Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Mister Moose]

Yet another climate change scandal! Uncovered by the Wall Street Journal no less! Of course, the truth is a bit more mundane, and in fact old news...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-h ... re-records

So using your article, we're talking about a short term anomaly over the existing warming trend since 1880 of about 1/2 degree C?

Temps 1880-2016.jpg (63.28 KiB) Viewed 607 times

[madhatter]

shocking ( to almost no one)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-3 ... -or-databa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cancelling Your Model 3 Refund? Expect Delays Due To "System Failures," "IT Issues" Or "Database Errors"

Of course, we're quite certain that the issue has nothing to do with the fact that the perpetually cash hemorrhaging company essentially managed to fund their business plan with a free $400 million dollar loan from customers and are now unwilling to part with their 0% financing.

[Woodsrider]

Maserati is moving to electric. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 522619001/

Despite his newfound embrace, Marchionne said costs need to come down in order to make electrification more accessible and desirable to the public.
"My aversion to electrification is based on pure cost issues," Marchionne said. "What has made it mandatory is the fate of diesel."

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Maserati is moving to electric. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 522619001/

Despite his newfound embrace, Marchionne said costs need to come down in order to make electrification more accessible and desirable to the public.
"My aversion to electrification is based on pure cost issues," Marchionne said. "What has made it mandatory is the fate of diesel."

Not sure what your point is here...he sounds like someone you argue against...with the punchline that government intervention is REALLY the driving force moving EVs forward.

In any case...here is a really interesting article analyzing the fate of electric vehicles including the impact of disappearing subsidies and the insane UK diesel mandate…..lots to consider!!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/31/ ... al-messes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Global EV and related climate alarmist colossal messes

Some money quotes:
"EVs have been hyped by the climate alarmist renewable energy activist crowd as an effective approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions regarding transportation energy consumption, which for many nations is a large portion of their total energy use.

EVs are fundamentally energy handicapped due to the low energy density of batteries versus the high energy density available in fossil fueled vehicles which results in significantly reduced mileage capabilities for EVs compared to fossil fueled vehicles.

These EV mileage limitations versus fossil fueled vehicles become even more exaggerated when additional energy demands are needed to support vehicle air conditioning and heating loads, hill climbing requirements and operation in cold temperatures that decrease battery stored energy capabilities.

Lots more data and analysis if you read the article....

[Woodsrider]

Maserati is moving to electric. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday ... 522619001/

Despite his newfound embrace, Marchionne said costs need to come down in order to make electrification more accessible and desirable to the public.
"My aversion to electrification is based on pure cost issues," Marchionne said. "What has made it mandatory is the fate of diesel."

Not sure what your point is here...he sounds like someone you argue against...with the punchline that government intervention is REALLY the driving force moving EVs forward.

In any case...here is a really interesting article analyzing the fate of electric vehicles including the impact of disappearing subsidies and the insane UK diesel mandate…..lots to consider!!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/31/ ... al-messes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Global EV and related climate alarmist colossal messes

Some money quotes:
"EVs have been hyped by the climate alarmist renewable energy activist crowd as an effective approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions regarding transportation energy consumption, which for many nations is a large portion of their total energy use.

EVs are fundamentally energy handicapped due to the low energy density of batteries versus the high energy density available in fossil fueled vehicles which results in significantly reduced mileage capabilities for EVs compared to fossil fueled vehicles.

These EV mileage limitations versus fossil fueled vehicles become even more exaggerated when additional energy demands are needed to support vehicle air conditioning and heating loads, hill climbing requirements and operation in cold temperatures that decrease battery stored energy capabilities.

Lots more data and analysis if you read the article....

I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting and pertinent to the discussion. I wasn't making a point. What I found most interesting is the fear manufactures now have of diesel due to the VW deiselgate scandal. That appears to be a driving factor in this. Of which my only opinion is if your going to cheat, don't be foolish enough to get caught.

And BTW, as soon as I see the words "climate alarmist" in your posts I tune out because I know everything to follow is bs. I do the same when I read the word "denialist". Those words may work to persuade the typical moron. But to me it is a clear sign of propaganda sh*t with no connection to science.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting and pertinent to the discussion. I wasn't making a point. What I found most interesting is the fear manufactures now have of diesel due to the VW deiselgate scandal. That appears to be a driving factor in this. Of which my only opinion is if your going to cheat, don't be foolish enough to get caught.

And BTW, as soon as I see the words "climate alarmist" in your posts I tune out because I know everything to follow is bs. I do the same when I read the word "denialist". Those words may work to persuade the typical moron. But to me it is a clear sign of propaganda sh*t with no connection to science.

I guess the strategy you use to evaluate information explains why you have been incapable of understanding any competing narratives...you simply ignore them if you suspect they might disrupt your dogmatic beliefs. That would include many of my posts... thatwould explain why you never seem to understand or respond to any of them.

Alarmist is a distinctly reasonable term to describe people who are....alarmed by climate issues (which the consensus INSISTS they are and...INSISTS you should be alarmed) So being offended by that term is quite silly. Like being offended at calling a Baptist preacher an evangelist.

I NEVER stop reading when I see the term DENIALIST...if I did I wouldn't have read half the posts in this thread. I am not scared I will be confused or offended by the opinions of persons I might disagree with. Put your big boy pants on.

[Woodsrider]

I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting and pertinent to the discussion. I wasn't making a point. What I found most interesting is the fear manufactures now have of diesel due to the VW deiselgate scandal. That appears to be a driving factor in this. Of which my only opinion is if your going to cheat, don't be foolish enough to get caught.

And BTW, as soon as I see the words "climate alarmist" in your posts I tune out because I know everything to follow is bs. I do the same when I read the word "denialist". Those words may work to persuade the typical moron. But to me it is a clear sign of propaganda sh*t with no connection to science.

I guess the strategy you use to evaluate information explains why you have been incapable of understanding any competing narratives...you simply ignore them if you suspect they might disrupt your dogmatic beliefs. That would include many of my posts... thatwould explain why you never seem to understand or respond to any of them.

Alarmist is a distinctly reasonable term to describe people who are....alarmed by climate issues (which the consensus INSISTS they are and...INSISTS you should be alarmed) So being offended by that term is quite silly. Like being offended at calling a Baptist preacher an evangelist.

I NEVER stop reading when I see the term DENIALIST...if I did I wouldn't have read half the posts in this thread. I am not scared I will be confused or offended by the opinions of persons I might disagree with. Put your big boy pants on.

I'm sorry SEB, you misunderstood me. I never said I was offended by those labels. I said they are propoganda and not science. So I tune out. It is my opinion that those who use such language are not scientist, but evangelists. I do not listen to evangelist either.

[rogman]

denialist.jpg (57.66 KiB) Viewed 477 times

I see no reason to take these silly denialist fools seriously. They tend to fall into two categories: gullible, or just outright dishonest. They are like the people that continue to bray that evolution is "just a theory". News flash, there remains little legitimate scientific debate about the reality of climate change, except in pockets of ignorance such as Kzone.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

denialist.jpg

I see no reason to take these silly denialist fools seriously. They tend to fall into two categories: gullible, or just outright dishonest. They are like the people that continue to bray that evolution is "just a theory". News flash, there remains little legitimate scientific debate about the reality of climate change, except in pockets of ignorance such as Kzone.

Pray tell WHAT SPECIFIC claims from the climate consensus are DENIED by someone such as myself which you claim should be universally accepted??????

I know this is difficult for you but..... BE SPECIFIC.

Otherwise you are just being a believer.

[rogman]

denialist.jpg

I see no reason to take these silly denialist fools seriously. They tend to fall into two categories: gullible, or just outright dishonest. They are like the people that continue to bray that evolution is "just a theory". News flash, there remains little legitimate scientific debate about the reality of climate change, except in pockets of ignorance such as Kzone.

Pray tell WHAT SPECIFIC claims from the climate consensus are DENIED by someone such as myself which you claim should be universally accepted??????

I know this is difficult for you but..... BE SPECIFIC.

Otherwise you are just being a believer.

Debunking you is a full time job; I already have one. But to go along with your game, start with your thread title, "Can C02 cause Climate Change"? This isn't even about the source of the increase in CO2 (spoiler alert: it's primarily from mankind burning fossil fuels), it's about basic physics: Will an increase in C02 concentration cause an increase in temperature?. Another spoiler: Yes.

[f.a.s.t.]

Did you hear Al Gore say the other day that global warming is a spiritual movement, nothing scientific about it. He also said that having more is wrong. He then flew back to his mansion in a private jet to his home that uses more electricity than any home in Tennessee. Next to his home is swimming pool that uses more energy than a year than 6 average homes.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/02/exclu ... household/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

denialist.jpg

I see no reason to take these silly denialist fools seriously. They tend to fall into two categories: gullible, or just outright dishonest. They are like the people that continue to bray that evolution is "just a theory". News flash, there remains little legitimate scientific debate about the reality of climate change, except in pockets of ignorance such as Kzone.

Pray tell WHAT SPECIFIC claims from the climate consensus are DENIED by someone such as myself which you claim should be universally accepted??????

I know this is difficult for you but..... BE SPECIFIC.

Otherwise you are just being a believer.

Debunking you is a full time job; I already have one. But to go along with your game, start with your thread title, "Can C02 cause Climate Change"? This isn't even about the source of the increase in CO2 (spoiler alert: it's primarily from mankind burning fossil fuels), it's about basic physics: Will an increase in C02 concentration cause an increase in temperature?. Another spoiler: Yes.

OK. So you seem to have scribbled a bit then settled on the claim that... it MUST be accepted that CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. There are some very sophisticated and interesting arguments made based on well established principles of thermodynamics that in fact CO2 cannot cause ANY warming. I have tried to evaluate these arguments but I do not feel qualified to evaluate these claims. But there in fact are "professional scientists" who have a deep understanding of atmospheric physics and do not think the "greenhouse gas effect" actually makes sense. Just saying.

But we are discussing me (and other "denialists" that you have heard of) and I defy you to find any point where I have disagreed with the statement bolded in your reply.

I have declared unequivocally that I would accept that an increase in CO2 would "cause" an increase in temperature. I think the statement that CO2 CAN CONTRIBUTE to an increase in temperature is a MUCH better construction. In any case it is clear that CO2 can absorb outgoing IR that could have been lost into outer space and escape the earth climate system. That energy would likely be "thermalized" by contact of the molecule with a common atmospheric gas (N2 or O2) thus capturing the energy in the climate system (temporarily). Or re-emitted as a lower energy photon.

So I have NEVER claimed that CO2 has no impact on climate. The KEY question which you seem to want to pass over it...well of course CO2 has some impact on energy retention but....HOW MUCH??? And under what conditions??

My claim has always been that, of course CO2 has SOME impact on climate, but how much does that contribution have the ability to DRIVE climate?? A close reading of the science has convinced me that CO2 has only a slight impact on climate and that impact has natural limitations. The ability of CO2 to absorb IR has a logarithmic relationship with CO2 concentration so increasing CO2 beyond a certain point has almost NO impact on IR absorbance. We are quite close to that point already. The earth's climate system seems to have negative feedback mechanisms (likely something like Lindzen's "Iris Effect) which have and will keep the earth from producing "runaway" warming.

So... to be specific...you are claiming that I am a denialist because I don't believe that Co2 can cause an increase in temperature...when in fact I have NEVER made such a claim. I simply think that this IR absorbance from CO2 is quite trivial in the earth's climate system. On the other hand IR absorbance from H2O molecules seem to have a HUGE impact on the earth climate system.

Try again.

[freeski]

Gore only comes out of the woodwork when he's selling something.

[Woodsrider]

denialist.jpg

I see no reason to take these silly denialist fools seriously. They tend to fall into two categories: gullible, or just outright dishonest. They are like the people that continue to bray that evolution is "just a theory". News flash, there remains little legitimate scientific debate about the reality of climate change, except in pockets of ignorance such as Kzone.

Pray tell WHAT SPECIFIC claims from the climate consensus are DENIED by someone such as myself which you claim should be universally accepted??????

I know this is difficult for you but..... BE SPECIFIC.

Otherwise you are just being a believer.

Debunking you is a full time job; I already have one. But to go along with your game, start with your thread title, "Can C02 cause Climate Change"? This isn't even about the source of the increase in CO2 (spoiler alert: it's primarily from mankind burning fossil fuels), it's about basic physics: Will an increase in C02 concentration cause an increase in temperature?. Another spoiler: Yes.

OK. So you seem to have scribbled a bit then settled on the claim that... it MUST be accepted that CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. There are some very sophisticated and interesting arguments made based on well established principles of thermodynamics that in fact CO2 cannot cause ANY warming. I have tried to evaluate these arguments but I do not feel qualified to evaluate these claims. But there in fact are "professional scientists" who have a deep understanding of atmospheric physics and do not think the "greenhouse gas effect" actually makes sense. Just saying.

But we are discussing me (and other "denialists" that you have heard of) and I defy you to find any point where I have disagreed with the statement bolded in your reply.

I have declared unequivocally that I would accept that an increase in CO2 would "cause" an increase in temperature. I think the statement that CO2 CAN CONTRIBUTE to an increase in temperature is a MUCH better construction. In any case it is clear that CO2 can absorb outgoing IR that could have been lost into outer space and escape the earth climate system. That energy would likely be "thermalized" by contact of the molecule with a common atmospheric gas (N2 or O2) thus capturing the energy in the climate system (temporarily). Or re-emitted as a lower energy photon.

So I have NEVER claimed that CO2 has no impact on climate. The KEY question which you seem to want to pass over it...well of course CO2 has some impact on energy retention but....HOW MUCH??? And under what conditions??

My claim has always been that, of course CO2 has SOME impact on climate, but how much does that contribution have the ability to DRIVE climate?? A close reading of the science has convinced me that CO2 has only a slight impact on climate and that impact has natural limitations. The ability of CO2 to absorb IR has a logarithmic relationship with CO2 concentration so increasing CO2 beyond a certain point has almost NO impact on IR absorbance. We are quite close to that point already. The earth's climate system seems to have negative feedback mechanisms (likely something like Lindzen's "Iris Effect) which have and will keep the earth from producing "runaway" warming.

So... to be specific...you are claiming that I am a denialist because I don't believe that Co2 can cause an increase in temperature...when in fact I have NEVER made such a claim. I simply think that this IR absorbance from CO2 is quite trivial in the earth's climate system. On the other hand IR absorbance from H2O molecules seem to have a HUGE impact on the earth climate system.

Try again.

I know I shouldn't, but I'll take this bait. So, if a small increase in atmospheric temperature occurs from an increase in CO2 concentration, would you not agree that the vapor pressure of water will increase causing more water vapor in the atmosphere trapping more heat, thus increasing the vapor pressure further and so on and so on? The vapor pressure of water verse temperature is exponential.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

I know I shouldn't, but I'll take this bait. So, if a small increase in atmospheric temperature occurs from an increase in CO2 concentration, would you not agree that the vapor pressure of water will increase causing more water vapor in the atmosphere trapping more heat, thus increasing the vapor pressure further and so on and so on? The vapor pressure of water verse temperature is exponential.

Ah... something resembling a scientific dialogue! Nice.

If the combustion of hydrocarbons "causes" an increase in atmospheric CO2 (the current increase MIGHT actually be caused by out-gassing from the oceans)...it MIGHT... then the increase in CO2 MIGHT "cause" an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Again this purported link in your climate claims is NOT well-supported by the data:
* the increase in CO2 from 1945-1980 was accompanied by a DECREASE in ATMOSPHERIC temperature (NEGATIVE correlation!!)
* from 1980-2000 there is indeed CORRELATION of CO2 increase with ATMOSPHERIC temperature increase. Wow!!!
* from 2000- present there is poor correlation. The ATMOSPHERIC temp is quite flat in the face of steady increase in CO2.
* There is NO "hot spot" in the troposphere as predicted by IPCC. Surface warming (GISS/ HADCRU) EXCEEDS atmospheric temp.

In any case even if these IPCC claims were robustly supported by data the subsequent claims are not.

IN THEORY...some increase in atmospheric temp would load the atmosphere with more H2O. I have allowed, because it seems sane, that H2O is a powerful "greenhouse gas." The dynamics of the earth system demonstrate this.

Summer nights in the desert can be quite cold. Lots of direct sun in the day leads to warmth which is then LOST at night because there are no SIGNIFICANT "greenhouse gasses" in the desert. About the same amount of CO2 as everywhere (it is a "well-mixed" gas) but almost NO water... so... almost NO "greenhouse effect." It gets really cold in a desert at night because CO2 doesn't do jacksh!t to warm the planet.

Alternately HUMID summer nights PROVE the power of the important "greenhouse gas"... H2O. The energy from the sun delivered during daylight hours is retained in the system because H2O powerfully absorbs outgoing IR. So humid summer night remain (painfully) warm. When humidity drops the "greenhouse effect" diminishes dramatically. (Hopefully that will happen tonight in New England!)

So I have no current reservations with the claim that more H2O in the air CAN cause more warming.

BUT... water has another dramatic impact in the atmosphere. Increased H2O in the atmosphere can lead to increased CLOUD COVER.
Increases in cloud cover have dramatic impacts on energy flow in the earth climate system. You already know this. No matter what the temperature of the air mass when the sun shines brightly, unobstructed by clouds, on a summer day the earth system absorbs MUCH MORE solar energy. Alternately when clouds form the incoming solar energy is reflected ( across virtually the entire spectrum) back into space by the albedo effect from the tops of the clouds.

This cools the earth climate system.

So.. we agree that there MIGHT be a causal chain linking combustion of hydrocarbons to slight increase in temperature and atmospheric H2O.

But... the IPCC group chooses to FOCUS on the potential "greenhouse effect" of potential increased atmospheric H2O and IGNORES (virtually) the impact of increased CLOUD COVER on the evolving climate system.

And that omission is proving to be ridiculous.

The real science of this has progressed well beyond the initial(and clearly flawed) claims of the IPCC. Real scientists have investigated BOTH of the potential impacts of increases in atmospheric H2O and the likely conclusions are emerging. The key factor which is still not well understood is the dynamics of cloud nucleation. If there is lots of humidity but few clouds the impact should be to increase warming (as claimed by the IPCC)

BUT... if there is an increase in cloud nucleation...the earth system would have increased cloud albedo, reflecting significant solar energy and COOLING the earth. This is a well established theory (mostly attributed to Svensmark) with lots of supporting data. If you also include the role of oceans in thermal capacitance it seems quite capable of explaining the major dynamics of the earth climate system ( including ice ages!)

I do not claim that "the science is settled" and these ideas about climate are proven and definitive but they seem much more compelling than the IPCC claims. The only reasons someone might prefer the flawed IPCC narrative might be that either they:
* had never fully considered the role of clouds in climate,
* they were activists encouraged to ignore these factors or...
*they had the delusional idea that a "consensus" in science is never wrong.