I am in engineering and science. Though what you said is true about heat dissipation in curing concrete, it is the geat island effect of urbanization that has a minor affect on surface temps in urban areas. Back to that later. The laws of thermodynamics require clear understanding of how GHGs affect climate.
Here follows the mathematics of human impact. The value of RFeK heat forcing for GHG molecules is generally accepted by the IPCC, NASA and NOAA as follows:
H2O (25,000 ppm all natural) RFeK=1.00
CO2 (410 ppm of which there are ice core irregularities that ignore sublimation physics arguments that indicate only about 60 ppm is human induced). Well use the activists assumption that 1/4th of CO2 is human caused. RFeK = 1.94
CH4 (less than 2 ppm) RFeK = 1.51
Those values are significant because it allows us to quickly evaluate the GHG values of climate attributed to each Greenhouse Gas.
Also it is important to realize that GHG climate only accounts for 16.3°K of the total wwT (Climate) = 288.8°K. So 5.644% of climate comes from GHG.
Of that 16.3°K, the RFeK energy stored in every 1 million parts of atmosphere (mpa) the following potential forcing is attributed to GHG molecules as follows:
H2O at 25,000 ppm x 1.00 = 25,000 RFeK
CO2 at 410 ppm x 1.94 = 796 RFeK
CH4 (cow farts but actually every dead and decaying biological blob on the face of the earth) at 2 ppm = 3 RFeK
Human RFeK is about 1/4th of the 800 non water based RFeK units, so 200 RFeK.
If all GHGs account for 25,800 RFeK units and human impact is 200 of that 25,800 RFeK units, then the human impact generated over 150 years is...
16.3°K/288.8°K x 200/25800 = 0.00044°K
If wwT truly increased by 1°K since 1870, it means that 0.99956°K must have increased for non GHG reasons. As a LEED credentialed engineer, let me tell you, the global urban heat island effect is about 0.55°K. So you ate correct if you are implying that concrete and pavements, rooftops, etc contribute to climate change. But again, adding that to GHG change means about 0.001°K is human induced. That still means 0.998°K is natural. Blame the celestial and solar mechanics, the main reasons climate has changed regularly over the last 4.6 BYs.
One last caveat. I mentioned the entire human impact on CO2 may be grossly overstated. In the 1980's when climate modeling first began using computers, modelers needed to establish a baseline for GHGs. When they selected 285 ppm as a baseline for CO2 in 1875, they took over one hundred studies and measurements from the 1870-1910 period and tried to match them against early ice core studies that were revealing a similar range. To match those, the modelers had to toss the higher 2/3rds of the studies and the real average CO2 readings from the 1870-1910 era averaged about 345 ppm.
The problem with matching the 270 reading against ice core samples is the fact that: 1) more than 2/3rds if ice core measures of much higher CO2 numbers were ignored, 2) ice core measures from different cores of different locations dating to the same time varied wildly, and most important, 3) none of the ice core studies ever account for CO2 sublimation loss during the long trapping event period. You see CO2 finds the expansive surface to volume ratio of a -15°C snowflake like a balmy beach. CO2 sublimated away beginning at -70°C and so the trapping events NEVER accurately record the correct CO2 levels. They do likely record a relatively constant depleted or sublimation loss value that can be adjusted to reflect the likely loss based in lab abd field experiments. So actual ancient atmospheres probably had CO2 levels of 35-50% higher than the trapped ice recorded.
This also solves the botanical paradox. You see plants begin to mass extinct over half of all species when CO2 falls below 200 ppm. If the ice cores were accurate, then where are the fossil records of the mass extinctions of plants during the 100,000 year long ice ages? Yes botanical extinctions occur, but not mass extinctions. If the ice core readings arexadjusted to reflect sublimation losses, then there us no botanical paradox during ice ages, but also means human impact on CO2 is likely only half as much as we projected above.
Good post. Above my knowledge in many respects so I can’t give a full substantive critique. Ultimately, what it boils down to, IMHO, is that climate is a really complicated multivariate model and we have no clue what the variables are or how adjusting one changes the output in the model. Anyone strenuously claiming otherwise is a fucking charlatan.
The isolation of one or two gases as the main driver of “climate change” and the cacophony of support for it is by no means scientific. It strikes me as almost wholly political.
It is entirely political. You are correct in that the variables are far too numerous to completely predict a long term reality. But the laws that govern solar and planetary mechanics are well understood. The laws of thermodynamics are a constant. Major variables that drive climate are mainly astronomical and orbital, not atmospheric.
The fact is until about 35 million years ago, the earth only very rarely suffered long ice ages and the two very long snow all earth periods lasting millions of years were galactic in nature. When the earth traverses a dusty arm of the galaxy, less sunlight reaches the earth and it can cool for a million years or more. Sadly the earth and sun's fates to enter a thicker portion of the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy in just about 6,000 years so cold is coming. Currently the mechanics of the various Melancovic' cycles are at play here and so that is why the earth cooled considerably in conjunction with the merging of the non-Indian land mass with the Himalayan uplift that started about 37 million years ago.
Bottom line, we know the patterns and reasons for current cycles of climate change. Three of the last five interglacials have been warner than the current Holocene. Humans baking the planet is laughable to any paleoclimatologist. Until 35 mya, there were no ice ages other than as mentioned above, no polar ice caps, and wwT (climate) was 4-8°K warmer than now.
I tried googling RFeK, along with some other keywords, and seem to only come up with this Facebook post which presumably is written by you given you give nearly identical arguments and numbers and both claim to be LEED-credentialed engineers and/or scientists. So RFeK seems kind of ill-defined to me.
16.3°K/288.8°K x 200/25800 = 0.00044°K
This equation seems odd. You've taken a ratio of temperatures (unitless) and multiplied it by a ratio of RFeK (unitless) and gotten a result with units of Kelvin. You've either neglected to include some sort of constant that you're multiplying by (I saw 103/410 in your previous comment, but what exactly is this? Does it have units of K? Where does it come from? Why does it seem like you haven't actually used it given I just typed your numbers from the equation above into a calculator and it does equal 0.00044?) or this is wrong.
Ok basics. RF gain is the forcing effect translated into potential kinetic energy units. The NOAA, NASA and IPCC know that the value of solar energy that reaches the earths surface and therefore penetrates the 56 meaningful miles of atmosphere, is the backdrop of energy forcing through greenhouse gases.
Now the zeroth and first laws of thermodynamics governs the earth's baseline ambient temperature (as it does for all climates of all inner planets). From Jupiter and beyond, climate us actually dominated by internal heat shedding, a process that only accounts for about 0.8°K % of our climate.
Now the RFeK properties of H2O, CO2 and CH4 are generally accepted by IPCC, NASA and NOAA as applicable to Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) whereas non GHG's such is dominant O2, N2, and Ar that comprise 99.8% of A are ambiant and neutral with an RFeK forcing value of +/- 0.1 regardless of where they appear in A.
Now the RFeK is just a mathematical symbol. It could be ♡, ♤, or just k1, k2, k3 etc. But it represents a very real theoretical forcing of eK storage and that added energy is what is referred to as the R(adio)F(requency)e(nergy) K(inetic) potential. So RFeK. It could also have been written kerf. Doesn't matter!
What it represents is the reservoir valuation of the average forcing potential of a particular GHG in A at any place and any elevation > sea level. The energy received by the sun at all levels of A and at the earth's surface is always changing (measured in e=w/m2) but the earth rotates, the A is 56 miles thick, water vapor creates clouds, so w/m2 at every m2 on the earth's surface is constantly changing every second. The great thing about constant change is that it creates an array of values that can be interpreted into useful averages. In response to that, the IPCC developed the universal values of hear forcing properties for each GHG and those are:
1.00 for water molecules (H2O), there being on average a universally accepted value of 25,000 ppm. This is actually an agreed upon value because some scientists say it is as much as 50,000 and as low as 20,000. The number does fluctuate in nature, dropping to 15,000-22,000 ppm during ice ages. But 25,000 ppm is the currently accepted measure on average (being lower in dry places and significantly higher in marine climates).
CO2 is a much less significant GHG and has an RFeK forcing value of 1.94. This is how climate activists make the true but grossly misleading statement that CO2 is twice as dangerous as water (H2O). At only 410 ppm, x 1.94, the RFeK forcing energy in every million parts of atmosphere (mpa) is less than 1/26th of that in water. (796/25,000).
Methane is how you really know the activists are 🐂💩ing us bigly. CH4 occurs at less than 2 ppm in A. It is the natural first byproduct of all excrement and biological decay. Plants and animals die all the time so the natural environment is always going to present a modest amount of CH4 in A. But at 1.75 ppm, and with an RFeK forcing value of 1.51, it just isn't even remotely significant. Yet, the activists are telling you all that beef cattle are cooking the air with farts. It just is so ridiculous. In the first place, 99.995% of ALL LIVING TISSUE of all types on planet earth are botanical. Only 0.005% are animal/zoological or bacterial. Plants are the major land store for CO2, H2O and Nitrogen. When they die, they decay. Some of that decay process combines the three molecular compounds differently and you get a little CH4 and CO2 released along with H2O and N2. It's natural. It's happening every time something dies. Stop mowing the lawn, CH4 changes ever so slightly. Big farts, it increases slightly, but overall the CH4 decay is so rapid in sunlight it just doesn't build up except in mas extinction events, the. Usually becomes explosive in open air is highlighted by lightning and levels quickly return to zero until botanical life returns.
Now the H20, CO2 and CH4 account for the eK energy (25,800 units) and that translates directly into the heat forcing temperature attributed to GHGs = 16 3°K. That number drops during Ice Ages. It's high now because we are in an interglacial warm spell. Since all wwT (climate) is 288.7°K>|0°|k, then GHGs must contribute 16 3°K/288.7°K of wwT.
Follow so far?
Now if 16.3°K comes from GHGs and we know what portion of the heat forcing comes from the various GHG molecules and how many molecules exist on average in every million parts of A (mpa) then we can compute exactly how much water, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to the 16.3°K GHG portion of wwT = 288.8°K.
The eK values fir the GHGs are again...
1.00 for H20
1.94 for CO2
1 51 for CH4
At 25,000 ppm, H20 contributes 25,000 eK units to every mpa.
At 410 ppm, CO2 contributes 796 eK units to every mpa.
At 1.75 ppm, CH4 contributes say 3 eK units to every mpa. We round up to account for all other trace GHGs and say total RFeK in GHGs is 25,800 forcing kinetic energy units in every mpa.
So the 25,800 RFeK units is a valid measure of excess or forced energy that is the result of these GHG molecules actively working within A. Now wwT is climate as measured by a thermometer at sea levels on average all over the world.
The current and universally accepted value of wwT is 288.8°K of which:
255.6°K is truly ambient and based on black body measurements from space,
16.1°K is thermodynamic heat transference from the earth's thermal surface mass. An example is you get out of a pool on a hot day, a breeze passes and you feel chilled. That is heat (eK) transferred from you directly into A. The same happens on all thermal heated surfaces and so its contribution to wwT is significant.
0.8°K of wwT is from geophysical heat shedding (i.e contributions of heat from the interior of the earth to A Visa tectonic activity, gravitational contraction and volcanism).
The final 16.3°K of wwT is from the GHG affect.
Since we know the amount if energy each GHG molecule contributes (on average) to this reservoir of thermal energy, and their population within mpa, we can easily determine the human Carbon footprint. Again not even adjusting for sublimation losses of CO2 in ice core studies (a huge scientific mistake on their part), we assume 1/4th of the 410 ppm of CO2 is human caused over the last 150 years. If wwT has increased from 287.8°K to 288.8°K (+1°K) in 150 years, and we know what presumably comes from human industrual activities, then we can calculate the human product or portion of the +1°K change.
Of 25,800 RFeK units mpa, 200 may be human induced from CO2. The CH4 value is as you can see irrelevant at 1.75 ppm.
200/25800 = 0.007752 (0.78%).
So GHG climate less than 1% is attributed to human activity. The majority of GHG wwT forcing is natural, about 99.22%of it.
GHG climate accounts for 16 3°K / 288.8°K of total climate or wwT (5.644%). Now you can multiply both to find the total human impact on all climate over the last 150 years.
16.3°K/288.8°K representing GHG contribution to wwT,
200/25,800 Portion of GHG attributed to human activity (a fraction of the 16.3°K. = .007752) so 99.22% of GHG forced climate is natural and 0.78% is human.
Do the math. Its 5.644% of all climate is GHG and of that, less than 1% (only 0.78%) of GHG climate is caused by us humans. That is the carbon footprint and there is no getting around that number.
0.044°K 》150 years. It's very nearly imperceptible. And if I go to the sublimation of CO2 loss argument that corrects the botanical paradox that exists by fixing CO2 levels in ice core readings x 60-70 points lower than actual back in 1870, the human impact is a truly only half that at 0.022°K.
There is no getting past the nath.
P.S. I work in a scientific field within the U.S. Department of #$@%$#$#%. We dudes know what we are talking about. The left cannot pull their eliminate CO2 and green the planet (what BS that is, ask any botanist) crap over us. We know when it's all a massive conspiracy and a hoax.
RF gain is the forcing effect translated into potential kinetic energy units.
What? I don't see what potential or kinetic (or the combination thereof, whatever that means) energy "units" has to do with temperature. Forcing effects are usually described in terms of W/m^2 from what I've seen.
Now the zeroth and first laws of thermodynamics governs the earth's baseline ambient temperature (as it does for all climates of all inner planets).
No, the laws of thermodynamics govern literally everything, not just "inner planets".
From Jupiter and beyond, climate us actually dominated by internal heat shedding
Another term that I'm unable to find an actual definition of. Presumably you might mean heat from the planet's core, which seems plausible.
a process that only accounts for about 0.8°K % of our climate.
Kelvin or percentage? Make up your mind on units, you seem to just slap letters down everywhere.
Now the RFeK is just a mathematical symbol. It could be ♡, ♤, or just k1, k2, k3 etc.
Yes but the useful thing about mathematical symbols is that we can agree upon what they mean and relate them to eachother. When I write J for the units of a number it is not "just a mathematical symbol", it means Joules which you can look up the definition of and find values of for various energy quantities or whatever. I can not find RFeK anywhere, even using your expanded definition of the acronym.
R(adio)F(requency)e(nergy) K(inetic) potential
This sounds retarded. I assumed the RF in RFeK stood for radiative forcing because that seems most relevant to the topic. This reads like a slapping together of a bunch of fancy sounding science words.
black body measurements from space
I don't see how black body (radiation) measurements from space could differentiate between "ambient" temperature and temperature caused by greenhouse gases.
That is heat (eK) transferred from you directly into A.
Is eK a convenient unit for determining the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, analogous to W/m^2, or is it a measurement of heat which would typically be Joules? Again your definitions seem wishy-washy.
The rest of your post just comes across as trying to create an appeal to authority (yourself and "science" and institutions), defining numbers and using Math to show the result you want. For all of your referencing of NOAA, NASA, and IPCC you've neglected to actually give a link to where they state these numbers. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt at least for a first reading of most casual forum comments because citing a bunch of sources is cumbersome to normal conversation, but because you've made several mistakes on fairly basic things like units, constantly reference things which don't even seem to exist (RFeK, other terms), and your tone comes across largely as trying to appeal to authority I tend not to take you on your word.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the relationship between molecules that potentially force the3 storage of additional kinetic energy above ambient input, then I cannot help you.
I do not dispute that, and did NOT intend to imply that. In the course of typing a scientific dissertation on a cell phone however, a transitional thought may have been dropped. Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. What I intended and if you read carefully further down is that the atmospheres (therefore climates) of the inner planets out to about Mars are governed by solar radiation whereas Jupiter, objects and planets beyond receive so little radiative solar heat energy that their main source of climate dynamics is internal heat shedding. On earth it amounts to about 0.8K of wwT, but on Jupiter it accounts for probably 95% of the planet's climate, and so on the further you get from the sun per the inverse square law.
See 2 above. the "%" is again a minor typo on a cell phone. My apologies that you think a message board is going to be a perfect medium for communication.
I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK and yes, you could make some equivalencies to joules, but that is not how the IPCC, NASA or NOAA utilize the physics of w/m2 as converted into energy forcing values. When I discuss the topic I try to stick to the conventions and languages that the IPCC and other agencies use. But to explain the energy forcing value of each molecule as a unit term, requires some form of measurement symbol. The introduction of a mathematical expression is not unusual or bad physics. it's common. Now their forcing numbers numbers relate to the energy forcing properties of the molecules mentioned. Each molecule is capable of ON AVERAGE generating an additional kinetic energy potential of 1.00 for water, 1.94 for carbon dioxide and 1.51 for methane within A. Obviously the GHG value of wwT being 16.3K means that of 288.8K, the 16.3K attributed from GHG's must be accounted for in the energy forcing properties of those three molecules. Knowing their ratios within A and knowing their heat forcing energy values, we can easily deduce their properties as climate drivers. It doesn't matter if you cannot find a value symbol called RFeK. The radio frequency forcing of + kinetic energy is forced because of those molecules being present in A and that is what matters according to the IPCC, etc. Sorry you have a problem with the introduction of new mathematical symbols that you ether prefer not to understand and pretend not to understand. Also it is radiative forcing and that was the intended term. I think spell check altered it to "radio" and although radiative is similar, the word radio is probably more common so I did not notice the spell check change. It is Radiative forcing. Yep, I just tried writing it again and it changed it. I had to correct its correction.
The commonly current accepted BB~wwT as measured by NASA is 255.6K. But the actual wwT climate at the earth's surface is 288.8K. Therefore a delta clearly exists. Remember the BB radiation per NASA is strictly the albedo value measured directly from a three dimensional reservoir (roughly 60 miles thick) and not the surface value of wwT. The delta is the difference between the ambient or common temperature that occurs because of the earth's location in the golden zone (orbital mechanics), and other climate forcing mechanisms of which there are mainly three: (1) Thermal heat transferred from surface objects and that is estimated to be about 16.1K of the delta. 0.8K is thought to come from internal heat shedding. while this is a widely accepted value, I think it is low by perhaps a much as 50-100%. But my opinion does not matter, geophysicists have pegged this value at just less than 1K of climate. That leaves the GHG delta and that equals 16.3K assuming the other generally accepted values are correct.
As for you last paragraph of comments, meh. Think what you want. It's a message board not a peer reviewed journal. If you had difficulty following the physics and math then I can't help you. I believe however you can. As for the references they are out there. do your homework. I'm not your slave. Bottom line is in fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics likely preclude the "laboratory analysis that lead to the RFeK assumptive valuations" was probably overstated by the IPCC as well. But I used their numbers and coefficients. Most of the physicists I know discount much of the GHG hypothesis or at best, look at it as a function of mainly water vapor because that accounts for 25/26ths of all potential GHG's. You simply cannot get to CO2 as a main driver of climate. In fact until 100 million years ago, CO2 still lingered in A at around 5,000 ppm or higher. The planet didn't fry then. It isn't frying now.
Three of the last inter-glacial periods were significantly warmer than the present. The current interglacial may be a little cooler because the Milancovic' cycles are at a point where the earth is not receiving quite as much solar energy as in the last two. The solar system is also already passing into the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy and while it is not yet as dense as it will become. it may be having a solar radiation receipt drop. It will continue to drop for the next 6,000 years as the solar system moves closer and into the more dense part of the arm. Ask an astronomer.
We do know from far more recent records (human and biological), the wwT was from 1-3K warmer coming out of the last ice age between 9,000 and 2,000 BC than now. It was 1-2K warmer during the Roman era and it was at least 2K warmer during the mid-evil warm period when Vikings and other Norse, Celts and Saxons grew hay and grains in Greenland and grapes and other mid latitude veggies and fruits in Scotland, England, Ireland and Parts of the lowlands in Northeastern Europe. Right now the current wwT is still below the average wwT since 20,000 BC and its a good 2-3K cooler than three of the last five inter-glacial periods that saw sea levels 3-6 meter higher than the present. We are not presently in any kind of climate crises; far from it. Furthermore, more CO2 would only green up the planet, not fry it out. Every botanist knows that.
I thank you for the conversations, as it has been interesting and I would not have cought the spellcheck error you did without your eyes. I am with others writing a much deeper paper on the subject but we may not be able to publish given the current political powers that be. But the numbers I ahve put herein are out there. It's a deep dive, hundreds of citations and dozens of web sites researched. Most information like variables can be culled from documents published by the IPCC, NASA or t5he NOAA. You just have to look.
I am in engineering and science. Though what you said is true about heat dissipation in curing concrete, it is the geat island effect of urbanization that has a minor affect on surface temps in urban areas. Back to that later. The laws of thermodynamics require clear understanding of how GHGs affect climate.
Here follows the mathematics of human impact. The value of RFeK heat forcing for GHG molecules is generally accepted by the IPCC, NASA and NOAA as follows:
H2O (25,000 ppm all natural) RFeK=1.00
CO2 (410 ppm of which there are ice core irregularities that ignore sublimation physics arguments that indicate only about 60 ppm is human induced). Well use the activists assumption that 1/4th of CO2 is human caused. RFeK = 1.94
CH4 (less than 2 ppm) RFeK = 1.51
Those values are significant because it allows us to quickly evaluate the GHG values of climate attributed to each Greenhouse Gas.
Also it is important to realize that GHG climate only accounts for 16.3°K of the total wwT (Climate) = 288.8°K. So 5.644% of climate comes from GHG.
Of that 16.3°K, the RFeK energy stored in every 1 million parts of atmosphere (mpa) the following potential forcing is attributed to GHG molecules as follows:
H2O at 25,000 ppm x 1.00 = 25,000 RFeK CO2 at 410 ppm x 1.94 = 796 RFeK CH4 (cow farts but actually every dead and decaying biological blob on the face of the earth) at 2 ppm = 3 RFeK
Human RFeK is about 1/4th of the 800 non water based RFeK units, so 200 RFeK.
If all GHGs account for 25,800 RFeK units and human impact is 200 of that 25,800 RFeK units, then the human impact generated over 150 years is...
16.3°K/288.8°K x 200/25800 = 0.00044°K
If wwT truly increased by 1°K since 1870, it means that 0.99956°K must have increased for non GHG reasons. As a LEED credentialed engineer, let me tell you, the global urban heat island effect is about 0.55°K. So you ate correct if you are implying that concrete and pavements, rooftops, etc contribute to climate change. But again, adding that to GHG change means about 0.001°K is human induced. That still means 0.998°K is natural. Blame the celestial and solar mechanics, the main reasons climate has changed regularly over the last 4.6 BYs.
One last caveat. I mentioned the entire human impact on CO2 may be grossly overstated. In the 1980's when climate modeling first began using computers, modelers needed to establish a baseline for GHGs. When they selected 285 ppm as a baseline for CO2 in 1875, they took over one hundred studies and measurements from the 1870-1910 period and tried to match them against early ice core studies that were revealing a similar range. To match those, the modelers had to toss the higher 2/3rds of the studies and the real average CO2 readings from the 1870-1910 era averaged about 345 ppm.
The problem with matching the 270 reading against ice core samples is the fact that: 1) more than 2/3rds if ice core measures of much higher CO2 numbers were ignored, 2) ice core measures from different cores of different locations dating to the same time varied wildly, and most important, 3) none of the ice core studies ever account for CO2 sublimation loss during the long trapping event period. You see CO2 finds the expansive surface to volume ratio of a -15°C snowflake like a balmy beach. CO2 sublimated away beginning at -70°C and so the trapping events NEVER accurately record the correct CO2 levels. They do likely record a relatively constant depleted or sublimation loss value that can be adjusted to reflect the likely loss based in lab abd field experiments. So actual ancient atmospheres probably had CO2 levels of 35-50% higher than the trapped ice recorded.
This also solves the botanical paradox. You see plants begin to mass extinct over half of all species when CO2 falls below 200 ppm. If the ice cores were accurate, then where are the fossil records of the mass extinctions of plants during the 100,000 year long ice ages? Yes botanical extinctions occur, but not mass extinctions. If the ice core readings arexadjusted to reflect sublimation losses, then there us no botanical paradox during ice ages, but also means human impact on CO2 is likely only half as much as we projected above.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Good post. Above my knowledge in many respects so I can’t give a full substantive critique. Ultimately, what it boils down to, IMHO, is that climate is a really complicated multivariate model and we have no clue what the variables are or how adjusting one changes the output in the model. Anyone strenuously claiming otherwise is a fucking charlatan.
The isolation of one or two gases as the main driver of “climate change” and the cacophony of support for it is by no means scientific. It strikes me as almost wholly political.
It is entirely political. You are correct in that the variables are far too numerous to completely predict a long term reality. But the laws that govern solar and planetary mechanics are well understood. The laws of thermodynamics are a constant. Major variables that drive climate are mainly astronomical and orbital, not atmospheric.
The fact is until about 35 million years ago, the earth only very rarely suffered long ice ages and the two very long snow all earth periods lasting millions of years were galactic in nature. When the earth traverses a dusty arm of the galaxy, less sunlight reaches the earth and it can cool for a million years or more. Sadly the earth and sun's fates to enter a thicker portion of the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy in just about 6,000 years so cold is coming. Currently the mechanics of the various Melancovic' cycles are at play here and so that is why the earth cooled considerably in conjunction with the merging of the non-Indian land mass with the Himalayan uplift that started about 37 million years ago.
Bottom line, we know the patterns and reasons for current cycles of climate change. Three of the last five interglacials have been warner than the current Holocene. Humans baking the planet is laughable to any paleoclimatologist. Until 35 mya, there were no ice ages other than as mentioned above, no polar ice caps, and wwT (climate) was 4-8°K warmer than now.
I tried googling RFeK, along with some other keywords, and seem to only come up with this Facebook post which presumably is written by you given you give nearly identical arguments and numbers and both claim to be LEED-credentialed engineers and/or scientists. So RFeK seems kind of ill-defined to me.
This equation seems odd. You've taken a ratio of temperatures (unitless) and multiplied it by a ratio of RFeK (unitless) and gotten a result with units of Kelvin. You've either neglected to include some sort of constant that you're multiplying by (I saw 103/410 in your previous comment, but what exactly is this? Does it have units of K? Where does it come from? Why does it seem like you haven't actually used it given I just typed your numbers from the equation above into a calculator and it does equal 0.00044?) or this is wrong.
Ok basics. RF gain is the forcing effect translated into potential kinetic energy units. The NOAA, NASA and IPCC know that the value of solar energy that reaches the earths surface and therefore penetrates the 56 meaningful miles of atmosphere, is the backdrop of energy forcing through greenhouse gases.
Now the zeroth and first laws of thermodynamics governs the earth's baseline ambient temperature (as it does for all climates of all inner planets). From Jupiter and beyond, climate us actually dominated by internal heat shedding, a process that only accounts for about 0.8°K % of our climate.
Now the RFeK properties of H2O, CO2 and CH4 are generally accepted by IPCC, NASA and NOAA as applicable to Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) whereas non GHG's such is dominant O2, N2, and Ar that comprise 99.8% of A are ambiant and neutral with an RFeK forcing value of +/- 0.1 regardless of where they appear in A.
Now the RFeK is just a mathematical symbol. It could be ♡, ♤, or just k1, k2, k3 etc. But it represents a very real theoretical forcing of eK storage and that added energy is what is referred to as the R(adio)F(requency)e(nergy) K(inetic) potential. So RFeK. It could also have been written kerf. Doesn't matter!
What it represents is the reservoir valuation of the average forcing potential of a particular GHG in A at any place and any elevation > sea level. The energy received by the sun at all levels of A and at the earth's surface is always changing (measured in e=w/m2) but the earth rotates, the A is 56 miles thick, water vapor creates clouds, so w/m2 at every m2 on the earth's surface is constantly changing every second. The great thing about constant change is that it creates an array of values that can be interpreted into useful averages. In response to that, the IPCC developed the universal values of hear forcing properties for each GHG and those are:
1.00 for water molecules (H2O), there being on average a universally accepted value of 25,000 ppm. This is actually an agreed upon value because some scientists say it is as much as 50,000 and as low as 20,000. The number does fluctuate in nature, dropping to 15,000-22,000 ppm during ice ages. But 25,000 ppm is the currently accepted measure on average (being lower in dry places and significantly higher in marine climates).
CO2 is a much less significant GHG and has an RFeK forcing value of 1.94. This is how climate activists make the true but grossly misleading statement that CO2 is twice as dangerous as water (H2O). At only 410 ppm, x 1.94, the RFeK forcing energy in every million parts of atmosphere (mpa) is less than 1/26th of that in water. (796/25,000).
Methane is how you really know the activists are 🐂💩ing us bigly. CH4 occurs at less than 2 ppm in A. It is the natural first byproduct of all excrement and biological decay. Plants and animals die all the time so the natural environment is always going to present a modest amount of CH4 in A. But at 1.75 ppm, and with an RFeK forcing value of 1.51, it just isn't even remotely significant. Yet, the activists are telling you all that beef cattle are cooking the air with farts. It just is so ridiculous. In the first place, 99.995% of ALL LIVING TISSUE of all types on planet earth are botanical. Only 0.005% are animal/zoological or bacterial. Plants are the major land store for CO2, H2O and Nitrogen. When they die, they decay. Some of that decay process combines the three molecular compounds differently and you get a little CH4 and CO2 released along with H2O and N2. It's natural. It's happening every time something dies. Stop mowing the lawn, CH4 changes ever so slightly. Big farts, it increases slightly, but overall the CH4 decay is so rapid in sunlight it just doesn't build up except in mas extinction events, the. Usually becomes explosive in open air is highlighted by lightning and levels quickly return to zero until botanical life returns.
Now the H20, CO2 and CH4 account for the eK energy (25,800 units) and that translates directly into the heat forcing temperature attributed to GHGs = 16 3°K. That number drops during Ice Ages. It's high now because we are in an interglacial warm spell. Since all wwT (climate) is 288.7°K>|0°|k, then GHGs must contribute 16 3°K/288.7°K of wwT.
Follow so far?
Now if 16.3°K comes from GHGs and we know what portion of the heat forcing comes from the various GHG molecules and how many molecules exist on average in every million parts of A (mpa) then we can compute exactly how much water, carbon dioxide and methane contribute to the 16.3°K GHG portion of wwT = 288.8°K.
The eK values fir the GHGs are again...
1.00 for H20 1.94 for CO2 1 51 for CH4
At 25,000 ppm, H20 contributes 25,000 eK units to every mpa.
At 410 ppm, CO2 contributes 796 eK units to every mpa.
At 1.75 ppm, CH4 contributes say 3 eK units to every mpa. We round up to account for all other trace GHGs and say total RFeK in GHGs is 25,800 forcing kinetic energy units in every mpa.
So the 25,800 RFeK units is a valid measure of excess or forced energy that is the result of these GHG molecules actively working within A. Now wwT is climate as measured by a thermometer at sea levels on average all over the world.
The current and universally accepted value of wwT is 288.8°K of which:
255.6°K is truly ambient and based on black body measurements from space,
16.1°K is thermodynamic heat transference from the earth's thermal surface mass. An example is you get out of a pool on a hot day, a breeze passes and you feel chilled. That is heat (eK) transferred from you directly into A. The same happens on all thermal heated surfaces and so its contribution to wwT is significant.
0.8°K of wwT is from geophysical heat shedding (i.e contributions of heat from the interior of the earth to A Visa tectonic activity, gravitational contraction and volcanism).
The final 16.3°K of wwT is from the GHG affect.
Since we know the amount if energy each GHG molecule contributes (on average) to this reservoir of thermal energy, and their population within mpa, we can easily determine the human Carbon footprint. Again not even adjusting for sublimation losses of CO2 in ice core studies (a huge scientific mistake on their part), we assume 1/4th of the 410 ppm of CO2 is human caused over the last 150 years. If wwT has increased from 287.8°K to 288.8°K (+1°K) in 150 years, and we know what presumably comes from human industrual activities, then we can calculate the human product or portion of the +1°K change.
Of 25,800 RFeK units mpa, 200 may be human induced from CO2. The CH4 value is as you can see irrelevant at 1.75 ppm.
200/25800 = 0.007752 (0.78%).
So GHG climate less than 1% is attributed to human activity. The majority of GHG wwT forcing is natural, about 99.22%of it.
GHG climate accounts for 16 3°K / 288.8°K of total climate or wwT (5.644%). Now you can multiply both to find the total human impact on all climate over the last 150 years.
16.3°K/288.8°K representing GHG contribution to wwT,
200/25,800 Portion of GHG attributed to human activity (a fraction of the 16.3°K. = .007752) so 99.22% of GHG forced climate is natural and 0.78% is human.
Do the math. Its 5.644% of all climate is GHG and of that, less than 1% (only 0.78%) of GHG climate is caused by us humans. That is the carbon footprint and there is no getting around that number.
0.044°K 》150 years. It's very nearly imperceptible. And if I go to the sublimation of CO2 loss argument that corrects the botanical paradox that exists by fixing CO2 levels in ice core readings x 60-70 points lower than actual back in 1870, the human impact is a truly only half that at 0.022°K.
There is no getting past the nath.
P.S. I work in a scientific field within the U.S. Department of #$@%$#$#%. We dudes know what we are talking about. The left cannot pull their eliminate CO2 and green the planet (what BS that is, ask any botanist) crap over us. We know when it's all a massive conspiracy and a hoax.
What? I don't see what potential or kinetic (or the combination thereof, whatever that means) energy "units" has to do with temperature. Forcing effects are usually described in terms of W/m^2 from what I've seen.
No, the laws of thermodynamics govern literally everything, not just "inner planets".
Another term that I'm unable to find an actual definition of. Presumably you might mean heat from the planet's core, which seems plausible.
Kelvin or percentage? Make up your mind on units, you seem to just slap letters down everywhere.
Yes but the useful thing about mathematical symbols is that we can agree upon what they mean and relate them to eachother. When I write J for the units of a number it is not "just a mathematical symbol", it means Joules which you can look up the definition of and find values of for various energy quantities or whatever. I can not find RFeK anywhere, even using your expanded definition of the acronym.
This sounds retarded. I assumed the RF in RFeK stood for radiative forcing because that seems most relevant to the topic. This reads like a slapping together of a bunch of fancy sounding science words.
I don't see how black body (radiation) measurements from space could differentiate between "ambient" temperature and temperature caused by greenhouse gases.
Is eK a convenient unit for determining the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, analogous to W/m^2, or is it a measurement of heat which would typically be Joules? Again your definitions seem wishy-washy.
The rest of your post just comes across as trying to create an appeal to authority (yourself and "science" and institutions), defining numbers and using Math to show the result you want. For all of your referencing of NOAA, NASA, and IPCC you've neglected to actually give a link to where they state these numbers. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt at least for a first reading of most casual forum comments because citing a bunch of sources is cumbersome to normal conversation, but because you've made several mistakes on fairly basic things like units, constantly reference things which don't even seem to exist (RFeK, other terms), and your tone comes across largely as trying to appeal to authority I tend not to take you on your word.
Ok I will answer these queries and that's it:
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the relationship between molecules that potentially force the3 storage of additional kinetic energy above ambient input, then I cannot help you.
I do not dispute that, and did NOT intend to imply that. In the course of typing a scientific dissertation on a cell phone however, a transitional thought may have been dropped. Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. What I intended and if you read carefully further down is that the atmospheres (therefore climates) of the inner planets out to about Mars are governed by solar radiation whereas Jupiter, objects and planets beyond receive so little radiative solar heat energy that their main source of climate dynamics is internal heat shedding. On earth it amounts to about 0.8K of wwT, but on Jupiter it accounts for probably 95% of the planet's climate, and so on the further you get from the sun per the inverse square law.
See 2 above. the "%" is again a minor typo on a cell phone. My apologies that you think a message board is going to be a perfect medium for communication.
I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK and yes, you could make some equivalencies to joules, but that is not how the IPCC, NASA or NOAA utilize the physics of w/m2 as converted into energy forcing values. When I discuss the topic I try to stick to the conventions and languages that the IPCC and other agencies use. But to explain the energy forcing value of each molecule as a unit term, requires some form of measurement symbol. The introduction of a mathematical expression is not unusual or bad physics. it's common. Now their forcing numbers numbers relate to the energy forcing properties of the molecules mentioned. Each molecule is capable of ON AVERAGE generating an additional kinetic energy potential of 1.00 for water, 1.94 for carbon dioxide and 1.51 for methane within A. Obviously the GHG value of wwT being 16.3K means that of 288.8K, the 16.3K attributed from GHG's must be accounted for in the energy forcing properties of those three molecules. Knowing their ratios within A and knowing their heat forcing energy values, we can easily deduce their properties as climate drivers. It doesn't matter if you cannot find a value symbol called RFeK. The radio frequency forcing of + kinetic energy is forced because of those molecules being present in A and that is what matters according to the IPCC, etc. Sorry you have a problem with the introduction of new mathematical symbols that you ether prefer not to understand and pretend not to understand. Also it is radiative forcing and that was the intended term. I think spell check altered it to "radio" and although radiative is similar, the word radio is probably more common so I did not notice the spell check change. It is Radiative forcing. Yep, I just tried writing it again and it changed it. I had to correct its correction.
The commonly current accepted BB~wwT as measured by NASA is 255.6K. But the actual wwT climate at the earth's surface is 288.8K. Therefore a delta clearly exists. Remember the BB radiation per NASA is strictly the albedo value measured directly from a three dimensional reservoir (roughly 60 miles thick) and not the surface value of wwT. The delta is the difference between the ambient or common temperature that occurs because of the earth's location in the golden zone (orbital mechanics), and other climate forcing mechanisms of which there are mainly three: (1) Thermal heat transferred from surface objects and that is estimated to be about 16.1K of the delta. 0.8K is thought to come from internal heat shedding. while this is a widely accepted value, I think it is low by perhaps a much as 50-100%. But my opinion does not matter, geophysicists have pegged this value at just less than 1K of climate. That leaves the GHG delta and that equals 16.3K assuming the other generally accepted values are correct.
As for you last paragraph of comments, meh. Think what you want. It's a message board not a peer reviewed journal. If you had difficulty following the physics and math then I can't help you. I believe however you can. As for the references they are out there. do your homework. I'm not your slave. Bottom line is in fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics likely preclude the "laboratory analysis that lead to the RFeK assumptive valuations" was probably overstated by the IPCC as well. But I used their numbers and coefficients. Most of the physicists I know discount much of the GHG hypothesis or at best, look at it as a function of mainly water vapor because that accounts for 25/26ths of all potential GHG's. You simply cannot get to CO2 as a main driver of climate. In fact until 100 million years ago, CO2 still lingered in A at around 5,000 ppm or higher. The planet didn't fry then. It isn't frying now.
Three of the last inter-glacial periods were significantly warmer than the present. The current interglacial may be a little cooler because the Milancovic' cycles are at a point where the earth is not receiving quite as much solar energy as in the last two. The solar system is also already passing into the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy and while it is not yet as dense as it will become. it may be having a solar radiation receipt drop. It will continue to drop for the next 6,000 years as the solar system moves closer and into the more dense part of the arm. Ask an astronomer.
We do know from far more recent records (human and biological), the wwT was from 1-3K warmer coming out of the last ice age between 9,000 and 2,000 BC than now. It was 1-2K warmer during the Roman era and it was at least 2K warmer during the mid-evil warm period when Vikings and other Norse, Celts and Saxons grew hay and grains in Greenland and grapes and other mid latitude veggies and fruits in Scotland, England, Ireland and Parts of the lowlands in Northeastern Europe. Right now the current wwT is still below the average wwT since 20,000 BC and its a good 2-3K cooler than three of the last five inter-glacial periods that saw sea levels 3-6 meter higher than the present. We are not presently in any kind of climate crises; far from it. Furthermore, more CO2 would only green up the planet, not fry it out. Every botanist knows that.
I thank you for the conversations, as it has been interesting and I would not have cought the spellcheck error you did without your eyes. I am with others writing a much deeper paper on the subject but we may not be able to publish given the current political powers that be. But the numbers I ahve put herein are out there. It's a deep dive, hundreds of citations and dozens of web sites researched. Most information like variables can be culled from documents published by the IPCC, NASA or t5he NOAA. You just have to look.