Chris Martz posted an excellent summation on X
Here is the complete post.
I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It’s not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.
While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer have pointed out, there is general agreement within the scientific literature on these three things:
➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years. 📈
🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
➋ Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator. 🏭
🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html
➌ Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed. 🌈
Beyond this, there is no agreement on:
➊ How much warming is man-made? The claim that virtually all of the warming is anthropogenic is based squarely on modeling studies. The IPCC’s “best estimate” of greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and their “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100%. That doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.
🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pp. 439-441)
➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) — a measure of how much warming results from doubling CO₂ concentrations once a new local equilibrium is achieved — and amount of warming left in pipeline for the 21st century. 🌡️
➌ Is warming dangerous for humanity and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net benefit or a net drawback? This is not a settled matter, regardless of what experts say. The findings in the body of literature are mixed. It does not unequivocally support their notion that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷♂️
➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy be handled? Do we change zoning codes? Do we construct seawalls to combat creeping sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?
So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled. ❌
The case isn’t closed. That book remains wide open on the table. 📖
However, what is indeed a scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.
A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1858615282086146262
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The “NetZero” movement is a scam, a stalking horse for authoritarian socialist Luddites.
Ditto.I am getting lots of compliments (and smiles) from the public during my morning walks.
Nut Zero is a Trojan Horse for leftist fascism with zero probability of success. 190 of 195 nations have “signed up”. Only about 20 of 195 nations are trying to cut CO2 emissions. but they will have little success 175 of 195 nations are just virtue signaling.
If ECS is the control knob , why didn’t it work when CO2 was 7000 ppm ???
It did work. The suns output was about 30% less than today, which offset some., but not all of the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Even so, global temperatures were much higher than today.
LOL
Why didn’t it work when there was a full blown glaciation with 4,000ppm?!
Please provide evidence for that statement.
Ah. You were there taking power density measurements. Glad we have that data.
If it wasn’t manmade CO2 that was causing a climate catastrophe, it would have to have been some other human-produced emission.
One that requires remedial action costing $trillions on a global scale.
Something that only the UN can manage.
I’m thinking that dry human skin molecules being shed constantly, indiscriminately all around the world would qualify as such an existential atmospheric pollution threat.
Turning the air that we breathe a dusty brown or yellow color, like a Sahara dust storm encircling the globe.
Such a threat would require the WHO to step in with a mandatory “epidermis flakes containment kit” that every government would have to ensure was worn by its citizens.
A certain “philanthropist” called Gates could be relied upon to magnanimously step up to arrange manufacture and distribution under license for the specified “containment kits”.
And why was atmospheric CO2 extra powerful when it was only 300 ppm in the early 20th century?
If ECS is the control knob, then the rate of warming then could not possibly be the same as during the late 20th century, but it was.
Actually, I suspect that the ECS changes with CO2 concentration, and therefore over time.
Since there are plenty of examples of REVERSE CORRELATION in the climate record, the ECS is zero until they present EVIDENCE to the contrary.
“Scientist said so,” “models,” assumptions and hypothetical do not constitute evidence.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas above the current 420ppm.
According to current scientific understanding, Earth has been in a “greenhouse state” for most of its history, meaning it was largely ice-free with high levels of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures, for over 70% of its existence; with only occasional periods of “icehouse” conditions where polar ice caps formed.
The nominee for Secretary of Energy weighs in on both points:
https://rclutz.com/2024/11/19/energy-realism-from-next-us-dept-head/
Ok, Chris there are a fair number of us out here that want people to use words in science correctly.
You say “…Earth’s average surface temperature…” and prior to that used the word “mean” which has the same connotation.
Temperature is an intensive property and cannot be averaged so this whole GMST is bunk. So please don’t tell me I can’t think of the GHG theory as a scam if I want to when invalid made up numbers are used to say it exists.
However, I must say agree with you in general.
“There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.” [For AGW]
It’s true that the radiative effect of incremental CO2 should theoretically produce a warmer surface to re-establish the same final longwave emission to space. But this assumes a static atmosphere and that nothing else changes. This assumption is incorrect, so the basis of the AGW claim is incomplete and therefore misleading.
The “climate” movement erred from the beginning about what to expect. Fundamentally the mistake was (and still is) the failure to properly account for how the atmosphere responds dynamically to the incrementally stronger absorbing power as CO2 concentrations rise. This is not a new thing to bring up.
Professor David Brunt made a comment in 1938 that captures this problem with Guy Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2:
“Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
A more complete discussion, including a link to the original Callendar paper, is given here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/02/open-thread-52/#comment-3703255
What was Brunt talking about? If one understands the concept of energy conversion in the general circulation of the atmosphere, rising CO2 concentrations need not be expected to force absorbed energy to accumulate in the land + ocean + atmosphere system as sensible heat. More here about that, using the ERA5 hourly parameter, the “vertical integral of energy conversion.”
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
The bottom line is that NO ONE KNOWS that incremental CO2 will produce a “warming” result from the minor static radiative effect.
Global warming, yes, anthropogenic global warming, no.
Exactly. Its a complicated machine with all kinds of feedback loops and chaotic with it. Change any one thing, and the results are not going to be a linear function of that change. Double the energy content of your fuel, you don’t necessarily get to go twice as fast. Or as far.
He does not know this: most of the surface has not been and is not measured, and the thermometers in the nineteenth century at the few locations that were measured were not fit for this purpose.
…a meaningless number that cannot describe “the climate”, even if it were measurable.
And completely ignores relative humidity, which gives us the difference between a dry adiabatic lapse rate and a moist lapse rate, because it takes more energy to warm a moist air parcel than a dry one.
Great post!
My 2¢…
Even if all of the warming since 1975 has been “man-made,” we’d still be in “The Ice Age Cometh” mode if not for fossil fuels.
A more important number is the transient climate response (TCR). TCR occurs simultaneously with the rise in atmospheric CO2. While, the difference between ECS and TCR occurs over the next several hundred years and would likely be indistinguishable from background noise.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/30/climate-scientists-realize-models-yield-implausibly-hot-forecasts-of-future-warming/
The average ECS, based on instrumental observations is ~ 2.3 °C. This would translate to a TCR of 1.2-1.6 °C… An Alfred E. Neuman low number.
So far, so good…
Apply a real-world discount rate to decarbonization costs and the answer is obvious.
Bloomberg
This is worth repeating:
You are still alive! 🙂
Alive and partying like it’s 1980 all over again…
Very good summary. It reminds me of the other progressive claim, that ” there is no known level of radiation exposure that is safe”. This comes from the accepted fact that one ” hit” in a cell from ionizing radiation can change cell DNA to cause it to become cancerous. But it leaves out the fact that the human body somehow survives 14000 of these hits, on average, every second of our lives, mostly from natural sources of radiation and from medical procedures, and from all other radiation sources like air travel and nuclear power
This meme leaves out everything about how cells deal with the effects of radiation, as well as the actual risk caused by radiation exposure from man-made non medical sources.
It is a strategy that is used against every technology or concept that is dis-favored by the left – i.e. take an accepted, but otherwise insignificant fact, and twist it into knots to demonize something that is “related to/associated with ” that fact. All done to create unwarranted public fear, in the hope that the fear can drive social change.
Very powerful strategy, and very destructive.
As observed around Chernobyl that the faunæ were flourishing contrary to what the predicted radiological effect from fall-out should be. Much head scratching.
It appears the wildlife was at more risk from Humans than radioactive contamination.
“Glow Wolves” documentary.
https://scitechdaily.com/radiation-paradox-scientists-discover-nematodes-thriving-in-chernobyls-toxic-landscape/
A fine example of the destructiveness of such “linear no threshold” assumptions of “harm” are the ridiculous and ruinous costly regulations of things like Radon and PM2.5.
In the case of Radon, animal studies show that low level exposure to have LESS incidence of cancer than zero exposure, but this is of course ignored by those who continually expand the tyrrany of the regulatory deep state.
And PM2.5 as shown by those previously featured on these pages is junk science with essentially nothing but assumptions and modeling as it foundation.
Since the last major “spike down” in (lower) stratosphere measurements at the end of 2000 both of the main MSU “LS” datasets have gone sideways instead of “cooling”, despite CO2 atmospheric levels monotonically increasing over the entire measurement period (since 1979).
Only half of the “anthropogenic fingerprint” — the “warming tendency in the troposphere” half — has actually “been observed”.
Tru dat …
And I haven’t seen any directly measured relationship between CO2 levels and that tropospheric warming, either. CO2 and temperature have both gone up since 1850, yes. Anything else seems to be pure conjecture at this point.
Apart from the rate of CO2 growth FOLLOWING atmospheric temperatures, there is no relationship.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
As similar graph to Ron’s second graph is shown below, uses just ocean atmospheric temperatures.
The “relationship” is in the “long-term / whole dataset” (linear) trends.
The “logical argument” is as follows :
1) The January 1979 to October 2024 (1/1979-10/2024) trend for CO2 (Mauna Loa, 12-month rolling averages) atmospheric levels is positive.
2) The 1/1979-10/2024 trend for the UAH (LT, V6.1) dataset is also positive.
3) Therefore they are “related” … and everyone knows “correlation = causation” … right ??? …
Note that the 1/1979-10/2024 trend for the ENSO-3.4 anomalies dataset is (just) negative … so therefore ENSO has no impact whatsoever on the satellite MSU measurements of the lower troposphere …
.
Yup.
Temperatures have gone up and down since 1850.
The temperatures today are no warmer than in the recent past (since the end of the Little Ice Age), according to the written historic temperature records.
Don’t be fooled by bogus, bastardized, computer-generated, “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick charts. They are lies that don’t represent the true temperature profile of the Earth.
We are no hotter today than in the recent past even though CO2 levels are higher. That being the case, it appears that CO2 has no discernable effect on Earth’s temperatures.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart was created to hide this fact. Unfortunately, this lie has fooled a lot of people with detrimental effects to Society. Lies and liars are responsible for this state of affairs.
Fair enough, although I thought we had concluded that it’s inarguably warmer now than it was at the end of the LIA. That was a global phenomenon, not just a local one, and it ended a couple of centuries ago. Right? Maybe I should have said since 1750 rather than since 1850?
(It certainly doesn’t appear to be any warmer today than it was in the 1930s, though)
It’s not any warmer today than in the 1930’s.
And there was less CO2 in the air in the 1930’s.
The conclusion has to be that increases in CO2 have not caused temperatures to go out of control or to even be warmer than in the past.
The 1880’s were just as warm as the 1930’s, too. So there’s another example of temperatures as warm as today while CO2 levels are much lower.
The bogus Hockey Stick hides all this information. Which is its purpose.
“both of the main MSU “LS” datasets have gone sideways instead of “cooling”, despite CO2 atmospheric levels monotonically increasing over the entire measurement period (since 1979).”
Clearly, even by eyeball, the trend since aound 2002 is a slow decline of temperature.
BTW: the warm blip is the effect of injected aerosol into the strat from Pinatubo … and the few years of cooling after that was a residual of Pinatubo via reduction in O3.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JD002090
Here’s 15 entries and 300 words from my file of factoids quotes & smart remarks
that more or less apply to the issue of clarifying climate terms posted today:
______________________________________________________________________________
Democrats conveniently, constantly and intentionally ignore the positive aspects of carbon dioxide.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair, 1994
“Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’
— and readers’ — attention.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
The Global Warming Potential numbers for methane are bullshit
How can so many people be so easily convinced that events which have always
occurred and extensively documented, are wholly new and unprecedented?
President Trump is basically a new boss at a company where employees have been
stealing for years
That climate science routinely alters historical data is a matter of fact.
Why Climate science routinely makes those changes is a matter of opinion.
Mark Steyn famously said: How are we supposed to have confidence in what
the temperature will be in 2100 when we don’t know it WILL be in 1950!!
If the Climate Change headline says,
“Worse than previously thought”
Historical data is being re-written.
“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious” – George Orwell.
Re-writing history is a government funded occupation.
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Reid Bryson
Adjusted climate data, conforms to the outcomes predicted by those who adjust the data.
There is no question that greenhouse gases, all other things being equal, causes warming.
However, not all other things are equal.
Climate models deal with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore long
term prediction of future climate states is not possible. IPCC AR3 Chapter 14
If methane increases by 6 or 7 ppb every year, it will run temperatures up 86 times
what an annual increase of 6 or 7 ppb of CO2 would produce. Which is essentially nothing.
Presently, the concentration of CH4 in air is 1.92 ppmv. The reason for this low concentration is due to the initiation of its combustion by lightning discharges. Everyday there are thousand of lightning discharges, especially in the tropics.
CH4 is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of ice cold water can contain 35 mls of CH4. That is not very much, but the cold polar waters are quite large. In these cold polar waters, CH4 slowly diffuses to the ocean floor where under high pressure it forms a solid clathrate known as “methane ice”.
We really do not have to worry about CH4.
Don’t have to worry about it in a bigger respect. Its absorption bands are completely overlapped by water vapor.
Which means its REAL WORLD “global warming potential” IS ZERO. Even hypothetically.
All the fear porn about methane is just another excuse to enforce needless and draconian regulations.
To no end!
Great list!!
‘Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space.’
This conditional statement, while true, actually tells us nothing unless we know with certainty that ‘all else is constant’.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, any honest review of the geological record tells us that ‘all else’, particularly the relation between CO2 and temperature, has never been constant, and in the case of data from ice cores, actually contradicts the alarmist narrative of causality.
What all this means is that any attempt to attribute the current post-LIA warming to our use of fossil fuels is scientifically invalid.
H2O absorbs most of the OLW IR, except in the deserts. Presently, one cubic meter of air contains ca. 0.8 g of CO2. With an air temperature of 70 deg. F and 70% RH one cubic meter has 14.3 g ofH2O. To the first approximation, H2O is ca. 95% of the greenhouse effect.
The claim by the IPCC that CO2 causes global warming is a lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN the justification for the distribution of funds from the rich donor countries, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, to the poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. At COP29, the poor countries are clamoring for many, many billions of dollars. This what this rhetoric about global warming and climate change is really all about: the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
‘…climate change is really all about: the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.’
To be specific, the UN desires the redistribution of wealth from the poor of rich countries to the rich of poor countries. Unfortunately, this economic desire dovetails neatly with the main political desire of Leftists everywhere, which is to wield unlimited political power.
To be more specific, the UN wants to be in the middle of these “climate” transfer payments, with their hand in the till at each “transaction” in their role as the “middle man” as the cash changes hands.
Oh and they would also like to be the unelected bureaucrats sitting at the top of a “global government” dictating how the whole world should live.
And cope WITH WHAT?!
The “weather” is OBJECTIVELY NOT GETTING WORSE. Even the IPCC, with a 100% bias to find any scrap of evidence, can’t find any evidence that the weather is getting worse.
It ain’t about science, climate or weather. It ain’t about fossil fuels, emissions or the environment, either.
Is this what you are saying:
Climate change policies aren’t meant to control the climate,
they’re meant to control you – Paul Joseph Watson
I deliberately left it open to interpretation.
There are many moving parts, such as
Let me sort this out for you, Chris. There is nothing wrong with the climate, it is doing exactly what it has always done. Humans can’t stop it from changing and are not causing it to change. Destroying our energy production, agriculture and manufacturing sectors because of these lies is stupid and evil, knock it off.
I like that explanation. Short, sweet, and to the point.
“Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss”
“Earth’s average surface temperature” is a meaningless calculation! It has nothing to do with actual temperatures on the earth at any one moment. Incoming radiant energy falls primarily on a small patch of surface, centered in the tropics, for about 4-6 hours a day as the earth turns. Half the earth receives no energy for half the day, but the entire surface radiates energy away all day. The actual local surface temperatures are the result of the transport of energy from the tropics to the rest of the surface, primarily by the atmosphere (ocean currents help), as modified by the local outgoing radiation. One significant energy transport mechanism is the water cycle, which, of course, has a complicated relationship with thermometer readings. Outgoing radiation itself depends on the fourth power of local temperature. Therefore, the arithmetic calculation of the “Global Average Temperature” tells you nothing useful about energy balance, much less about local climate. And I haven’t even addressed the saturation effect of IR wavelengths by CO2, which is not linear.
Be sure to included H2O which covers 71% of the earth’s surface. Shown below in
Fig. 7 is the IR absorption spectrum of Philadelphia inner city air from 400 t0 4,000 wavenumbers. Integration of the spectrum determined that H2O absorbed 92% of the IR light and CO2 only 8%
Use Google to obtain the essay: Climate Change Reexamined” by Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can downloaded for free. Fig 7. was prepared by the
Australian sherro01.
This is especially true if all one uses is (Tmax-Tmin)/2 to get the average.
“I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It’s not.”
Yes it is.
It is not as you present it scientific terminology, it is what is known as an ‘empty signifier’, that is word or expression – stripped of its actual meaning – used as a vehicle to carry what ever message the speaker wants.
Anthropogenic global warming means: ManBad destroying Planet by burning fossil fuels; causes catastrophic climate change, must pay $quadrillions, do penance, be punished to save Earth and future generations.
The whole problem here is those who challenge it play the game as if it is about science, therefore science rules apply, but it’s a political and ideological game where the rules, lying, cheating, bullying, censoring apply. The Great Unwashed don’t heed the science, just the scare mongering and propaganda – as the they did during the CoVid “pandemic”.
You can’t beat an opposition team if it’s playing by a different set of rules and the referee, umpire and crowd are on their side.
Strike anthropogenic form the expression and it becomes an agreeable comment.
The policy is the scam because:
All Scammers allege to be from an organization or agency
All Scammers mention a problem that needs your immediate attention, or else bad things happen.
All Scammers pressure you to act immediately.
All Scammers tell you that you must pay.
These are the warning signs that lead thinking people to reject scams.
Great four points.
A hoax is sort of whimsical, and usually not for profit. Big foot, jackalopes, crop circles, flying saucers & UFOs, Loch Ness monster and lots of other stuff where people enjoy being fooled by something relatively benign. Harold Camping fits the definition. People willingly pay money to see the headless woman at the county fair.
Piltdown man is the classic hoax
Indeed, a hoax does not threaten a person with the loss or impairment of life, liberty or property, nor is it effected by coercive means. By this simple test, CAGW is clearly seen for what it is – the Left’s currently preferred means to achieve its desired end of absolute political power.
Didn’t Angstrom’s assistant show that at 300ppm, all of the spectrum CO2 absorbs is all absorbed. Adding more CO2 adds no more warming.
Ångström’s 1900 paper (english translation) was About the importance of water vapor and carbon dioxide during the absorption of the Earth’s atmosphere Title is link to pdf.
Conclusion:
Under no circumstances should carbon dioxide absorb more than 16 percent of terrestrial radiation, and the size of this absorption varies quantitatively very little, as long as there is not less than 20 percent of the existing value. The main alteration caused by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, is that the absorption exerted by the carbon dioxide (about 16 percent of the radiation) is only completed by a thicker atmospheric layer, so that the heat is a little more dispersed in the atmosphere.
https://rclutz.com/2020/05/25/pick-your-a-team-arrhenius-or-angstrom/
Hi Chris! you write:
“So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled”.
Where is the legitimate scientific basis behind the global warming theory?
The theory is based on blackbody theory which only applies to vaccuum. Further if upwelling radiation at TOA equals downwelling – no net warming can be created?
Earth atmosphere has never reached equilibrium as far as ice cores suggest. What is the actual Global average temperature (earlier definitions claimed it was 15C or 288K) now NOAA claims it is the mean of 1900-1999 = 13,9C?
Why have we seen at least two climate maximums during the last 2000 years, when human CO2 had no chance to play a role?
And why was the medieval warm periode warmer than now (which is documented by a lot of historical evidence as Vikings grew barley on Geenland (which they are not yet able to), people find human artifacts behind the melting glaciers in Norway, mountain tree-lines are found higher up than now, mos a found 50m beneath the Longyear glacier which can be c14 dated back to time of the Vikings etc.)?
What is the portion of natural warming compared to the warming from increased CO2?
Why increased solar irradiation do to the less cloudiness over the NH as measured by CERES satellites explain all the warming by now?
Why can the Norwegian Statistical Bureau find NO signal of CO2 warming when they analyse the temperature and CO2 curve?
Why do CO2 always follow the temperature and not otherwise?
Why did the previous ice age just stop?
etc etc.
kind regards
SteenR
The mean global sea surface has not warmed by 1.2°C. Warming phases of the AMO from 1925 and from 1995 are a response to weaker solar wind states, via negative NAO regimes. And the warmer SST’s cause a reduction in low cloud cover.
Correlations of global sea surface temperatures with the solar wind speed:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360
“Global warming” discussions focus almost exclusively on the issue of Radiatively Active Gases (called Greenhouse Gases). Heat is an energy transfer – a flow -, while thermal energy is the energy due to the motion of atoms and molecules.
Consider what is produced when you light a match, burn wood, coal, gas, or leaves and acorns from your messy oak tree. These, and other activities, produce energy. Eating a peach! 🍑
With people number 8,161,972,572 (+) engaged in such energy producing activities: How much? Where does it go?
Asking for a friend.
So far the Climate Crusaders haven’t screamed about how much CO2 is emitted from all those 8.1 Billion noses. I’m sure they will get around to it. In a polite discussion about environmental issues, the average liberal usually brings up too many people on the planet and population control. It’s not too much of a stretch for them to include how much that will reduce emissions. I usually tell ’em, “You first”
All the CO2 in the life cycles of plants and animals is “Good CO2”. The CO2 produced by the use of FF is “Bad CO2”.
Nature doesn’t know the difference, other than all of it being beneficial to LIFE.
Yes the “there’s too many humans on this planet” crowd never looks in the mirror when searching for “volunteers” for the “cull” they insist is “necessary.”
I strongly urge people to stop calling
anthropogenicglobal warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It’s not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.Fixed it.
There is a scientific bases for global warming as well as global cooling. There are a multitude of factors that are not considered because someone judged them as insignificant.
A flat earth static model leading to a calculation of 0.6% energy imbalance and the little factors are not worth considering?
Bull.
The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled.
Some details:
Scientists in the 1800s, over a dozen on record, measured atmospheric CO2. Their reports are included in the various journals of the day. All one can review is photo scanned copies.
Very interesting. The atmospheric CO2 in 1820 was nearly identical to today. The atmospheric CO2 in 1850 to 1880 was the lowest in the 19th century. Funny how 1880 is chosen as the starting point.
Scientists managed to get a 3 km ice core sample in Greenland. They made precise measurements and guess what? The Roman era was warm. So was the Medieval Optimum. LIA was cold.
Very interesting. In the early 1800s, centered about what appears to be 1820, the temperature was up to the highest level in the 1700-1900 timeframe. The temperature in the 1850 to 1880 timeframe was the lowest in the 19th century. Funny how 1880 is chosen as the starting point.
You should give the references to E.-G. Beck’s papers in EE journal.
I am at work. I am transitioning to a new computer. I was compelled to delete my bookmarks and notepad files as part of this.
Unfortunate, but necessary.
Chris, I also am concerned with language. I have no problem with anthropogenic global warming. I have said time and again that we skeptics should insist that those pushing net zero and a carbon free power system refer to their concerns as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. But they never do because they are cowards and liars. They speak of climate change and expect us to turn our lives upside down because of climate change. That is a scam and a hoax I don’t care how you look at it. I am with you they need to change the way they talk.
Gotta love these articles that start out claiming there is “general agreement” on a list of things there is no agreement on. What a waste of words.
The claimed increase (+0.35°C) occurred in the global average temperature from the 1910s to the 1940s, followed by a slight cooling (-0.1°C) by 1075. Those numbers are wild estimates not useful for science. The cooling period was initially reported in 1975 as a much larger number.
The post -1975 warming of about +0.8 degrees C. is larger than the 1910 to 1940 very rough estimate. They are not equal as the article claims. One likely reason is warming from CO2 emission increased what would have been a mild natural warming after 1975.
The article should have spent more time on the facts that warmer winters and better plant growth are the result of CO2 emissions. Since both are good news, the exact cause of the warming is not that important. If warming had been bad news, the cause(s) would be much more important.
I await the CO2 Does Nothing, There Is No AGW and CO2 Is 97% Natural crackpot comments for my amusement. Or a stray leftist claiming CO2 killed his dog.
“I await the CO2 Does Nothing.” You no longer have to wait.
Shown in the graphic (See below) are plots of temperatures in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv (i.e., 0.595 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv (i.e., 0.729 g of CO2/ cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the dry air at this arid desert site. The empirical field data showed that CO2 does not heat the desert air and therefore can not global warming. The reason is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air.
The graphic was obtained from the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at: http://www.John-Daly.com.
BTW: I thank you for the CO2 concentration data which you posted to me in a comment awhile ago.
“but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the dry air at this arid desert site. ”
And the Current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 424ppm
A more than 50% increase from thepre-industrial 280ppm
An up-to-date graph from Roy Spencer….
“The empirical field data showed that CO2 does not heat the desert air and therefore can not global warming. The reason is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air.”
On the contrary it does show that CO2 “heats the air”.
It has to as it’s a GHG.
The above shows the increasing trend following the introduction of clean air acts
Wrong to attribute it to just one factor.
Read your first line and quit reading. Insults are not a way to get a favorable review.
“One likely reason is warming from CO2 emission increased”
We await RG producing one single bit of real scientific evidence to back that up.
Try again RG.. Don’t keep being a complete failure.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
You can’t keep running away forever. !
We are still waiting for you to show us some AGW other than urban warming.
Even your beloved IPCC says human CO2 flux is only 4% of total flux, a fact you seem incapable of comprehending.
“They are not equal as the article claims”
It used to be, until they “adjusted™” the data
Yes, and the 1880’s, the 1930’s, and current-day temperatures should all be on the same horizontal line on the chart as all were equally warm.
The temperatures today are no warmer than the high temperatures in the 1880’s and 1930’s, so even though CO2 has increases from 1880 to today, it is no warmer today than in the past which means CO2 has had no discernible effects on the Earth’s temperatures.
It’s a BIG LIE to claim today is the warmest period in human history as the Climate Alarmists do (and some misinformed skeptics).
The Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick computer-generated global temperature record is the biggest Scam in scientific history. It fools alarmists and skeptics alike, as it was created to do.
The bastardizers ought to go to jail for Fraud.
The only way CO2 does anything is if you accept the proposition that the planet’s temperature would be -18ºC without the ‘greenhouse effect’. Dr Markus Ott explains ‘greenhouse’ theory, why it is garbage and presents a more logical explanation of the planet’s temperature in 2 short videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj6ORbRBZ2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXKHfL55G2A
Only common sense and logic needed for comprehension, No PHD required. There is no ‘greenhouse effect’, therefore no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’.
Other videos in the series at:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL89cj_OtPeenkOm6CMmDLxO1SXONul2c7
But as you are so set in your religious belief I doubt you will even watch them.
Good article but he did not convince me there is no scam involved.