Who decides what is misleading. Because I know a lot of scientists and engineers that think CO2 driven global warming is total bullshit. But then they ALL WERE REQUIRED to take physics courses that explained the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS to them so they could graduate with meaningful degrees.
The 125 year impact on climate that could be reasonably attributed to CO2 (125 ppm human induced) and CH4 (0 human impact) is...
GHG CLIMATE ÷ TOTAL CLIMATE x all GHG RFeK /RFeK CO2 x 103/410
16.3°K/288.8°K x 200/25,800 RFeK = 0.00044°K.
FYI water accounts for 25,000 of the total heat forcing properties of all GHGs, and CO2 less than 800. Humans account for barely 1/4th of non water GHG's.
Do the math. CO2 and CH4 (methane) cannot cause any significant climate change.
The average person has no idea what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and I’ve heard people when asked on the spot saying anywhere from 20% to 80%. Naturally these are all “I trust the science” people.
Man influences the climate, but man-created water vapor and the widespread use of concrete and asphalt that lock heat in and dissipate it overnight are probably magnitudes more relevant in human impact than CO2 and CH4.
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.
Who decides what is misleading. Because I know a lot of scientists and engineers that think CO2 driven global warming is total bullshit. But then they ALL WERE REQUIRED to take physics courses that explained the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS to them so they could graduate with meaningful degrees.
The 125 year impact on climate that could be reasonably attributed to CO2 (125 ppm human induced) and CH4 (0 human impact) is...
GHG CLIMATE ÷ TOTAL CLIMATE x all GHG RFeK /RFeK CO2 x 103/410
16.3°K/288.8°K x 200/25,800 RFeK = 0.00044°K.
FYI water accounts for 25,000 of the total heat forcing properties of all GHGs, and CO2 less than 800. Humans account for barely 1/4th of non water GHG's.
Do the math. CO2 and CH4 (methane) cannot cause any significant climate change.
The average person has no idea what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 and I’ve heard people when asked on the spot saying anywhere from 20% to 80%. Naturally these are all “I trust the science” people.
Man influences the climate, but man-created water vapor and the widespread use of concrete and asphalt that lock heat in and dissipate it overnight are probably magnitudes more relevant in human impact than CO2 and CH4.
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.