Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[Sunsettommy]

GWP is on a "per molecule" or "per mole" basis. So it's closer to an intrinsic characteristic.

If you had as much CH4 pumped into the atmosphere as you do CO2 (as many moles of CH4 as CO2) you would see MUCH stronger warming.

CH4 is more EFFICIENT as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Which is why it is a scary thing. I believe it may have a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere but it may just oxidize to CO2 (I am forgetting the details right now).
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf


That's the job of GWP. It is an apples-to-apples comparison.



I think you mean "absorption". Transmittance would be if the molecule didn't absorb the IR. (Usually in IR graphs they simply flip the spectrum and call "absorption peaks" "transmission valleys".)

H2O is a strong greenhouse gas but more of a "feedback" than a forcing since the relative concentration is controlled by air temperature. From what I understand the GWP of H2O is smaller because "indirect effects" are not part of the GWP calculation.




It is still quite commonly talked about. It isn't necessarily what is driving the climate change now, but if it gets warm enough and enough permafrost melts or, heaven forbid, a shelf load of clathrates in the ocean are destabilized (this is often called the "clathrate gun hypothesis") then CH4 will become a very powerful problem.

YOU may not be interested in it but the experts are.

Notice that you completely left out this part w/m2 that is the one that matters the most which is why you skipped over it. Here is why YOU ignored it:

The IPCC gives these numbers in 2001

Page 45

W/m2

{CO2 (1.46); CH4 (0.48)

===

2020

CO2 2.1 W/m2

The chart illustrates just how minor CH4 really is since the .48 W/m2 (Postulated not actual) is actually partly taken up by water vapor

LINK

CH4 has weak transmittance values while Water Vapor has strong Transmission values in the same wavelength areas.

There is a reason why CH4 is rarely talked about anymore."

=====

You are being dishonest as usual.

 

[ding]

That's the funny thing about "tipping points". You usually don't know until LONG after you passed it.

So you agree with haveatit? Thirty years?

 

[ding]

Yeah. A day late and a dollar short. They should have outlawed internal combustion engines for automobiles 20 years ago. Ever see the documentary, "Who killed the electric car?" One company made some. But they only leased them out. Then they took them all back and destroyed them. Even though those leasing them wanted to keep them.

Cause everyone will be dead in 30 years?

 

[ding]

That's largely due to photosynthetic activity. Plants take up more CO2 in the spring and summer and release more of it in the fall.

Which is how we know the planet's climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2. The seasonal CO2 fluctuation has no effect on temperature.

 

[ding]

This looks like about CO2 at 55 Ma BP was about 500 ppm

Incorrect.

(PDF) Pearson, P. N. & Palmer, M. R. Atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 million years. Nature 406, 695-699

PDF | Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[ding]

Try this graph instead.


View attachment 652069

Also, why go so far back into the past. Things were a lot different back then. The continents weren't even where they are now. And obviously ocean currents were a lot different. It is what is happening today that matters. Not 55 million years ago. I wonder what deflection from the point you're going to try next.

Incorrect.

(PDF) Pearson, P. N. & Palmer, M. R. Atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 million years. Nature 406, 695-699

PDF | Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[ding]

Would you like to talk about Cenozoic glaciation?

Yes.

Late Cenozoic Ice Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Flash]

A scientist can be bought. The hundred thousand scientists that would have to be bought and bought for DECADES to pull off what you're all claiming... that's a different matter altogether. And, they'd have to have been bought off well before anyone had ever heard of AGW.

I'll tell you what makes a lot more sense and is a lot more likely. The fossil fuel industry sees AGW as an existential threat. Do you know what that means? It means that for them its life and and death. All their well paid jobs and government subisidies and billions in profits could just fucking vanish. Do you think THAT might convince a few of them to be dishonest? A few of them to pay off some scientists to lean their results in their direction? To get just the sort of manufactured 'controversy' that the tobacco industry provided the paid-off politicians to keep themselves going for 20 years longer than they should have been able to do. Maybe? I can understand that someone without much of a science education (and face it, that's most of the country) might have trouble understanding how a trace gas could fuck us as royally as it has. It's a lot easier to convince someone that AGW is a liberal fraud. That its the democrats that have been paying off the scientists because the democrats want to control the world and then destroy the world. Right. You already hate them and you're already stupid so its pretty easy to convince you of nonsense like that. Confirmation bias, right. Worked pretty well, didn't it.

This AGW scam is based upon acknowledged and admitted fraudulent and cherry picked data. It is not real science. The Principle Scientists have been exposed in their email to blatantly admit it. NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission have all been caught publishing fraudulent data.

There are a lot of graphs and data out there but the root "research" is bullshit. There is no appreciable man made component to climate change. Nature is driving that bus.

I've explained this to you many times but typical for an Environmental Wacko you don't want to hear the truth. You are a science denier.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Which is how we know the planet's climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2. The seasonal CO2 fluctuation has no effect on temperature.

You DO realize that added CO2 doesn't automatically jump the temperature up immediately right? You have heard of transient and equilibrium stages, right? CO2 adds warmth because it is a greenhouse gas but that doesn't mean it adds that warmth IMMEDIATELY.

This is why I described the greenhouse effect to you as the professionals speak. It slowly raises the level at which incoming IR is re-radiated back out into space. Add a mole of CO2 and it won't IMMEDIATELY add heat.

It really is much more complex than that. I'm struggling to see the engineering you learned show up in your posts. You don't seem to think these processes have any complexity to them. You are treating them like a cartoon, like you don't really understand how global warming works.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So you agree with haveatit? Thirty years?

NOT IN THE LEAST! LOL.

I don't believe AGW will decimate all life, let alone all humanity. I think it will severely harm our society and economy possibly to the point of irreversible collapse. But I wouldn't try to guess when that happens. I assume it will be long after I'm dead. Long after you are dead.

I think a lot of AGW skeptics like yourself are "safe" in that you will never see if you are right or wrong by betting against the earth's climate experts, but I do have to occasionally hear you folks talk about your "children" as if you care about them. I always assumed they were telling the truth. But if you said to them "Hey, here's a bet. Send your kids to Vegas and if they DON'T get a jackpot on the first time at a slot machine they will be beaten up." I know none of them would take that bet. But that's EXACTLY what AGW denialists and skeptics are doing.

SURE your kid might get a jackpot first pull. It's highly unlikely, but they might. And then your kid will be rich.

But there's a MUCH higher probability that the kid will get beat up.

When you bet against the vast majority of the experts and you lack expertise in the field that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

This AGW scam is based upon acknowledged and admitted fraudulent and cherry picked data.

Do you actually believe that? I hate to break it to you but you are wrong and you couldn't support your contention if you tried.

It is not real science.

May I ask how YOU would know what real science is?

The Principle Scientists have been exposed in their email to blatantly admit it.

Climategate. Great. The junk that keeps giving. You didn't understand what they were talking about and you didn't listen when people explained it to you.

NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Commission have all been caught publishing fraudulent data.

No they have not. Why do you make accusations you can't POSSIBLY back up?

There are a lot of graphs and data out there but the root "research" is bullshit. There is no appreciable man made component to climate change. Nature is driving that bus.

You wouldn't understand the science if someone explained it to you. Why do you say stuff like this? You have never done scientific research. Do you like it when people come and critique your janitorial work?

I've explained this to you many times but typical for an Environmental Wacko you don't want to hear the truth. You are a science denier.

Why don't you take some science classes and get back to us?

 

[ding]

You DO realize that added CO2 doesn't automatically jump the temperature up immediately right? You have heard of transient and equilibrium stages, right? CO2 adds warmth because it is a greenhouse gas but that doesn't mean it adds that warmth IMMEDIATELY.

No. I don't realize that. How long does it take for a CO2 molecule to absorb outgoing longwave radiation and then back radiate heat into the atmosphere?

 

[ding]

I think it will severely harm our society and economy possibly to the point of irreversible collapse.

How so? Walk me through that.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. I don't realize that. How long does it take for a CO2 molecule to absorb outgoing longwave radiation and then back radiate heat into the atmosphere?

That part happens relatively quickly (obviously).

But again, you have an oversimplified view of the greenhouse effect. It ISN'T just the absorption of an IR photon by a CO2 molecule.

Remember: the amount of energy coming INTO the earth from the sun is pretty much in balance with the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere. The key is that with increasing greenhouse gases the level at which the IR re-radiates back out into space gets higher and higher and higher where the radiation is less efficient because the gas molecules are less populous.

So of course that isn't going to happen the instant you add a new molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The key is that with increasing greenhouse gases the level at which the IR re-radiates back out into space gets higher and higher

The altitude gets higher?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How so? Walk me through that.

The Mayan Empire was once EXTREMELY large and extremely powerful in mesoAmerica. Then they had a bunch of multi year/multi decadal droughts and their society collapsed.

AGW may very well collapse our agricultural infrastructure (plants prefer specific growing conditions, and sometimes hotter is NOT better for some food vegetables). The 1930's saw the Dustbowl in the mid continent which resulted in a large number of "climate refugees", now imagine if that had been much larger in extent and hit in, say, the Central Valley where most of our table vegetables are grown in the US.

How about moving the plant hardiness zones in the midwest further north. Now Canada has some of the best conditions for growing staple crops that we rely on for export and for our food industry.

Global warming is already seen melting the Greenland Icesheet which is dumping a lot of fresh water into the upper arch of the AMOC in the North Atlantic. That is the mechanism by which Western Europe retains warmth for its latitude, it gets heat from the tropics pumped up into the upper latitudes. If that re-organizes or shuts down (there's evidence of it happening in the geologic record) it might crater their agriculture and infrastructure very quickly. They are a MAJOR trading partner for the US.

Now you've got most of the free, first world developed nations in crisis. That leads to economic crises all over the place.

Does that make any sense to you? Because pretty much EVERYTHING in this post has a precedent for it. Just not on a global scale like we are looking at now.

That's why I say you are betting against the house by siding with the tiny minority who disagree with the science. YOU don't have any reason to side with them other than your intense WISH that they be right. You have no technical expertise to declare that thousands upon thousands of independent experts all over the world are WRONG. You just don't.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The altitude gets higher?

The altitude at which the IR photons re-radiate back into space does, yes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The altitude at which the IR photons re-radiate back into space does, yes.

Why does the altitude get higher with more CO2?

 

[ding]

That part happens relatively quickly (obviously).

That's the GHG effect which can be measured and observed. Everything else is computer modeling and subject to assumptions.

 

[ding]

But again, you have an oversimplified view of the greenhouse effect. It ISN'T just the absorption of an IR photon by a CO2 molecule.

I didn't say just absorption of an IR photon by a CO2 molecule. I said absorb outgoing longwave radiation and then back radiate heat into the atmosphere. Which you said happens pretty quick, right?