How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Sunsettommy]

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.

Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

 

[abu afak]

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

You lying jerk.
Even you must know you're wrong.

A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms
Science Daily

"..While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. New research in the journal Nature indicates that for each degree that Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands -- the primary sources of the gas -- will increase several times. As temperatures rise, the relative increase of methane emissions will outpace that of carbon dioxide from these sources, the researchers report.".."​

and now they're going to be Pouring it into the atmosphere gratuitously and unnecessarily.
Horribly Blatant/Irresponsible behavior even if you are one of the Clowns unsure about AGW and GHGs.

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

You LYING jerk.
Even you must know you're wrong.

A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms

"..While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. New research in the journal Nature indicates that for each degree that Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands -- the primary sources of the gas -- will increase several times. As temperatures rise, the relative increase of methane emissions will outpace that of carbon dioxide from these sources, the researchers report.".."​

and now they're going to be Pouring it into the atmosphere gratuitously and unnecessarily.
Really Blatant/Irresponsible behavior even if you are unsure about AGW and GHGs.

`

You didn't read the garbage paper since there is no evidence presented that "methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas." is even a real number and that CH4 can't trap heat because it doesn't absorb heat, it absorbs IR. That is why the paper is garbage.

Meanwhile the internal link led to another paper showing this:

Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas because it has 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) by mass over a century1.

Is it 30 times more potent, or is it 25 times more potent or is it 80 time more potent, or what the IPPC says (a different number) again. It seems nobody knows, which is why we get so many different "estimates"of the hyper trace gas potency.

Meanwhile once again CH4 is a negligible ghg, a fact you should have learned years ago. Almost nothing times almost nothing = irrelevant, that is what short lived CH4 is in the energy budget, have you seen the MODTRAN results of this feeble gas?

You are just a ignorant and stupid as Deanrd is.

 

[abu afak]

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

You LYING jerk.
Even you must know you're wrong.

A more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms

"..While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. New research in the journal Nature indicates that for each degree that Earth's temperature rises, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere from microorganisms dwelling in lake sediment and freshwater wetlands -- the primary sources of the gas -- will increase several times. As temperatures rise, the relative increase of methane emissions will outpace that of carbon dioxide from these sources, the researchers report.".."​

and now they're going to be Pouring it into the atmosphere gratuitously and unnecessarily.
Really Blatant/Irresponsible behavior even if you are unsure about AGW and GHGs.

`

You didn't read the garbage paper since there is no evidence presented that "methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas." is even a real number and that CH4 can't trap heat because it doesn't absorb heat, it absorbs IR. That is why the paper is garbage.

Meanwhile the internal link led to another paper showing this:

Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas because it has 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2) by mass over a century1.

Is it 30 times more potent, or is it 25 times more potent or is it 80 time more potent, or what the IPPC says (a different number) again. It seems nobody knows, which is why we get so many different "estimates"of the hyper trace gas potency.

Meanwhile once again CH4 is a negligible ghg, a fact you should have learned years ago. Almost nothing times almost nothing = irrelevant, that is what short lived CH4 is in the energy budget, have you seen the MODTRAN results of this feeble gas?

You are just a ignorant and stupid as Deanrd is.

'methane thirty times'

A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, methane emissions will ...
https://blogs.princeton.edu › research › 2014/03/26 › a-more-potent-green...Mar 26, 2014 - While carbon dioxide is typically painted as the bad boy of greenhouse gases, methane is roughly 30 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas.

How The EPA And New York Times Are Getting Methane All Wrong ...
https://thinkprogress.org › how-the-epa-and-new-york-times-are-getting-m... Aug 20, 2015 - Here, for instance, is the New York Times from Tuesday: “Methane, which leaks from oil and gas wells, accounts for just 9 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas pollution — but it is over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it can have a big impact on global warming.”


Methane is like 'CO2 on Steroids' When It Comes to Trapping Heat
https://www.sightline.org › methane-climate-change-co2-on-steroidsFeb 12, 2019 -
It traps atmospheric heat 87 times more effectively than CO2, then it ... others cite a heat-trapping power around 30 times greater than CO2.


Study Suggests EPA May Seriously Underestimate Methane Gas ...
https://www.forbes.com › sites › lisettevoytko › 2019/06/07 › study-fertiliz...Jun 7, 2019 - Methane gas seeps out of Esieh Lake in Alaska. ... that methane emissions from the U.S. fertilizer industry are 100 times higher than previously ...


How to count methane emissions | MIT News
news.mit.edu › how-count-methane-emissions-0425Apr 25, 2014 - But a direct comparison between methane and carbon dioxide, the most ... gram for gram, methane is about 30 times as potent a greenhouse ...


Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of - EPA
https://www.epa.gov › climate-indicators › climate-change-indicators-atmo...Jan 23, 2017 - Global Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide Over Time Line graph showing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from ...


Menacing Methane - read out latest blog and learn all about methane
https://bosscontrols.co.uk › menacing-methane-menacing-methane-methan...Find out about the devastating effects of menacing methane. ... Menacing methane – methane is a greenhouse gas thirty times more potent than carbon dioxide.


Methane Is Leaking All Over The Place | FiveThirtyEight
https://fivethirtyeight.com › features › methane-is-leaking-all-over-the-placeFeb 3, 2016 - Methane sticks around in the atmosphere for Decades, rather than centuries like carbon dioxide, but it absorbs much more heat. On a time scale ...



`

 

[Wuwei]

It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.

Actually those equations don't need smart photons or dimmer switches since the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as SSDD likes it to be. Both equations give the same result whether you use one-way or two-way radiation. We will have to wait to see what new fiction he is going to conjure up, because he has some emotional stake in proving science is wrong.

 

[abu afak]

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

Actually Methane can last for Decades and is (consensus) 30x as powerful at heat trapping than CO2.

Settled by my last post above.

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your lack of knowledge and understanding of CH4 is obvious here, since it doesn't do jack for the energy budget. Is is much rarer than the already rare CO2, and doesn't last long in the atmosphere as it is easily broken down, and most significant of all, its main absorption band are in the area of the IR that is negligible.

Go back to selling sandy tacos, it is all you can do.

Actually Methane can last for Decades and is (consensus) 30x as powerful at heat trapping than CO2.

Settled by my last post above.

`

Where is your atmospheric hot spot supposed to be with this one?

 

[SSDD]

It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.

Actually those equations don't need smart photons or dimmer switches since the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as SSDD likes it to be. Both equations give the same result whether you use one-way or two-way radiation. We will have to wait to see what new fiction he is going to conjure up, because he has some emotional stake in proving science is wrong.

Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using

to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation. Their application of the S-B law only applies to ideal black bodies, radiating into an ideal vacuum. It is a blatant, and sophomoric misapplication of both the equation and the S-B law. The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you are operating under the belief that that sort of math represents science then once again...you demonstrate beyond argument that you are simply ignorant on the topic...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.

Actually those equations don't need smart photons or dimmer switches since the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as SSDD likes it to be. Both equations give the same result whether you use one-way or two-way radiation. We will have to wait to see what new fiction he is going to conjure up, because he has some emotional stake in proving science is wrong.

Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using

to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation. Their application of the S-B law only applies to ideal black bodies, radiating into an ideal vacuum. It is a blatant, and sophomoric misapplication of both the equation and the S-B law. The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you are operating under the belief that that sort of math represents science then once again...you demonstrate beyond argument that you are simply ignorant on the topic...

they are using

to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation.

It's true, they're using it the correct way.

Still no backup for your one-way, dimmer switch version? Weird.

The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The colder source is radiating less toward and receiving more from the warmer object.
No violation.

 

[Wuwei]

Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using

to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation. Their application of the S-B law only applies to ideal black bodies, radiating into an ideal vacuum. It is a blatant, and sophomoric misapplication of both the equation and the S-B law. The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you are operating under the belief that that sort of math represents science then once again...you demonstrate beyond argument that you are simply ignorant on the topic..

In the derivation they obviously use the subtracted form of the SB law.
You can complain about the picture because it illustrates two-way radiation, but the math can be interpreted as one-way radiation in the SB law exactly the same way you always insist. You have to realize that the picture was drawn for those that believe science, so you have to forgive them for not believing in your fake one-way radiation science.

The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is the basis of their math. Where is the colder source radiating to a warmer object?
P = Aεơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = Aεơ(Tₐ⁴ - Tₛ⁴) Radiated power, atmosphere to space

That math exactly represents your sort of science.

.

 

[SSDD]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This

is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This View attachment 276710 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

This

is the basis of their math...

It's the basis of Stefan-Boltzmann.

 

[SSDD]

Guess you also don't realize, or are unaware of the ramifications that they are using

to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in a manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the emissivity, the area or temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation. Their application of the S-B law only applies to ideal black bodies, radiating into an ideal vacuum. It is a blatant, and sophomoric misapplication of both the equation and the S-B law. The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If you are operating under the belief that that sort of math represents science then once again...you demonstrate beyond argument that you are simply ignorant on the topic..

In the derivation they obviously use the subtracted form of the SB law.
You can complain about the picture because it illustrates two-way radiation, but the math can be interpreted as one-way radiation in the SB law exactly the same way you always insist. You have to realize that the picture was drawn for those that believe science, so you have to forgive them for not believing in your fake one-way radiation science.

The notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is the basis of their math. Where is the colder source radiating to a warmer object?
P = Aεơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = Aεơ(Tₐ⁴ - Tₛ⁴) Radiated power, atmosphere to space

That math exactly represents your sort of science.

.

Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?

 

[SSDD]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This View attachment 276710 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

This

is the basis of their math...

It's the basis of Stefan-Boltzmann.

And that form describes a perfect black body (notice no expression for emissivity) radiating into a perfect vacuum...does that describe the atmosphere?

 

[Frannie]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

99.999 percent of climate change on the Earth happened before the first human.

There is no evidence large or small that humans caused or are causing climate change.

But how can that be since you have internet links.

You proved nothing, but please keep on wanking

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This View attachment 276710 is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

This

is the basis of their math...

It's the basis of Stefan-Boltzmann.

And that form describes a perfect black body (notice no expression for emissivity) radiating into a perfect vacuum...does that describe the atmosphere?

And that form describes a perfect black body

Yup.

(notice no expression for emissivity)

I noticed.

radiating into a perfect vacuum...

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?

 

[Wuwei]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This

is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

You forgot that I said that the "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere had the following assumptions and I adhered to those assumptions.

Your diagram assumes
area A = 1 m²
and ε = 1
Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero

Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?

Yes look at my equations. You will see that when the area is set to 1 m² the result is the power per square meter.

The example you posted is not a climate model that should be taken seriously. It is an oversimplified example that students can understand. There are a number of unrealistic assumptions including the fact that they use a slab and not a exponentially decreasing density with altitude. This is another example of a reference you gave to something that you don't fully understand.

.

 

[abu afak]

99.999 percent of climate change on the Earth happened before the first human.

There is no evidence large or small that humans caused or are causing climate change.

But how can that be since you have internet links.

You proved nothing, but please keep on wanking

Duh..

And so have 99.99% of the Extinctions.

Doesn't mean we haven't caused any.

Man has only been on the planet for 200K of 1.5 Billion years of life.
And for 95% of that we were just hunter gatherers.

Duh.


`

 

[SSDD]

[QUOTE="Toddsterpatriot, post: 23024269, member: 29707"

radiating into a perfect vacuum...

Where did Stefan or Boltzmann mention a vacuum?[/QUOTE]

Why do you suppose SB would have spoke to the radiation emitting from ideal black body in perfect thermal equilibrium made possible by an ideal interface with a perfect vacuum, and then put it in air where conduction and convection (which would be a less than perfect interface and alter that perfect equilibrium) were also possible in addition to radiation? Does that make any sort of rational, scientifically valid sense to you? If it does, by all means explain.

While you are at it...you might describe an instance of any perfect, or near perfect black body that is radiating into something other than a vacuum.

 

[SSDD]

To bad you can’t read an equation. This

is the basis of their math...and your version is just as wrong.....

You forgot that I said that the "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere had the following assumptions and I adhered to those assumptions.

Your diagram assumes
area A = 1 m²
and ε = 1
Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero

Look at your equations....do tell...what is the area of the atmosphere...the A is for area...you have no idea what equations are saying do you?

Yes look at my equations. You will see that when the area is set to 1 m² the result is the power per square meter.

The example you posted is not a climate model that should be taken seriously. It is an oversimplified example that students can understand. There are a number of unrealistic assumptions including the fact that they use a slab and not a exponentially decreasing density with altitude. This is another example of a reference you gave to something that you don't fully understand.

.

And what exactly is the area of a gas? There is a reason that the SB law can't correctly be applied to a gas...there are other laws that deal with gasses..