One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main
So, where is all that Globally warming, I need some.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Dec 6, 2018 17:56:42   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
Actually, I know of many idiots who look at these references and charts and ignore the fact that they point to rising CO2 levels in "RESPONSE" to warming and NOT A CAUSE of warming. These idiots also ignore the FACT that the same ice cores they reference demonstrate a lag in CO2 levels AFTER warming by as much as a 1000 years as well. They try to rationalize it away and are apologists for the global warming alarmists and "researchers" but it still doesn't change the fact that CO2 levels rise and fall in RESPONSE to warming and cooling of the earth which is driven by other factors, not CO2.
Actually, I know of many idiots who look at these ... (show quote)



https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm


Climate Myth...
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Milankovitch cycles: CO2 vs Temperature over past 400,000 years
Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

Milankovitch cycles: orbital changes in eccentricity, precession and obliquity
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 18:03:13   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
Capt-jack wrote:
The manufacturing of solar panels and batteries is highly toxic!! Obama's EPA band making them in America. How simple minded the left is.




https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/09/25/solar-factory-opens-on-iron-range


Mountain Iron, Minn., bills itself as the "taconite capital of the world." It's home to Minntac, the nation's largest iron ore mine.

Now the town of fewer than 3,000 has something else to boast about: the opening of the state's only solar panel factory, and the first to open in the U.S. in 2018.

Heliene opened its first solar panel plant in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, eight years ago. Now, it's investing more than $18 million to get a 25,000 square foot factory up and running on the Iron Range, after another manufacturer abandoned it last year.

President Martin Pochtaruk gets asked all the time, "Why Mountain Iron?" His answer, he said, is always the same.

"Why not? The same question was asked to me when we started a factory in Sault Ste. Marie. It is a place in need of industrial diversification. It's a place with viable labor."

And the state of Minnesota invited him to come, in April, 2017, he said, after the previous occupant, Silicon Energy, closed.

"We were somewhat stuck with a solar manufacturing facility that failed," said Mark Phillips, commissioner of Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation.

Alan Oferosky watches an automated machine solder bus wire
Alan Oferosky watches an automated machine solder bus wire into a panel Thursday, September 13. Derek Montgomery for MPR News
Heliene operated the factory with the old equipment for a while. But earlier this year the state of Minnesota authorized $3.5 million in loans to expand the facility and purchase state-of-the-art equipment. IRRRB funded half of the loan, DEED the other half.

Phillips knew it would be tough to lure another manufacturer to Mountain Iron, where mining jobs provide some of the highest paying jobs in the state. That can make attracting workers tough.

"So we feel very fortunate about Heliene coming here, because we had a problem. We had an empty factory. They were shopping for incentives. And we think we did pretty well."

A centerpiece of the newly refurbished plant is a robotic white arm, equipped with suction cups, that quickly assembles individual solar cells into a grid-like pattern on each module, before the solar panel quickly moves down the automated production line.

"These robots are very accurate, they are very fast, and they are very reliable," said Pochutaruk.

And very expensive. The German-made machine cost $1.1 million alone.

But the sophisticated equipment has enabled Pochtaruk to open what he calls the most efficient solar panel factory in the country, able to crank out 1,300 panels a day. One panel takes 42 minutes to manufacture from start to finish.

Jared Brincefield and Allen Mart inspect a nearly completed solar panel
Jared Brincefield (right) and Allen Mart (left) inspect a nearly completed solar panel for imperfections Thursday, September 13, 2018 at Heliene's plant in Mountain Iron, Minn. Derek Montgomery for MPR News
That productivity is part of why Pochtaruk believes Heliene can succeed in Minnesota where other solar panel factories have failed.

Those previous companies also heavily relied on a Made in Minnesota subsidy that was repealed by the state legislature last year.

Heliene is also looking to fill a void in a growing marketplace.

"There are no manufacturers in any other of the Midwest states. So this is an underserved industry from the domestic manufacturing point of view," Pochtaruk said.

Already, 60 percent of the panels Heliene manufactured last year in Canada were sold in Minnesota.

Most of that demand is coming from community solar gardens. They're a way for customers to purchase solar electricity without having to install panels on their homes.

After a slow-down in solar development after the tariffs on imported panels were announced, projects like solar gardens are starting to move forward again.

Minnesota alone is expected to account for more than half of all community solar development in the country this year, according to a recent report from the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Jason Michael and Dylan Cianni inspect portions of an unfinished panel.
Jason Michael (left) and Dylan Cianni (right) inspect portions of an unfinished panel. Derek Montgomery for MPR News
A Colorado-based company called SunShare is currently building three new community solar projects in Minnesota.

Founder and CEO David Amster-Olszewski said he used Heliene panels for projects he's finishing now in Colorado.

Currently, he said, it's difficult to find American-made solar panels. But he said there are advantages to buying domestically.

"By producing the panel closer to where you're building the system, you reduce a lot of the shipping costs, and also breakage from handling, that you would have from getting foreign products."

Heliene's Minnesota factory is the first solar panel manufacturer to open in the U.S. since the Trump administration placed 30 percent tariffs on imported panels earlier this year.

Those tariffs step down 5 percent every year for the next four years, when they expire.

Heliene's Pochtaruk said he made the decision to invest in Minnesota before the tariffs were announced. He said they will benefit the Minnesota plant, but have hurt his Canadian factory, where he has had to lay off most of the workers, he said.

Several other companies have announced plans to open facilities in the U.S. since the tariffs were announced.

But it's unclear how many will actually follow through, said Jade Jones, a senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie.

"It doesn't make a lot of economic sense to produce solar modules in the U.S., because you can do it more cost competitively in other regions," she said.

Heliene believes a new community solar program in Illinois, could provide the next big new market for the company. Nationwide community solar is forecast to continue to grow for the next four years.

That's good news for Mountain Iron. Heleine plans to employ 120 workers when the factory hits full production in October.

"I will have roughly a 5 million dollar payroll," said plant manager Joanne Bath. "I grew up in this area, with the mining up and down, the cyclical [nature] of the mining operations, and it will be a great asset to the community."

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 18:14:51   #
nwtk2007 (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm


Climate Myth...
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Milankovitch cycles: CO2 vs Temperature over past 400,000 years
Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

Milankovitch cycles: orbital changes in eccentricity, precession and obliquity
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-... (show quote)


"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:"

Incorrect! What you don't get is that CO2 released CO2 is not enough to do anything. That being said and is perhaps not based in evidence, the warming enhanced by CO2 in each of the warming periods, comes from where?? Not man. And, saying that CO2 enhances the warming is simple an assumption, also not based on evidence. We actually have no clue as to the added effect of warming by this CO2 released from the earth AFTER the warming occurs.

"CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet" All assumption!

As for the 90% of warming occurring after the CO2 rise, that is NOT evident from that chart at all. In fact, the CO2 rise is still very obviously lagging behind the warming. I just showed this to a mathematician buddy who works for the military. He laughed at that statement in the paper.

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 18:39:58   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:"

Incorrect! What you don't get is that CO2 released CO2 is not enough to do anything. That being said and is perhaps not based in evidence, the warming enhanced by CO2 in each of the warming periods, comes from where?? Not man. And, saying that CO2 enhances the warming is simple an assumption, also not based on evidence. We actually have no clue as to the added effect of warming by this CO2 released from the earth AFTER the warming occurs.

"CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet" All assumption!

As for the 90% of warming occurring after the CO2 rise, that is NOT evident from that chart at all. In fact, the CO2 rise is still very obviously lagging behind the warming. I just showed this to a mathematician buddy who works for the military. He laughed at that statement in the paper.
"To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warm... (show quote)




We can go on all day and night.. I will not bother, the facts have been posted again and again.. No use talking to a wall of people who also think events in Wisconsin are OK as long as the criminals further the GOP...


Much more of this info if you bother to look..


https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm


Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

For more evidence that humans are causing global warming, check out The human fingerprint in global warming.

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 18:50:45   #
nwtk2007 (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
We can go on all day and night.. I will not bother, the facts have been posted again and again.. No use talking to a wall of people who also think events in Wisconsin are OK as long as the criminals further the GOP...


Much more of this info if you bother to look..


https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm


Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

For more evidence that humans are causing global warming, check out The human fingerprint in global warming.
We can go on all day and night.. I will not bother... (show quote)


Read some of the comments at the end of the article. It gets pretty technical but there are good arguments against much of what they are claiming on that sight.

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 21:22:29   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
You STILL think gerrymandering effects US Senate elections!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


organ wrote:
Ahhaha OK Mike in your words it was a real hard on, and we won big, you lost...and it was done without cheating, as a matter of fact, done in spite of the ongoing cheating from the crooked GOP who has stacked the deck with gerrymandering, it does need to be a tidal wave to win the Senate, we just missed it this time around.

Now nwtk, where did we win, the house correct, yes that was gerrymandered, didn't mention the Senate there did I. I guess I should've started a new sentence, so I will now. The Senate needs to be a tidal wave to win in 2020.

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 21:26:49   #
Crayons (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:
organ wrote:
Ahhaha OK Mike in your words it was a real hard on, and we won big, you lost...and it was done without cheating, as a matter of fact, .

You communistas are the professional masta's of disasta when it comes to fake ballots and stealin elections

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 21:35:05   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
We can go on all day and night.. I will not bother, the facts have been posted again and again.. No use talking to a wall of people who also think events in Wisconsin are OK as long as the criminals further the GOP...


Much more of this info if you bother to look..


https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm


Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.


Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Humans are emitting more than twice as much CO2 as what ends up staying there. Nature is reducing our impact on climate by absorbing more than half of our CO2 emissions. The amount of human CO2 left in the air, called the "airborne fraction", has hovered around 43% since 1958.

CO2 traps heat
According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).


Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."


Figure 3: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The planet is accumulating heat
When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.


Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.


Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.

So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements.

For more evidence that humans are causing global warming, check out The human fingerprint in global warming.
We can go on all day and night.. I will not bother... (show quote)


Oustanding, but you'll find no matter the amount of evidence shown, the deniers have made up their minds and that's all the is to it.

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 21:36:17   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
Crayons wrote:
You communistas are the professional masta's of disasta when it comes to fake ballots and stealin elections



| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 21:48:46   #
emarine (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:





Excellent reply...

| Reply
Dec 6, 2018 22:53:25   #
nwtk2007 (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:
organ wrote:
Ahhaha OK Mike in your words it was a real hard on, and we won big, you lost...and it was done without cheating, as a matter of fact, done in spite of the ongoing cheating from the crooked GOP who has stacked the deck with gerrymandering, it does need to be a tidal wave to win the Senate, we just missed it this time around.

Now nwtk, where did we win, the house correct, yes that was gerrymandered, didn't mention the Senate there did I. I guess I should've started a new sentence, so I will now. The Senate needs to be a tidal wave to win in 2020.
organ wrote: br Ahhaha OK Mike in your words it wa... (show quote)


Ok, cool! And I'd have to agree with you.

| Reply
Dec 7, 2018 10:14:09   #
permafrost (a regular here)
 
Crayons wrote:
You communistas are the professional masta's of disasta when it comes to fake ballots and stealin elections


How is that Carolina thing going for ya????



| Reply
Dec 7, 2018 10:23:51   #
byronglimish (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
How is that Carolina thing going for ya????


He should be executed immediately!

| Reply
Dec 7, 2018 14:36:26   #
Capt-jack (a regular here)
 
permafrost wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm


Climate Myth...
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Milankovitch cycles: CO2 vs Temperature over past 400,000 years
Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (obliquity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

Milankovitch cycles: orbital changes in eccentricity, precession and obliquity
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latittudes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-... (show quote)



CO2 is a very poor gas when it comes to warming, I guess you don't know that. For CO2 to warm our atmosphere it has
to accumulate in the upper atmosphere over 30,000 feet, where it can hold heat. Now if you check on the temperature at 30,000
feet you will find it's around 60F below zero. One more thing, CO2 has a big attraction to water! Yah, it likes water. Eveytime it
rains tons of CO2 is picked up by the rain. And it ends up DEEP in the depths of the ocean as Methane nitrate. Frozen gas like what
you cook with.

Methane, now there is a very good warming gas. Yeah, we should ban Methane, hell you can take cold showers and just put on
extra clothes if you get cold. You can also move below 20 degrees south as well. Maybe Mexico will let you in for more then 6 months.

| Reply
Dec 7, 2018 15:45:25   #
nwtk2007 (a regular here)
 
Capt-jack wrote:
CO2 is a very poor gas when it comes to warming, I guess you don't know that. For CO2 to warm our atmosphere it has
to accumulate in the upper atmosphere over 30,000 feet, where it can hold heat. Now if you check on the temperature at 30,000
feet you will find it's around 60F below zero. One more thing, CO2 has a big attraction to water! Yah, it likes water. Eveytime it
rains tons of CO2 is picked up by the rain. And it ends up DEEP in the depths of the ocean as Methane nitrate. Frozen gas like what
you cook with.

Methane, now there is a very good warming gas. Yeah, we should ban Methane, hell you can take cold showers and just put on
extra clothes if you get cold. You can also move below 20 degrees south as well. Maybe Mexico will let you in for more then 6 months.
CO2 is a very poor gas when it comes to warming, I... (show quote)


CO2 is heavy and could not reach that high as well. 44g/mol.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.