. The Nov. 30 post is a screenshot of another social media post, featuring an image of a person dwarfed by a large yellow Caterpillar haul truck. The same image has been used in other social media posts that make similar statements about electric car batteries. "This machine is required to move 500,000 pounds of earth in order to get the minerals needed for ONE SINGLE (Tesla) car battery," the text in the screenshot reads. "In whose world does this type of math and green new deal make sense?" The post doesn’t provide further information to back up its claim and doesn’t specify what minerals are needed for a Tesla battery. Besides lithium, Tesla batteries also contain cobalt and nickel, minerals that are also mined. The post misleads by implying that it takes enormous, gas-powered machinery moving huge amounts of material to produce a single electric vehicle. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Corby Anderson, a Colorado School of Mines professor, said mining operations typically use large-haul trucks, like the one in the Instagram post, to transport materials. A moderately sized haul truck can carry 500,000 pounds — equivalent to 250 tons — of material. "Moving 250 tons of material is not that big a deal in the mining industry," he said. The Instagram post doesn’t include any information about how lithium is sourced or how much lithium is needed in a Tesla battery.

By Jeff Cercone • March 28, 2023

Half of the lithium used in the world comes not from mining, but from extraction through geothermal brines. Saltwater is evaporated and the mineral is harvested from the desiccated remnants, said Brendan Moran, a hydrogeology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Brine extraction doesn’t move large amounts of earth and wouldn’t require a large truck. When lithium is obtained through traditional mining, it’s done primarily in Australia from spodumene, a mineral consisting of lithium aluminum inosilicate. Moran said Tesla batteries can contain "somewhere between 5 to 75 kilograms" (11 to 165 pounds) of lithium depending on the model. Tesla gets the lithium for its batteries from both brine and hard-rock sources. The post says 500,000 pounds of earth must be moved to extract enough lithium for one Tesla battery. But that is inaccurate when it comes to spodumene mining, Moran said; It takes less than 10,000 pounds of ore to produce around 2,000 pounds of spodumene. The only way a truck hauling 500,000 pounds of earth would contain minerals for just a single car battery is if the ore’s lithium content was 0.1%, Anderson said. The hard-rock mine that supplies some of the lithium Tesla uses said its ore naturally contains up to about 2.1% lithium, making it highly unlikely that a truck would carry enough mineral for only one battery. "Mining is extractive and does not have zero (environmental) impact, but the impact spans a large range, and lithium mining and use is on the low end of this, not to mention necessary to build a fully electric economy," Moran said.

Our ruling
An Instagram post shared an image of large machinery and said it’s "required to move 500,000 pounds of earth in order to get the minerals needed for one single Tesla car battery." The only way a truck hauling 500,000 pounds of earth would contain minerals for just a single car battery is if the ore’s lithium content was 0.1%. The ores from the hard-rock mine Tesla uses contain up to 2.1% lithium. It takes less than 10,000 pounds of material to produce 2,000 pounds of spodumene — a mineral filled with lithium aluminum inosilicate. The maximum amount of lithium a Tesla car battery contains is around 165 pounds.

We rate this post False.

 

[jc456]

No, you did not.
View attachment 778923
View attachment 778924
Electric cars are frequently criticized for hidden environmental impacts, from carbon dioxide emitted during manufacturing to the source of electricity while charging. A point of criticism is the environmental risks associated with mining lithium, a vital component of electric car batteries. One Instagram post focused on heavy machinery used as part of the mining process. The Nov. 30 post is a screenshot of another social media post, featuring an image of a person dwarfed by a large yellow Caterpillar haul truck. The same image has been used in other social media posts that make similar statements about electric car batteries. "This machine is required to move 500,000 pounds of earth in order to get the minerals needed for ONE SINGLE (Tesla) car battery," the text in the screenshot reads. "In whose world does this type of math and green new deal make sense?" The post doesn’t provide further information to back up its claim and doesn’t specify what minerals are needed for a Tesla battery. Besides lithium, Tesla batteries also contain cobalt and nickel, minerals that are also mined. The post misleads by implying that it takes enormous, gas-powered machinery moving huge amounts of material to produce a single electric vehicle. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Instagram’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) Corby Anderson, a Colorado School of Mines professor, said mining operations typically use large-haul trucks, like the one in the Instagram post, to transport materials. A moderately sized haul truck can carry 500,000 pounds — equivalent to 250 tons — of material. "Moving 250 tons of material is not that big a deal in the mining industry," he said. The Instagram post doesn’t include any information about how lithium is sourced or how much lithium is needed in a Tesla battery.

By Jeff Cercone • March 28, 2023

Half of the lithium used in the world comes not from mining, but from extraction through geothermal brines. Saltwater is evaporated and the mineral is harvested from the desiccated remnants, said Brendan Moran, a hydrogeology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Brine extraction doesn’t move large amounts of earth and wouldn’t require a large truck. When lithium is obtained through traditional mining, it’s done primarily in Australia from spodumene, a mineral consisting of lithium aluminum inosilicate. Moran said Tesla batteries can contain "somewhere between 5 to 75 kilograms" (11 to 165 pounds) of lithium depending on the model. Tesla gets the lithium for its batteries from both brine and hard-rock sources. The post says 500,000 pounds of earth must be moved to extract enough lithium for one Tesla battery. But that is inaccurate when it comes to spodumene mining, Moran said; It takes less than 10,000 pounds of ore to produce around 2,000 pounds of spodumene. The only way a truck hauling 500,000 pounds of earth would contain minerals for just a single car battery is if the ore’s lithium content was 0.1%, Anderson said. The hard-rock mine that supplies some of the lithium Tesla uses said its ore naturally contains up to about 2.1% lithium, making it highly unlikely that a truck would carry enough mineral for only one battery. "Mining is extractive and does not have zero (environmental) impact, but the impact spans a large range, and lithium mining and use is on the low end of this, not to mention necessary to build a fully electric economy," Moran said.

Our ruling
An Instagram post shared an image of large machinery and said it’s "required to move 500,000 pounds of earth in order to get the minerals needed for one single Tesla car battery." The only way a truck hauling 500,000 pounds of earth would contain minerals for just a single car battery is if the ore’s lithium content was 0.1%. The ores from the hard-rock mine Tesla uses contain up to 2.1% lithium. It takes less than 10,000 pounds of material to produce 2,000 pounds of spodumene — a mineral filled with lithium aluminum inosilicate. The maximum amount of lithium a Tesla car battery contains is around 165 pounds.

We rate this post False.

You didn’t disprove the truth I posted

 

[Crick]

You didn’t disprove the truth I posted

No thanks. That you posted it says about everything I'd want to put down.

 

[Flash]

This topic comes up now and then and I thought it might be handy to have some reference material. This first post is the glossary entries under "Climate Sensitivity"

Climate sensitivity The change in the surface temperature
in response to a change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
concentration or other radiative forcing. See also Climate feedback
parameter.
Earth system sensitivity
The equilibrium surface temperature response of the coupled
atmosphere–ocean–cryosphere–vegetation–carbon cycle system to
a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration
is referred to as Earth system sensitivity. Because it allows ice sheets
to adjust to the external perturbation, it may differ substantially from
the equilibrium climate sensitivity derived from coupled atmosphere–
ocean models.
Effective equilibrium climate sensitivity
An estimate of the surface temperature response to a doubling of
the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration that is evaluated
from model output or observations for evolving non-equilibrium
conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at
a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state,
and therefore may differ from equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)
The equilibrium (steady state) change in the surface temperature
following a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
concentration from pre-industrial conditions.
Transient climate response (TCR)
The surface temperature response for the hypothetical scenario
in which atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases at 1% yr–1
from pre-industrial to the time of a doubling of atmospheric CO2
concentration (year 70).
Transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE)
The transient surface temperature change per unit cumulative carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, usually 1000 GtC. TCRE combines both
information on the airborne fraction of cumulative CO2 emissions
(the fraction of the total CO2 emitted that remains in the atmosphere,
which is determined by carbon cycle processes) and on the transient
climate response (TCR).

"The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks and Climate Sensitivity", Chapter 7 of "The Physical Science Basis" in the IPCC's Assessment Report 6 is the place to cover this topic. If you don't already have one, you can download a copy of the entire document at:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Chapter 7 begins on page 923. Climate Feedbacks are discussed in section 7.4, beginning on page 967. Estimate of ECS and TCR are discussed in section 7.5, beginning on page 992

Stupid article by the scammers. Base data is fraudulent. Atmospheric CO2 in the 400 - 800 PPM range has not been proven to be a greenhouse gas.

No credibility.

 

[Crick]

We'll see.

Verified by whom? You still have provided no source for your 16 Wm-2 figure, your 10% PV loss figure or identified who made that Excel graph.

The WHAT?!?!? You've got to stop trying to make up techie sounding terms because you SUCK at it.

The "elongating of the wavelength"? Your patent infamiliarity with the terminology in these fields ought to be embarrassing. Your graph does not show a frequency/wavelength change anywhere. No recognizable feature moved horizontally, therefore there was no change in frequency/wavelength. Instead, it shows a very slight, frequency dependent change in amplitude. Not the same thing.

Your data displays NO frequency shift and you have not provided any source that says it has. Aside from your evaporation argument, you have presented no other mechanism that would affect the absorption of IR.

Show us a valid source that says solar radiation has undergone a frequency shift.

Billy Boy never responded to this post. He never identified a source for his 16 Wm-2 figure or the 10% PV loss he claimed. He never identified the author of the Excel graph he posted and he never provided a source supporting his claim that solar frequencies had shifted.

 

[Crick]

Stupid article by the scammers. Base data is fraudulent.

What do you mean by "base data" and why do you believe it is fraudulent?

Atmospheric CO2 in the 400 - 800 PPM range has not been proven to be a greenhouse gas.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences but carbon dioxide has been demonstrated repeatedly to absorb frequencies of IR not absorbed by water vapor. That would make it YOUR obligation to explain HOW it could avoid being a greenhouse gas.

No credibility.

Better than 99% of the world's climate scientists accept it. That would make me pretty well convinced that it is YOU that is lacking creditability.