Correlation between temperature and CO2

[IanC]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

 

[westwall]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

 

[westwall]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

 

[westwall]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

 

[SSDD]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

Add this...

 

[skookerasbil]

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

In the carbon cycle diagram above, there are two sets of numbers. The black numbers are the size, in gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), of the box. The purple numbers are the fluxes (or rate of flow) to and from a box in gigatonnes of carbon per year (Gt/y).

A little quick counting shows that about 200 Gt C leaves and enters the atmosphere each year. As a first approximation then, given the reservoir size of 750 Gt, we can work out that the residence time of a given molecule of CO2 is 750 Gt C / 200 Gt C y-1 = about 3-4 years. (However, careful counting up of the sources (supply) and sinks (removal) shows that there is a net imbalance; carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 3.3 Gt per year).

It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.

What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean. Biological uptake (with the exception of fossil fuel formation) is carbon neutral: Every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing CO2. (Yes, there are maybe some gains to be made from reforestation but they are probably minor compared to fossil fuel releases).

Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).

CO2 emissions change our atmosphere for centuries

Water has a residence time of hundreds of years, water vapor of less than ten days. Water vapor is a feedback to CO2 and CH4. Warm the atmosphere with those GHGs and you get more water vapor. Cool the atmosphere by reducing those GHGs, and you get less water vapor in the atmosphere.

The RT for CO2 is 15 years. The claim that CO2 warming takes effect over hundreds of years is ridiculous.

Link?

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years... When the absolute basics aren't understood, the wild claims that the alarmists make are just stupid beyond belief. But, they get the grants don't they. And it's all about those grants.

Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Wird die CO2-Verweildauer in der Atmosphäre überschätzt? | Die kalte Sonne

Add this...

Dang..........well that sure makes the climate crusaders claims look silly!!

 

[IanC]

This Planck curve is real data. Even if it's not, it has the same shape as real data, and slightly adjusted for the temperature of any specific location.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is due to CO2? The CO2 notch appears to be about a quarter of the area above the line to the 300K Planck curve. By eyeball. Any way you look at it CO2'S influence is not insignificant.

I agree that H2O is dominant, the most influential. But that does not negate the role of CO2.

You said the surface would be just as warm without CO2. How can that be? H2O has little reactivity in the CO2 band, so it must be examined separately. How would water make up for it?

Nature is always striving to lose energy. Why would water become less efficient at transporting energy away? I suppose freezing it would work somewhat but you said the temperature would stay the same so that isn't really an option.

Can you give me some sort of explanation of what you mean?

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

 

[mamooth]

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years...

So?

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is measured in days. By your logic, that means the atmosphere should have entirely run out of water vapor.

So, now can you figure out the flaw in your logic? You're just failing hard at the most basic things, as usual.

 

[westwall]

This peer reviewed study fixes the RT at FOUR years...

So?

The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is measured in days. By your logic, that means the atmosphere should have entirely run out of water vapor.

So, now can you figure out the flaw in your logic? You're just failing hard at the most basic things, as usual.

Compare the amount of water vapor to the amount of CO2 and then get back to us.

 

[westwall]

At the density that CO2 exists in our atmosphere what would happen if all of the water vapor were to disappear. What would the surface temperature of the planet be with NO water vapor but with the CO2 concentration that we do have?

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

 

[IanC]

A very primitive first estimate would be roughly 3/4 of the Greenhouse Effect of 33C. So about 25C colder.

Of course it would also effect the amount of energy going into the atmosphere, and it would basically kill convection so we would not have weather as we now know it.

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey.....bottom line is, by far, most Americans have little concern about climate change............

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/

 

[skookerasbil]

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwww

 

[skookerasbil]

By the way..........does anybody know of any poll that asks the public how much they think fighting climate change will cost them personally?

Ive never seen one!!



Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

By Dan Gainor



Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Even U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion






Does any poll ask........"Where do you think they are going to get the $$ to pay for going green?"


Ive never seen one!!!


Wonder why??!!

 

[westwall]

In the concentrations that we have now? Might want to recalculate that.

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

 

[IanC]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

 

[westwall]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

 

[IanC]

Are you pulling an SSDD now?

What does 'in the concentrations that we have now' mean? You said no water, same CO2. Make up your mind.

Better yet, put down your own explanations. You are still ducking the question about how water would make up for the direct energy loss to space if CO2 wasn't around to block the 15 micron band.

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD! I am serious. In the trace amounts of CO2 that exist in this atmosphere were all the water vapor to go away, what would the temp be?

Get to your point. I already answered your question in #117.

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all. In a highly controlled lab experiment we can see that CO2 is indeed a GHG, however, the Earth is not a closed lab experiment, nor is it a greenhouse. It is an open system, thus CO2 is incapable of having a measurable effect in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere.

Ultimately the greenhouse gas theory requires CO2 to do something that it can't. We know that the oceans are what regulate the temp of the Earth. We know that UV radiation is the prime mover in that regard. We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature? It can warm the rocks, but the rocks then radiate it away again and don't retain it. Only the oceans retain the heat.

So, you are pulling an SSDD.

You didn't even give an answer to the question you posted to me but you are avoiding like the plague confronting CO2 radiative effects.

You said- "We also know that long wave IR can't warm the oceans. Therefore, how does the heat redirected back to the ground increase the global temperature?"

In the last eight years I have answered this question a thousand times in a hundred different ways and yet even reasonable posters like you just don't get it.

There is no 'heat' coming back from the atmosphere ( inversions being the exception). There is a two way flow of energy, from the surface and atmosphere. The net flow is heat.

At night both the surface and the atmosphere are passively cooling but the surface cools more slowly than if the atmosphere was not there.

In daylight, the surface has an active power source and begins to heat up in an attempt to shed this incoming energy, chasing an equilibrium temperature where output matches input. This equilibrium temperature is a function of both energy gain and energy loss. If you increase the solar input the temperature goes up. If you decrease the outgoing energy loss the surface temperature also goes up.

In neither case, not passive cooling nor active heating, does the energy flow from the atmosphere 'heat' anything. I thought you knew enough science to understand that. Perhaps you do, but choose to use an incorrect argument because it sounds good and fools the masses. Did you learn the technique from climate scientists?

No, I'm not pulling an SSDD. I fully accept that CO2 backradiates to the ground. Of that there is no doubt. What we do know however is that Long Wave IR can not penetrate the skin of water. Thus it can not warm water. Water in the oceans we KNOW to be the heat reservoir of the planet. I am trying to get to the absolute bottom of the food chain when it comes to global heat retention.

I don't know the answers to the questions i am asking. I am asking them to help understand them. What i do know is I have been researching these questions of mine for years and have so far been able to come up with a compelling answer for them.

Okay, sorry.

I thought you had a 'gotcha' answer lined up.

The most important confusion in this whole AGW mess is the imprecise definition of backradiation 'heating' the surface, and all the claims that this contravenes the SLoT.

Backradiation doesn't actively heat the surface, and it doesn't disobey the Second Law.

 

[IanC]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

My claim is that total CO2 has warmed the surface and atmosphere, and that increasing CO2 will add more warming influence.

I have never claimed CO2 could overwhelm natural factors, or that it was the main climate control knob. Just the opposite actually.

What I cannot abide is when people claim it has no effect at all. The mechanism is real, the effect is hard to quantify.