They seem to think CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. They seem to forget how much our biosphere likes CO2. They also seem to forget that if they say the problem will be around for millennia, it’s likely the [current] set of humans view the video will shrug their shoulders and say “Eh, there’ nothing I can do about it.”.
Here’s the lead-in and discussion which has been making the rounds on Facebook. Discuss.
Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanity’s annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?
Concern troll – “Lowering CO2 emissions means more children spared the hardship of migrating to cooler climates”
“Hi, I’m Joe. ” That is all you need to know about me in order to take everything I say as unequivocal FACT. You will now listen and learn and believe all I tell you.
.. But you will have to admit that the very same presentation by the Hunchback of Notre Dame would be slightly less effective. I’d have enjoyed it more with Ann Coulter doing a running narrative… Love to watch her giggle… (too bad she isn’t a climate specialist)
I loved the version starring Gina Lollobrigida.
Perhaps Naked News could do a report on climate change.
I guess that means more hardships for older people moving to warmer climates, right?
”Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. ”
Oh brother. Will Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny be delivering the aliens?
Oh, and psssst! Come close because I have to whisper this:
We already have “a clean limitless energy source”. It’s called Nuclear Power.
And what happened was that every other energy source saw it as a threat and conspired to stop it using ‘green’ arguments.
Well Leo, that’s close, but no cigar.
The attacks on nuclear power were and are primarily by the watermelons and have always been mounted because it could be a solution to the various contrived “problems” that we supposedly need to resolve through more socialism.
(Stop burning fossil fuels, we need more socialism!)
Could there have been a coal or oil interest who disingenuously glommed onto the “green” campaign against nuclear power to protect their own narrow interests from time to time? Of course, but that would not negate the fact that most of the agitation came and comes from the green on the outside, red on the inside watermelons.
France provides the evidence that nuclear power could be a major source of reliable, cheap, and safe energy that would irrelevantly also be free of CO2 emissions. If the rest of the developed world had spent a fraction of the money that has been squandered on wind and solar on building even-safer, next-generation nuclear power plants, dependence on fossil fuels would already have been greatly reduced, instead of spending trillions on intermittent grid-destabilizing non-solutions to the non-problem du jour.
(not that there is any real need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels).
If we did go nuke I wonder what gifts the aliens will give instead
perhaps the perfect cup of coffee
“Fetid!” – Thanks R.Shearer for the Ziltoid the Omniscient reference! It made my day and it’s not even 10:30 am yet!
Heavy Devy!! Great to know I am in good company!
Or perhaps an ever-sharp razor blade?
The first time an alien spoke to us he promised”You shall be as gods”.
(Hey, It’s Sunday)
Beware of aliens bearing gifts.
A nice bottle of Chablis is always welcome.
Chablis for sure! Nectar of the Gods.
While wishing why not just a small case of single malt?
For those of us who cannot afford Chablis will a nice Gisborne chardonnay suffice?
If we did go nuke I wonder what gifts the aliens will give instead
If they name themselves the Kanamit & give us a book named “To Serve Man”, be afraid. Be very afraid.
00:45 – “go back to the cooler, calmer atmosphere humans lived under before the industrial revolution”
From Wiki: The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840.
A quick web search found:
– Dramatic climate instability in east Africa, starting around 360,000 years ago,
– The written, archaeological and natural-scientific proxy evidence independently but consistently shows that during the period of the Roman Empire’s maximum expansion and final crisis, the climate underwent changes.[3] The Empire’s greatest extent under Trajan coincided with the Roman climatic optimum.[4] The climate change occurred at different rates, from apparent near stasis during the early Empire to rapid fluctuations during the late Empire.
– A research team led by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found the fingerprint of a massive flood of fresh water in the western Arctic, thought to be the cause of an ancient cold snap that began around 13,000 years ago.
“This abrupt climate change — known as the Younger Dryas — ended more than 1,000 years of warming,” explains Lloyd Keigwin, an oceanographer at WHOI and lead author of the paper published online July 9, 2018, in the journal Nature Geocscience.
Why waste time listening to any more as the announcer obviously believes in unicorns?
Okay, so does he want to live this way?
No indoor plumbing. You either use an outhouse, or dig a hole and cover your sewage, and all water is pumped by hand, (IF you have a hand pump available) not tested for potability, not filtered or cleaned, but possibly contaminated with bacteria from your outhouse.
No electricity. Period. You use oil lamps and/or tallow candles, and man, those things stink to high heaven in a closed environment like a house.
No refrigeration. You may have an icebox or not, but no frozen foods, no way to store stuff that spoils easily, and canned goods are questionable in their safety factor, but hey! It’s all for the ‘green’ greater good, isn’t it?
This is my favorite: no modern stoves for cooking. You cook in the fireplace. Period. If you’re lucky, it’s the kind that has the Rumford fire chamber and chimney. If not, tough bananas.
NO CENTRAL HEATING! Period. Not negotiable. A fireplace is the only thing that will heat the room you’re in, and if you don’t have that, or parlor stoves, you do without heat.
I would truly enjoy watching these people crumble under the burden of reality that is a loss of modern conveniences, which they all take for granted.
Not a problem. We simply go back to hunting whales for their oil to burn in the oil lamps. And no more nasty petroleum products.
Until we wipe them out. These faux science Green Weenies have never heard of unintended consequences. Let us not forget the problems with deforestation caused by all those wood burning stoves and starved of needed CO2 the forests will become depleted much faster than the population dies off from their sell imposed living hardships. What these propagandists leave out of their indoctrination photos that the world governments will need to round up the majority of the great unwashed and turn them into soylent green.
Not necessarily Whale Oil but a combination of Corn Oil and Ethanol so no more corn as a food crop
Nope, nope, nope.
Tallow candles, made from rendered animal fats, came WAYY ahead of whale oil.
There’s also torches coated in pitch (pine tar) and turpentine (also comes from pines) but really, my favorite is those little clay lamps that look like an old Aladdin’s lamp, which a hole for the wick in the spout, and an opening for oil – usually olive oil – in the middle. Really bright, useful light source!!!
But doesn’t the act of combusting those pine tar torches and tallow candles still produce the VILE CO2?
CO2 is EVIL, VILE, and reprehensible when produced by humans from any source
The upside would be that the skill-less social justice warrior types would go extinct almost immediately.
Hey, don’t toy with me, John the Econ!
” all water is pumped by hand,” I strongly suggest any person that likes pumping water by hand go to a park or other area that has a hand pump and pump enough water to take a bath.
“go back to the cooler, calmer atmosphere humans lived under before the industrial revolution”
Like the glaciation that ended a mere 12,000 years ago (a blink of the eye in geological terms), when the place I am sitting as I write this was covered by more than a kilometer of ice? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation
Read Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century” https://www.amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/0345349571. It is about one of those calm times when climate induced crop failures caused massive famines and the Black Death killed half of the people in Europe.
Or, Read “The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire” by Kyle Harper about how the end of the Roman Warm period and a massive cooling trend in the 6th Century put the final nail into the coffin of the Roman Empire by triggering, you guessed it, famines and plagues. https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Rome-Climate-Disease-Princeton/dp/0691166838
Only the massive ignorance created by the failed American school system could allow anyone to publish stuff like this with out being laughed out the public square.
It is true. It is a testament to failed education that a person can be a babbling ignoramus and an audience of likewise ignorant character nod in agreement without one scrap of introspection or question. Neither having the ability to repair the damage done to themselves and the society they believe they are “improving”.
Sanctimonious BS. The discussion DOES demonstrate that similar to Ike, skepticism is still alive in the common people.
I suppose all PBS has to do now is prove all its assertions.
In the meanwhile Watts Up With That could consider producing another piece of ‘teaching material’, and promote it in numerous languages.
This is the most blatantly false video that I have seen on the subject of AGW. Based on watching the video, it is apparent that the promoters of the AGW scam have been driven out into the open where they are now just making things up. Joe, the host in the video, makes false statements continuously and at such a rate that it is hard to keep track of them.
For example, in just the first minute and a half of Joe talking he makes the following false assertions: CO2 has caused earth’s normal cool, stable climate of the past to become hot and unstable (never stable, Earth’s climate has been both cooler and warmer than it is now); no matter what, temperatures will remain high for many, many centuries (it would appear that Joe never learned about Earth’s glaciation cycles); slashing GHG is the key to tackling Climate Change (the climate has changed and continues to change without regard to CO2); over the last 50 years, 90% of “the warming” has gone into the oceans, which means that CO2 has actually heated the globe 10 times more than calculations indicate that it could; CO2 causes 80% of “the warming” (water vapor is the overriding GHG); 40% of the CO2 produced today will still be in the atmosphere 1000 years from now (Joe obviously never learned about the carbon cycle). And that is just in the beginning of the five minute long video.
What was the subject of Joe’s PHD? If it was a science related area, then he looks to be horrifically dishonest. If it is not in science, then he is just a con man. Joe’s clear intent is to make these assertions in a manner that causes the listener to conclude that he must be correct. Certainly Joe wouldn’t make all of these impressive sounding statements if they weren’t true? Instead, almost everything that he states in that convincing manner is actually factually untrue. This video is blatantly false and misleading propaganda that was produced to lower the level of knowledge in the general population.
He is surely auditioning to become a high priest in the Church of the New Truth.
BS = Bull manure. MS = more manure. PhD. = Piled Hip Deep.
Or the alternate version; BS = Boy’s shove. MS = Man’s shovel. PhD = Post hole Digger.
“What was the subject of Joe’s PHD?” That one’s easy… ‘Climate Science’!
More likely, he got it in analyzing dust bunnies for mites.
I thought it was a fairy tale–just a piece of fiction
His PHD must be in Creative Writing.
Carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth, and if it is reduced agriculture will become less productive. This will lead to food shortages, and those will lead to war.
There will not be food shortages.
Not als long as annually 1.3 billion tons of food worldwide (and counting) end up in the trash.
And don’t forget the “food” exiting automobile tailpipes.
That is carbon monoxide – not something you want to breath.
Only a tiny, tiny, trace amount is co1 from modern, properly, maintained ICE anymore. Full combustion produces co2 and dihydromonoxide.
Fuel combustion in the modern IC engine produces far less CO2 per mile driven than Human Respiration would walking that same distance
No Bryan, you are wrong. Consider this. A car that gets 30 MPG, will burn 1 gallon of gas to go 30 miles. The gallon of gas weighs about 7.5 lbs. Now, a human being burns glucose to walk, and when a human being walks 30 miles, they do not lose 7.5 lbs of weight. This is even not considering the fact that glucose has a lower energy density than gasoline. At 100 calories per mile walking, 3000 calories is less than 400 grams of body fat needed to fuel the walk.
When discussing fuel mileage, you must properly use the units of lb*miles/gallon (kg m /km), not merely mpg. You would get 20 mpg too, if you weighed a (literal) ton.
Mileage is measured in MPG not your units.
PS, riding a bicycle improves the efficiency over walking.
However a car weighs about 3400 lbs and can travel at velocities far greater than a human walking speed of 2 mph while still maintaining that efficiency while transporting a sizable load. A human weighs 200 lbs and can carry about 50 lbs over that distance.
Have you ever walked 30 miles or more in one go? I have, and I guarantee you I’ve perspired and transpired far more than 7.5 lbs of water. and i was only transporting 50 lbs in my pack.
Perhaps Bryan’s, statement was a bit under explained. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Perhaps a better measure would be worked performed per CO2 emitted.
The 7.5 lbs of water you per/transspired did not end up in the atmosphere as CO2, because it was not fuel.
Saw an elegant 20 mule team borax wagon being “turned” from a main (paved) road onto a simple 90 degree side road. That one turn took more than 8 minutes of video – and they had only made less than 1/2 mile at a walking pace.
Didn’t take many resources? 20 Mules, 6x people as “wlkers” beside the mules, the driver and brakeman, the borax wagon, the water wagon behind it and the supply wagon for the many days and nights they were on the road leaving the valley with ONE load of borax.
Today, one Teamster driving a single tractor trailer carries 5x the weight at 70 mph, delivering a far greater load with one person in greater safety in much better comfort and sanitary conditions (no mule poop from 20 mules falling on the ground) several times a day many hundred miles more every trip.
I was off by a factor of about 16
That human can carry 30-40 lbs, (less than 20-25 kg) IF they are strong-willed and strong-backed, walking on prepared roadbed in good weather.
That human can 60-80 lbs (30-40 kg) a short distance, if they’re physically able. Few today can carry 30-40 kg more than a few hundred feet.
That human needs all day to go 30 miles, then HAS TO rest in an inn or house overnight, with meals ready and water and shelter. Or lose more of his 20-30 kg payload carrying food, water and shelter and clothes with him.
The next day that human can carry his 20-30 kg payload another 30 miles.
Then he needs another rest stop overnight, more food, more water …
So, on the third my 20-30 kg load has gone less than 100 miles, and needed three rest stops and food, water, shelter, heating, clothes, etc.
Or I can drive 100 miles in two hours, delivering 5000 to 15,000 to 40,000 pounds of cargo immediately, then returning to pickup and delivery another load the first day.
Sounds a lot like traveling long distances in a current plug in EV.
Drive 60 – 100 miles…
Stop for 12 hours to recharge…
Drive 60 – 100 miles…
Stop for 12 hours to recharge…
Lather…Rinse…Repeat…
To be fair, the first recharge might be a fast charge, but you’re right that after that, the charger will probably force a slow charge to protect against overheating.
Of course it’s immoral to drive such long distances. All that freedom is offensive!
If a person walked 30 miles they would take 2 days, eat at least 5 meals and have to use accomodation whereas a car could carry 5 people plus luggage and do the return trip in 1 hour.
He’s speaking of ethanol made from corn and sugarcane. But perhaps you knew that and are being intentionally obtuse. Also, what KT66 said. So double fail.
That is ethanol.
Very little carbon monoxide in exhaust gas thanks to closed loop fuel injection control systems with three way catalyst oxidizing HC and CO after reducing NOx.
Unless you run your car for an extended time in an enclosed space, you can’t deplete oxygen sufficiently to generate CO in significant quantities.
Real pollution from automobile emissions have been almost eradicated.
There are many reasons food ends up in the trash and nearly all in the USA are due to lawsuits and litigation. Recalls dump millions of tons of food every year. What people waste at home is a tiny drop in the overall scheme. Don’t forget expiration dates, too. Perfectly good food thrown out because of a date on a package.
You’re right that we have plenty of food—we just regulate and terrify people into throwing it into the trash.
Most food loss suffered by underdeveloped countries (India a great example) comes from rot or insect/rat contamination even before it gets to market.
“Getting to market” is problematic due to infrastructure issues.
That these illiterate hillbillies even talk about a carbon free economy or anything says it all.
I doubt that these are ‘illiterate hillbillies’. More likely we are talking about illiterate ‘intellectuals’…
I think they can read. Just innumerate and illogical.
IyI intelligent -yet idiot
Or as my friend used to say:”book smart, but can’t open a pickle jar.”
Morosoph: n a learned fool. Type of: fool, muggins, sap, saphead, tomfool. a person who lacks good judgment.
Morosoph, brilliant, I am going to use that one.
Yes, I have never met a hillbilly that was that utterly dumb.
Why are you insulting us illiterate hillbillies? We don’t believe in that AGW BS. Temperature goes up, it goes down, and no two years are exactly the same. And we don’t like the cold.
Komrade K, don’t be insulting us hillbillies.
You’ll find more illiterate people in Chicago alone then in all of Appalachia.
~¿~
Yeah, when their “educational” video starts with ‘imagine aliens came down from the sky and gave us magic energy’ you know it’s going to be a good laugh.
It wasn’t us illiterate hillbillies that voted any true believers into office. It was the smart intelligent city folk, and now they’re living with those results..
“It wasn’t us illiterate hillbillies that voted any true believers into office.”
Hmm, most southern states are blue. There are hillbillies in cities too. But I agree that the generalization is unwarranted.
Only 3 Southern states were blue in 2016, DE, MD, and VA. The other 12 are red.
Delaware is southern?
Regardless, MD and VA are only blue because the Federal blob has swollen out and taken them over.
Yes, Delaware is southern. The Mason-Dixon line is Delaware’s northern border. The Mason-Dixon line is the border surveyed between NJ and DE plus the one between PA and MD. Yes, Maryland is also a southern state. Both states used to be slave states, too; as well as most of the old northern ones. Later on, the border was extended along the Ohio river, so KY is a southern state, too. MO is an interesting case.
These days, repressing their true history, these states call themselves something else, typically border state. So what were they the border between? The old South and the old North.
Jeff, please don’t assume that all Southerners are hillbillies, or all hillbillies are southern. That attitude sounds more like something Ms Clinton would come up with.
Illiterate does not mean stupid.
Made my contribution on YouTube. What a crock of …. that was. So many fallacies.
Another liberal fake video. Less than half-way in I found so many lies. Someone needs to tell the folks at PBS that:
1) Aliens did not land to gift us “clean, limitless energy source“.
2) But if they did, environmentalists and their supporters – the non-taxpaying billion dollar foundations – would object to it because, according to green dogma, energy allows people to dominate the environment; especially ‘limitless’ energy. Greens support renewables because it is strictly limited and unreliable. Ref: Are Environmentalists Bad for the Planet? [BBC Radio, 2010]
3) Carbon dioxide is not ‘pollution‘. It is an essential live-giving atmospheric gas, responsible for all plant growth. So indirectly responsible for living animals too.
4) We are not addicted to carbon.
5) Carbon dioxide makes little contribution to global warming. And temperatures have not been rising (much) lately.
6) If we stopped burning carbon (which is impossible), the climate would not change much.
7) Temperatures are not ‘high’. They are lower today than in Roman times. We know this from the position of shorelines. E.g. Many locations are miles from the sea today, which were once shorelines in Roman times.
8) Joe is basically saying that climate stopped changing. That it will remain warm for hundreds of years. He’s denying ‘climate change’.
9) Joe says it takes decades for oceans to heat up. No, it takes centuries for oceans to heat up.
10) CO2 does not ‘cause more than 80% of the warming‘. Water vapour causes 95% of the greenhouse gas effect (GHGE). The small CO2 effect tails off dramatically (logarithmically). Each time one must double CO2 to get the same GHGE again.
11) The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near 100 years. It is less than 10 years.
12) That CO2 residence time claim comes from IPCC reports which are unreliable and 30% sourced from grey literature (written by NGOs, E-NGOs and only ever ‘peer-reviewed’ by dogmatic enviros). After each scientific report is written it is retrospectively edited by politicos to agree to whatever the politicos decided in their policy-making.
Reference #7. A lot of shoreline movement around some areas are due to silt washing down rivers and filling in deltas. The record appears to support a slow increase in the ocean levels over time. On the other hand, isotope analysis does support the Roman warming period as well as the Minoan warming period as does contemporary historical writings during the Roman one.
I have found PBS to be a source of rubbish more and more over time. People who know nothing making up alarmist stuff from other people who know nothing.
“Imagine that aliens landed and gifted us a clean, limitless energy source. And instead of killing each other over this technology, we decided to immediately transform the world into a carbon-free society. This wonderous source would power our homes, industries, cars and planes, and humanity’s annual rate of carbon pollution would almost instantly fall to zero. So if we kicked our carbon addiction tomorrow, what would that mean for global warming?”
Nothing, nuclear energy has been villified by the greens long time ago, so they prefer burning wood.
Please forgive the ignorance of a Brit, but what does PBS actually stand for?
Outrageous and utterly fake answers only please…..
progressive BS
Public Broadcast Service
Our Gov’t funded radio and television that has become a home to entrenched bureaucracy. Think the BBC with less funding (we ain’t got silly Telly Taxes here) and is home to many a Beeb program.
Mike Borgelt’s reply works well by the by.
Our public broadcasting is only partly supported by the government and they have fund raising drives every year to get people to donate. Which they do since there is programming not found on other networks.
So why then does PBS throw kitten fits every time it’s suggested they don’t need the government funding? Obviously, it’s bigger than they let on, or the angst wouldn’t be there.
Almost every ‘science’ program on PBS has a blurb before or after it that tells who helped pay for it. It ends with “and viewers like you”.
It STARTS with a list of Leftist NGO’s and groups, like the Rockefeller Foundation, Gates, Tides, and various Gang Green entities.
~¿~
Actually, they fund-raise during many of their daily programs, whether on science, music or health, making viewing of some occasionally interesting programs (compared to the junk available elsewhere) tedious in the extreme.
They need fundraisers because they don’t have normal commercials.
Please Be Stupid
(sorry…. Please Be Stupid is neither outrageous or utterly fake…)
Pure Bollocks Spouted
Here is what would happen if co2 emissions were to stop today, orange as in line with observations, blue as according to the IPCC Bern model.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2afname.gif
Your graph is labeled differently than your description, i.e., is blue the Bern model or constant change?
Yes you are right! Blue is the constant range, orange is the Bern model.
Send us more money!
We will save you from …….. whatever ails you.
What would Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Russia export?
Sand, sand, and vodka.
Funny…I was thinking
Sand, Sand, and Propaganda
Most of the vodka produced, gets drunk before it can reach the borders to be exported.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
Virgil
Very apt!
My opinion is that CAGW is a Marxist Trojan horse. Objective is to undermine the economy of western democracies by crippling their energy sector.
Typo, the word “current” is “ucrrent”
I have yet to hear anything from the greenies about the next generation of nuclear power (molten salt): cheapest means of making electricity, inherently safe, highly proliferation resistant, small footprint, no need for body of water for cooling, will be built in factories, assembled on site after minimal preparation. Can be located ANYWHERE (in cities, close to end consumers). Based on past experience, I’m certain the greenies will find something objectionable – simply the name “nuclear” is plenty of evidence for these energy-morons to strongly object to the technology. They are such children.
Unless there is direct conversion to electricity there will always be a heat engine with a need to reject waste heat. Unless they are of very small size there be a need for cooling water from on source or another.
True, but w/closed cooling systems, the amount of make-up water needed is not very much.
I assume that video was intended to be SATIRICAL MOCKERY of the AGW meme !!
The problem with is that the current “if it’s on the internet it must be true” generation cannot tell the difference.
Satirical mockery from PBS on climate change propaganda?
I think they are as serious as they are ignorant.
Meanwhile back in the real world, the August UAH data is in, and it shows that despite all the media hype, the temperatures fell in August, and the anomaly is sitting at the 0.19 degC mark. One can see from the below plot that we are heading back towards 2002/3 territory.
One cannot see anything particularly alarming in the UAH data set, just short term variation to natural ENSO and volcanic events. Certainly, there is no correlation with CO2 in that set.
Thanks for posting this graph.
Short term variation and an average (benign) 0.1C per decade warming trend over 40 years
The only “alarming” thing is we are at +0.19C. According to the AGW computer models shouldn’t we be somewhere around +1.5C by now? Now if I were an Al Gore oe Michael Mann, I would be pretty darned alarmed right now.
Thank goodness. I worried that it might have been 0.01 degC higher than that.
Your Snark is good,
you get an “A”
You may post Snark
again today
It seems just weeks ago the headlines were stating the world is on fire! Evidence of CAGW.
One again the data departs from the headlines.
The only temperature data set that both sides trust . Now that the alarmists cant argue on atmospheric temperature anymore, they are hanging their desperate hopes on the missing heat is in the oceans. However consider this.
THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF HEAT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS
Evapotranspiration from water cycle gives 486000 km^3/year. WIKI gives 503000 and Babkin in a Russian study gave 577000
1 km^3 = 10^12 kg
Latent heat of fusion of water to water vapour at 20C = 2450000 Joules/kg
Number of seconds in a year = 3.1536 x 10^7
1 watt = 1 Joule /second
Surface area of earth = 5.1x 10^14 m^2
NASA graph gives evapotranspiration = 86.4W/m^2 Check their Earth’s energy budget graph on their website
The task is to convert the latent heat that is represented inside the water molecule from the water cycle upon evaporation to a W/m^2 equivalent of NASA’s figure of 86.4 W/m^2. I want to see if NASA’s figure has any basis in reality.
Solution 1: Using the 486000
figure we have Total evapotranspiration = 486000 km^3/year * 10^12kg = 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
Total number of Joules = 2,450,000 Joules/kg * 4.86 x 10^17 kg/year
= 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year
Number of Joules/second = 1.1907 x 10 ^24 Joules/year divided by 3.1536 x 10^7 sec/year
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Joules /sec
= 3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts
W/m^2 from surface = (3.775684932 x 10^16 Watts) divided by 5.1x 10^14 m^2
= ~ 74 W/m^2
Solution 2: Using the Wiki figure of 503000
we have ~76 W/m^2
Solution 3: Using the Babkin figure of 577000 we have
~ 87.8 W/m^2
So the difference between NASA and these solutions can also be because of taking a different temperature of evaporation other than 20C.
So why do I start with this analysis? It is because at least I am starting my topic with analysis which no one can question. Evaporation which exists and which exists on the scale I have enumerated is beyond question. Evaporation is the opposite of heat transferred to the ocean from the atmosphere. Evaporation is HEAT TRANSFERRED FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE. Heat transfer does not go the other way. Approximately 48-50 % of the total solar input (before reflection) actually makes it to the surface of the earth. Since the surface is ~ 70% oceans, this is the critical battleground of where is Trenberth’s missing heat? The alarmists like to say that the missing heat from the so called energy imbalance which doesnt show up in the atmophere is actually hiding in the oceans. The reason they say that the heat has gone to the oceans is that all measurements of outgoing LWIR at the top of atmosphere still show no deficit from incoming solar. So the alarmists manufacture a supposed heat trapping mechanism whereby the incoming solar is partially absorbed by CO2 and then transferred to the oceans. However , mathematically; that still doesnt add up because the 70 % of incoming solar that isnt reflected eventually balances because of measurements of top of atmosphere outgoing radiation which has not decreased over time. However even disregarding this mathematical flaw, the heat cant go to the oceans from the atmosphere because evaporation happens all the time and everywhere except deserts and Antarctica. Evaporation takes the solar input to the oceans and turns it into latent heat which then by convection gets lifted higher into the troposphere and when the atmosphere condenses most of that latent heat ( a tiny amount is contained within the water molecule) is then lost to the atmosphere as outgoing heat flux to the top of the atmosphere. Since CO2 has nothing to do with evaporation, that released latent heat doesnt make its way back to the surface or we would have had runaway global warming 4 billion years ago when the oceans formed on earth.
Up until 2003, ocean SST were notorious for being inaccurate because there was too much human input with collecting data by water buckets and . It was also open to data tampering. However by 2003 a comprehensive network of automated ARGO buoys was installed in the open oceans.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2016/argo-observing-the-oceans
They took temperatures at many depths all the way down to 2000 metres. For the 1st 10 years this new system worked well and more buoys were added. However after it became increasingly obvious that the data did not show any increase in temperatures, the alarmists argued that the heat burrowed deeper into the oceans. Now they have instituted 2 ways to fake the data; tamper with the chart data and combine the land surface data with the SST data. We all know the fallacy of doing the 2nd adjustment but I would like to point out the former adjustment.
NCAR have on their site, a graph showing SST from ARGO buoys from 2005 to 2010.
Where the last 8 years are, I don’t know. The UK Met office once had a graph showing the ARGO buoy temperatures from 2003 to 2012, almost the same period. That graph did not show any warming. However, they have now taken that graph down and replaced it with the old bucket data graphs. If you compare the old UK Met office data with the NCAR graph (10 metre- 1500 metre depth, you will see that the NCAR data graph has been massively tampered with. At least the UK office dont present a fake graph.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
Of course all of this fake stuff has been reported on before in other contexts and other data sets of other variables. My point here is to go further. The claimed heat imbalance that is supposed to go from the atmosphere to the oceans cant go via conduction since the ne conduction is the other way which NASA and every other energy budget graph makes clear. It is on the order of 18 W/m^2 from surface to atmosphere. That includes both land and surface. So the only other way that the heat/energy could get from the atmosphere to the oceans is by DW back IR. Never mind that the oceans are poor absorbers of IR, but there is very little IR going up from the oceans to the atmosphere in the 1st place in order to be trapped and sent back down . Here are the numbers. NASA gives 163.3 W/m^2 of solar reaching the surface. Of that 70% oceans is 114W/m^2. Now 86.4 leaves by evapotranspiration and evaporation but we have to take 90 % of that because that is the evaporation %. therefore 77.76 is by evaporation alone. Another 18.4 leaves by conduction/convection and we will take 70 % of that for the oceans so we have 12.88. Another 40 is by the atmospheric window straight to space Take 70 % of that and we have 28. Therefore we have 114-77.76-12.8 – 28 = -4.56 So as you can see the numbers don’t add up. There is no IR left for the oceans to emit. We know the evaporation number is more or less correct from my initial calculations above so either the conduction figure is too high or the atmospheric window number is too high. Either way there just isnt any IR left for the oceans to emit to the atmosphere. In any case with so much evaporation going on how would the IR ever get past all the water vapour that is in the air immediately above the sea? So there is no IR going from the oceans to the atmosphere . The little IR from the land to the atmosphere is the only IR that is getting trapped by greenhouse gases. Perhaps some of that then gets radiated downward and sent laterally by the winds to the oceans, but that would be very small except near the coasts. THERE IS NO HEAT TRANSFER FROM THE ATMOSPHERE TO THE OCEANS AND THE GLOBAL ALARMISTS HAVE NOT SHOWN A PHYSICAL MECHANISM BY WHICH THAT OCCURS. So on both counts; the math of imbalances doesnt add up and the math of IR ocean emissions doesnt add up. GLOBAL WARMING MATH IS ALICE IN WONDERLAND STUFF.
Nothing in AGW adds up… no one guessing could get as much stuff wrong as AGW….
Warmer air doesn’t transfer heat to the oceans.
Instead it slows down how quickly the heat being put into the ocean by the sun, escapes.
Agreed but the alarmists are arguing that the missing heat is being transferred to the oceans. They have as yet to provide a physical mechanism whereby this can occur.
First we have to find some warmer air.
Rather, I would ask:
1) If the global average air temperature goes up by 0.21 degrees – and remains steady at that higher temperature for the entire year, how much does the surface water of all of the oceans go up by at the end of that year?
2) If the oceans average more than 3600 meters deep (and they do), how long (at 0.21 degree rise in global average air temperatures in 40 years over 514 Mkm^2 earth surface at 70% ocean), does it take to force a 0.5 degree increase in average ocean temperatures?
3) Can we even detect a 0.001 degree rise in average ocean temperatures in ten years?
MarkW is now asking us to believe that heat does not flow from a warm (air) object to a cool object (oceans.)
….
MarkW’s new heat transfer law:
Heat always flows from a warmer to a cooler object, unless the two objects in question are the air and the oceans.
…
Lots of text books will need revision.
Keith, you really should learn the law of holes. When you are in one, stop digging.
The real world is a lot more complicated than the world inside your head.
In the real world you have to consider conduction, radiation and the impact of evaporation.
I’ll give you time to find a dictionary in order to look up the big words.
WRONG MarkW, all of the things you mention do not impact the fact that heat flows from warm to cold. If the air is warmer than the ocean water, then heat will flow from the air to the ocean. Please give me an example of when the opposite happens.
MarkW is correct.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002JD002670
The only marine near surface air temperature data is the Hadley data. If you look at the charts you will see that they fudged the data just like they have done with SST and land temperature data. However since the near surface SST temperature data shows extremely small increases and the marine air temperature data also shows extremely small increases, if the alarmists are arguing that the atmosphere is warming the top of the oceans, it will take 600 years to warm the top of the oceans at those small increases. Hurricanes get their heat from the water. Sure, there are areas in higher latitudes where the air temperature above the oceans is warmer than the water temperature. In that case there is some conduction happening. However all the energy budget graphs including NASA have a net transfer of heat by conduction from the earth surface to the atmosphere. The fraudulent back radiation that NASA shows is not conduction heat anyway. My above post showed that there is no heat flux left for any IR to be trapped in the atmosphere over the oceans. Therefore there can’t be any back radiation over the oceans. Since there is no back radiation over the oceans and there is a net upward transfer by conduction and evaporation, the heat fluxes between the ocean and the atmosphere are mainly one way; UPWARD. Because of evaporation and convection being transporters of heat upward and conduction being a net upward transport of heat as well; there is no net heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere. Alarmists have yet to provide a physics explanation as to how that is possible, given the above. THERE IS NO NET AMOUNT OF HEAT BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE OCEANS BY THE ATMOSPHERE.
Moving the goal posts does not help you Tomalty. Using “net” is not what we’re talking about. Warm air will heat the ocean, if the temp of the surface of the ocean is lower than that of the air. Now, show me a case where heat flows from a colder object (say the ocean) into a warmer object (say the air).
Keith, Here’s a puzzle for you. If cold air is over a warmer ocean and it rains, which way does the heat flow? Heat transfer isn’t always so simple and cut and dry. Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation, chemical change, phase change, etc. In the case of rain, heat transfer is given an assist by gravity. BTW – Cloud cover does interfere with heat transfer from earth to outer space.
Actually, it remains simple. The heat flows from hot to cold. You now have three objects with three temperatures. Line them up, left to right with the warmest on the left. Heat flows from the left most object to the middle object and heat flows from the middle object to the rightmost object. I will leave it up to you to place the air, ocean and rain in their proper positions in this example
simplistic middle school level example.
If the air temperature varies hour-by-hour, yet has 1/1000 the energy of the sea water yet is cooler than the rain water, where [do] the three materials rank two seconds after the rain falls? Two minutes after the rain falls? Two hours after the rain falls?
Where did the energy go?
12 hours later, when the air temperature is less than the land temperature and water temperature, do do you rank the (missing) rain, the evaporated water vapor, the radiating sea surface, the land surface, the land 6 inch soil temperature, and the night air?
Two seconds after the rain falls, the heat flows from what is warmer to what is colder. If after the rain falls, the air is warmer than the ocean, then heat flows from the air to the ocean. Adding in a time varying parameter does not change the direction of heat flow. You can try to make the problem complex, but the physics of it doesn’t change. The original statement by MarkW was: “Warmer air doesn’t transfer heat to the oceans.” That statement is clearly FALSE when the air is warmer than the ocean water.
It is simple if you only consider conduction.
Of course the Earth energy budget is always expressed as averages and forgets the diurnal nature of day and night. So there is double the amount of solar getting to the ocean surface, that means we have 228-77.76-12.8 – 28 = 137 W/m^2 during the day as potential IR to the atmosphere. However the IR from the oceans during the day has to fight its way past the water vapour evaporation. Over the open ocean the density of the water vapour immediately above it is palpable, which every sailor knows.
Upon further thinking , the potential IR emission from the oceans to the atmosphere would not be affected by the diurnal nature of the solar input. After the solar hits the ocean ,we are are talking about a steady stream of averages anyway, so MOD PLEASE DELETE THE 1ST 2 SENTENCES IN MY ABOVE REPLY POST.
Alan Tomalty, you ought to know by now that you can NOT throw such facts at Those People.
They will only cover their eyes and ears and refuse to acknowledge the reality that you present.
Question – Why does CO2-genic heat hide only in the oceans?
Answer – Because there is nowhere to hide in ponds, swimming pools and lakes.
Reductio ad Absurdum
Arbitrary anomaly. Completely meaningless, as is presenting a single line as “global temperature”.
Yes, it is true. Temperatures DID fall in August, starting around August 3rd. Still having a few days of warmish weather, but punctuated by chilly nights.
Trees shedding leaves early means they are more sensitive to solar influence than we realize. Rained like Noah’s flood last night, too, and more is predicted.
Interesting.
The video was well visualized, but had still pretty amateurish mistakes.
Of course, the committed warming is not because the ocean has a difficult to measure small increase in its temperature.
In any case, this was one of those good meaning scientific popularizations which are, unfortunately, written by people who only think they understood what the science says.
For my part, I think the concept of ‘committed warming’ is invented to lure us to give away money and power quick without thinking because we ‘need to act now’ and ‘time is running out’.
Despite of this I believe warmism will die when India follows China in per capita emissions.
Oh Christ, I cannot watch this till its end. There is a limit on non sequitur a person can take. Sorry.
If you deal with the warmists enough, your tolerance increases. It’s like if you hit yourself over the head with a hammer, over time you build up a tolerance to that too. 🙂
“we ‘need to act now’ and ‘time is running out’.”
I’m old enough to remember that we needed ‘A wartime effort’! some 30 years ago.
(And every year since it’s been ‘worse than we thought’)
Well, you did hit the nail on the head. The only reason a video like this is presented to the public is to separate the gullible and naive who watch it from their cash.
If that is too cynical – well, it’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
To Joe the video guy: Open your door, take a drive to the country, and look at all the green things. Do you not see the clean, limitless energy system that nature exhibits? It’s based on carbon. Maybe we should learn something from watching it happen. By the way, smog has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
The guy mixed up fossil energy with particulates from all sources, and clean energy with renewables. I like it particularly when a cooling tower is artfully placed in the scenery behind a grim picture of slum roofs. Good grief, it is not carbon dioxide causing poverty. If something, it is lack of affordable energy.
From the perspective of a guy who has to do real science for a living, the Earth barely has enough CO2 to sustain plant life. The stuff everything eats to stay alive. That the addition of two extra CO2 molecules per thousand is responsible for 80% of planetary warming is so amazingly impossible that one wonders what looney bin actually believes such nonsense. And since planetary warming – glacial melting – started thousands of years before the industrial revolution, how are man-made (oh, excuse me. man-and-woman-made) carbon emissions even possibly a cause? Here’s the funny part: under the current spotless sun, the subsequent bombardment of cosmic rays and consequent increase of the earth’s albedo, reflection of sunlight energy, and ultimate cooling to a little ice age, will make everyone wish that what this fellow said about the ocean giving off all that heat was true. But, shivering, they’ll discover too late it’s hogwash. So in a desperate attempt to warm the earth and melt the incipient glaciers in the streets of the world’s greatest cities, they’ll start burning, and burning, and burning carbon fuels. And. It. Won’t. Help. At. All.
The IPCC report (that I do actually value a lot) said ‘extremely likely’ more than half since 1950, Schmidt said probably 110%. I think 80% is too low a number for an alarmist. So something was wrong in his message. The 80% sounds like Judith Curry, the troublemaker, has been talking. Though she would add a large uncertainty range.
Still, 80% of 0.8C is very little. Their message is ‘repent’, since the sin of ‘committed warming’ will catch our children. The alarmists are working hard to both dehumanize and smear anyone suggesting a sensitivity smaller than 1.5, and publicize any research claiming possibility of sensitivity higher than 4.5K/CO2-doubling.
For alarmists, it is enough to show some mass loss is appearing. The attribution is just modelling games, anything may come out of that.
Let’s return to that theory when UAH has returned back to 1979, which is, I guess, something like 0.4C below the August numbers. I’d bet for some money it won’t happen. Not for a very large number though, I’m not an idiot.
“>>> Still, 80% of 0.8C is very little. <<<"
It is, in fact, much less. According to the latest detailed analysis of how CO2 molecules interact with the outgoing radiation, and upon the elimination of errors made commonly by the so called "climate scientists" in their estimates, the total human contribution due to burning of fossil fuels to the observed warming of 0.8C (according to NASA) since 1880 has been a puny 0.02C [1], which is 2.5%.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6
This is the last sentence from the conclusion. “As a result, one can evaluate an additional radiative flux to the Earth’s surface due to a change of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, and the corresponding analysis convinces us that contemporary injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of fossil fuels is not important for the greenhouse effect.”
I find it strange that the author refers to himself as “we” and “us” but otherwise the paper appears logical and is difficult to refute on a theoretical basis. The concluding result is quite significant.
“We” and “us” is standard practice for scientific papers. Even if there’s only one author.
Isn’t it only two extra molecules of CO2 per ten thousand?
The increase is actually 5 out of a 1000, 50 out of 10000 or 0.5% per year
Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures.
Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric temperatures.
Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors. Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. In fact, it is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
The slightly higher sensitivity values for Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 vs UAH LT.
Practically speaking, however, these sensitivity estimates are similar, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.
Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have little or no credibility and there is no real global warming crisis.
Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.
The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any politician who contradicts this statement is a scoundrel or an imbecile and is destructive to the well-being of society. It IS that simple.
Edit of above:
It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
Yup.
Hi Edward – as a scientist, can you explain this relationship?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
More discussion here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/28/a-dyi-climate-sensitivity-toolkit/comment-page-1/#comment-2754993
Please do not say “it is a feedback effect”.
What is amazingly impossible is the assertion that the 5% of Co2 that is human contributed is responsible for ALL GLOBAL WARMING. Not the 95% that is natural, it is ONLY the manmade Co2 that is blamed for ALL the warming. (Not that it’s actually warming anyway.)
“That the addition of two extra CO2 molecules per thousand is responsible for 80% of planetary warming is so amazingly impossible that one wonders what looney bin actually believes such nonsense. ”
Only to people who do not know of the Beer-Lambert relation is it thought “nonsense”.
I’ll leave you to Google. But it boils down the path length of the LWIR photon. It would hit one hell of a lot of those extra 2 per 1000 molecules on it’s exit to space.
It has also been observed in 2 dry locations over a period of 10years via use of surface spectroscopic analysis using a program designed and used by the military to estimate radiative forcing……
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
From the link offered, it notes that the CO2 is 1/10 the effect as water vapor or clouds, which is curious, as neither water vapor nor cloud’s effects on the atmosphere are accurately quantified. I may well be wrong, but without stating the relative value of those two factors along with the CO2’s it’s merely an interesting study.
From the perspective of a guy who has to do real science for a living, the Earth barely has enough CO2 to sustain plant life.
Quite so. The next mass-extinction might be CO2 starvation as volcanic activity (which is the ultimate CO2 source) has been winding down. The world may be left with only C4 photosynthetic plants.
You forgot the other 55 genders, you cis-normitive terrorist, you.
>¿<
By last count, there were actually 57 varieties of gender (the Heinz factor), increasing hourly – and each gender insists on its own descriptive pronoun – zis, zer, xis, xir, etc. etc. etc.
This does not count those individuals who claim multiple genders, depending on time-of-the-day, or time-of-the-month.
Certain administrations are now dictating that teachers etc. must use the correct pronoun when referring to their students. This requires that the teacher must know the student’s gender-of-the-moment, and remember the suitable 57^n pronouns and use them appropriately. I wish this paragraph was satire – regrettably, it is not.
Apparently the new attention-getting device on Facebook is to announce a new gender – and the animals are getting nervous.
Recognizing the practical impossibility of it all, it is clear that the Marxist-Leninist Party of Social Justice Warriors (Gender) have again overstepped their reach.
A simpler solution is required – a suggestion follows:
1. Return to the Victorian model where one’s sexual preferences were a private matter, not other people’s business. As long as you don’t touch children or small animals, gender warriors, knock yourselves out!
2. Regarding personal pronouns, let “him”, “her” or “you” be considered gender-neutral, the plural also being “you”, except in Bronx-ese where it is “youse”, or in the South where it is “y’all”.
There! Another pressing social challenge has been solved – and Social Justice Warriors everywhere will have to find something else to obsess about. How about slavery, malaria, war and hunger – you see, SJW’s, there are REAL victims out there.
“The earth has warmed by 0.8C SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.”
Another way to say this is
“The earth has warmed by 0.8C SINCE THE LITTLE ICE AGE.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/07/19/liaclimatologybibliography/
The role of CO2 in either the 0.8C cooling into the LIA or the 0.8C warming out of the LIA, is an unsettled issue if you look at the observational data.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/31/cmip5forcings/
But the problem is that once something like this gets rolling, it takes on a life of its own and the details are just annoying little nit picky details that don’t really matter any more.
In fact no one has come up with any explanation for for the LIA
I think I have! They say ‘it didn’t happen’, and that it was local. The same as with the Vikings. They were killed because they had problems with veganism and gender equality, not because the climate was colder – and it was just local.
Now, for the climate change we know it is global, since it was freaking cold last winter and pretty liveable in July.
“>>> no one has come up with any explanation for for the LIA <<<"
LIA is convincingly explained by Maunder and Dalton Minima (of solar activity) and Svensmark's effect.
Anyone who says carbon instead of CO2 is a liar.
According to Encyclopeda Britannica:
“Carbon (C), nonmetallic chemical element in Group 14 (IVa) of the periodic table. Although widely distributed in nature, carbon is not particularly plentiful—it makes up only about 0.025 percent of Earth’s crust—yet it forms more compounds than all the other elements combined.“
As a Chemical Engineer, I cringe every time someone uses “carbon” when referring to CO2. It’s like using “hydrogen” when referring to water or using “sodium” when referring to table salt.
While carbon and carbon dioxide are often incorrectly used interchangeably, neither gaoline/diesel, nor coal contain CO2… And when natural gas contains CO2, it has to be removed prior to being put into a sales line. CO2 doesn’t burn very well. It’s commonly used in fire extinguishers.
It is the *carbon* cycle. Carbon-free energy is the correct term… Even if it is a dumb idea. Fossil fuels all contain carbon.
Oil and natural gas are “hydrocarbons”… Molecular rings of varying complexity, featuring hydrogen-carbon bonds. Methane is the simplest hydrocarbon. When you oxidize (burn) CH4, you get CO2, H2O and energy.
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/511natgascombust.html
Gasoline (octane) combustion:
C8H18 +12.5 O2 → 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/64-tiger-cub-1/64-data/Detonation-energy-updated.pdf
Coal, in its purest form is carbon. Coal combustion:
C + O2 → CO2
or, depending on O2 availability…
2 C + O2 → 2 CO
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-equation-for-coal-combustion
Yes, the concentration of CO2 in gasoline, jet and diesel is so low that we should call these “CO2 free” fuels. And since “carbon” and “CO2” are arguably used interchangeably, it is logical that we can refer to these as “carbon free” (a sophist could argue that in fact the fossil fuel elemental carbon content is extremely low also).
In any case, describing and referring to the “carbon cycle” can be perfectly valid, but then referring to CO2 as carbon is often done dubiously.
“Carbon-free energy is the correct term… Even if it is a dumb idea. Fossil fuels all contain carbon.” Actually, the real threat is fuel that is used as a combustible. All compounds containing carbon combust to make CO2 (or most—I can’t think of any off-hand that don’t). So biofuel, burning dung, burning garbage, burning anything organic increases CO2 in the atmosphere. The only carbon free energy comes from hydro, wind and solar, after the plant is built. The “fuel” is carbon free. Fossil fuels are vilified bacause they make life better and allow capitalism to thrive. Burning dung and garbage keep us premitive so are more or less overlooked. There is also the argument about how long CO2 has been sequestered as to how much it matters in the “carbon cycle”—the longer the sequestration, the worse the CO2 release is presumed to be.
The “carbon cycle” as damaging to the planet according to AGW really only counts if you burn the carbon containing materials. I suppose labeling the cycle from origin to finish kind of makes sense, but in reality, it’s marketing, not science, that calls it the “carbon cycle”, plus flatout lazy reporters, etc. It really is just about combustion of carbon containing materials being added to the the atmosphere at a higher rate than “nature” adds them.
The only difference is that the combustion of fossil fuels takes carbon out of geologic sequestration and puts it into the active carbon cycle, mostly in the form of CO2.
Biofuels just move carbon around in the active cycle.
It’s a difference without much distinction, from a climate perspective, bur it is a difference.
I alluded to that with “the longer the sequestration, the worse the CO2 release is presumed to be.” Guess I needed to be more specific.
Sheri, you posted “All compounds containing carbon combust to make CO2 (or most—I can’t think of any off-hand that don’t).”
Well, what about CO2 and halon FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? They contain carbon compounds, yet do not combust, obviously!
“Halon, chemical compound formerly used in firefighting. A halon may be any of a group of organohalogen compounds containing bromine and fluorine and one or two carbons. The effectiveness of halons in extinguishing fires arises from their action in interrupting chain reactions that propagate the combustion process.” — source https://www.britannica.com/science/halon
“>>> Anyone who says carbon instead of CO2 is a liar. <<<"
Most of those "climate change" propagandists are people who lack adequate science background and generally prattle nonsense about matters they know nothing about, merely repeating phrases coined by other propagandists and, sadly, some academic charlatans.
The switch from "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming," which is neither catastrophic, nor anthropogenic, nor global, nor even warming in excess of natural variability, to "Climate Change," is a particularly pernicious step, because the very expression is a meaningless tautology. For starters, climate is a poorly defined notion. However it is understood, it changes naturally on various time scales, reflecting the natural variability of the weather, which is in constant flux.
And it is here that the buried dog lies. This brain-washing term has been coined on purpose so as to give the propagandists an option to attribute every weather variation, every weather event to human industrial activities, and by doing so turn people away, such is the intention of this monumental fraud, from their support for the industrial civilization to which we owe our affluence, health, longevity, security, and which feeds us every day.
Of course, for people to yield to this surreptitious assault on our democracy, freedom, even sovereignty would be suicidal. Let's hope they'll wise up and reject it wholesale.
Agree, with both of your comment areas. Most non-technical people dismiss the benefits of higher CO2 to the ecosystems. Earth time scales are of course very long and many of the analysis on one side of the argument ignore that the Earth is in a CO2 starvation period still at 400ppm levels. This all has been said many times before as this subject keeps rolling along over time. Interesting watch how the narrative has morphed over the past few decades in pursuit of corrupting the actual science in pursuit of political objectives.
Do they mean the same aliens who came in the sixties and gifted us free, unlimited public radio? I’m sayin’ no thanks.
See, my space alien scenario is a bit different. In mine, the space aliens give us the gift of knowledge, in the form of chastisement, much the same as a parent might do. They first ask “Why are you all fighting and arguing about the life-giving gas, carbon dioxide? We’ve been watching this for some time now, and it’s ridiculous! Honestly, we thought you humans were smarter than that, but I guess we were wrong. We have watched your planet grow greener because of it, at the same time that your sun and oceans have warmed you up slightly, which brings up another question: Why do you fear life-giving warmth? Do you really prefer the ice? What’s the matter with you? Shape up, for God’s sake!”
Stop all C02 emissions and earth continues to warm for 2,000 years and take 100,000 years to reduce to ~1880 year levels? You would have to slap me silly before I believe that line of BS.
I would rather my kids see even the worst porn before this video. It’s the worst kind of porn.
Porn is definately more honest.
HOT MESS: they have a whole series of those, they are standard boilerplate. Most every day I go to you tube and search “climate change” and then filter by latest first, OMG there are lots of CC videos posted every day, many very amateur, childish, naive, but it is fun to monitor all the hypocrisy from the LEFT. In that video they have the gall to tell us that each additional degree of warming reduces crop yields by “as much as 10%” and I bet that was based on an IPCC model.