If you understood the greenhouse effect you wouldn't be asking such basic questions, based off a false claim.
Once you ask a question that's based on correct assumptions, I'll answer it.
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Once you ask a question that's based on correct assumptions, I'll answer it.
It's the effect of CO2 on radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the combined effect of ALL factors.
You are just wrong. You are desperate to find a way to cling to your religious, faith based belief and grasping at straws.
The article couldn't be clearer.
Which claim is false, do you have a problem with the US Department of Energy's numbers for atmospheric composition.
The greenhouse effect is not the issue, now that we agree that water vapour is the largest part of the greenhouse effect equation.
I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, because it seems your saying the "primary driver" of the greenhouse effect is man made CO2.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 275ppm and fairly stable at that level for thousands of years.
Historically its taken about 5-10,000 years to increase CO2 by about 100ppm, we've done it in just over 100 years.
CO2 levels are now over 400ppm, so we've increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 50%.
So the correct statement would be 'which part of the ~30% of man made CO2 levels in the atmosphere is the primary driver'.
And that statement is still incorrect. While C02 (man-made & natural) went from 275ppm - 400ppm, man-made is a fraction of natural, not the total increase.
Water vapour is 50000ppm and is by far the largest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So your argument that man made CO2 is the primary driver doesn't hold water.
Actually, CO2 levels have been rising steadily for 20,000 years since the end of the last glacial maximum, CO2 was ~200ppm (~20 kyr BP) and climbed to 285ppm (1850 AD). During our last interglacial, the Eemian, temperatures we're about 5°C warmer than today, so it seems to me the natural process of interglacial warming peaked during the Holocene maximum, ~7.5 kyr BP, when it was warmer than it is today. And if you look at the earth's temperature for the last the last 18 kyr, and take into consideration the interglacial periods only last 15 kyr - 20 kyr, it looks like we should be thankful that it's still warm enough to survive.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
I'm not denying that man-made CO2 contibutes .2 W/m2 per decade of additional heat, all greenhouse gases emit back radiation.
My concern is that TSI is declining from 1368 W/m2 in 1978 to 1361 W/m2 today.
To me, it doesn't appear that enough energy is reaching earth to sustain the natural warming we have experienced over the last 18 kyr.
and our additional man made .2 W/m2 is only masking the larger issue, we have no idea how low TSI can go, but we now know it's no longer constant.
You should have read the basics on the greenhouse effect I linked you to.
The increase in CO2 is from human activity, there has never been a natural increase in CO2 of that level that has happened so fast.
Burning fossil fuels, deforestation, industry....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
What 'natural' cause for CO2 are you claiming has happened to increase levels so fast?
And once again, water vapour is a feedback item, it will increase globally due to temperature changes more then any other effect.
Again, CO2 does change naturally, but historically it would take 5-10,000 years to change as much as we have in the last 100 years through human activity.
Just because it happens naturally as well doesn't mean that change is good for us.
Lightning happens naturally as well, but are you going to go climb the tallest tree during a thunderstorm?
Showing examples where the global climate changed by 5ºC with massive CO2 changes should only show you that we don't want the planet to do that again by our own hands.
I'm trying to wrap my head around a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, 285ppm - 400ppm, how much is man made & how much is natural.
Are we to assume that because the rate of change preceding 1880 is natural, everything added after is 100% human.
Are we supposed to ignore that CO2 is but 1 greenhouse gas and water vapor, which accounts for 95% (~50000ppm) of atmospheric greenhouse gases, is meaningless.
From the study, 22ppm of CO2 (human & natural) added to the atmosphere between 2000-2010 was calculated to add .2 W/m2 of heat over that period.
170ppm has been added since 1880, so the planet should have warmed an extra 1.7 W/m2.
1 watt = 1 joule, it takes 1 joule to heat dry air by 1°C.
It doesn't seem like .2°C warming per decade really make a difference.
It goes back to the fact we are in an interglacial period, our earth naturally emits CO2 from melting permafrost, decaying organics and other natural sources.
From 1850 until 1950 our planet experienced a natural warming period, after the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800's, which allowed more natural CO2 into the atmosphere.
water vapour also regulates the temperature balance between ocean's and atmosphere, less TSI means the upper stratosphere cools, the ocean's release heat to maintain
balance which only makes life more miserable for us on the surface as the water vapour heats closer to the surface.
Unfortunately, I can't find any info on CO2 ppm counts for the last interglacial. But the fact we're in one right now and we're nearing the end of an average interglacial life cycle, I would think humans would start caring how can we keep our planet warm and habitable when the cycle continues to glacial maximum. But we're preoccupied with making the planet cooler, which is going to happen anyway.
From 1850 on all CO2 increases in the atmosphere were from humans, there was no 'natural' warming period then.
Bad science.
Check again.
We don't want an ice age just as much as we don't want warming of 5ºC either.
Other then your crackpots like Corbyn, ice age really isn't a concern right now.
Its all warming.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-low-water-levels-to-record-highs-in-3-years/
Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.
This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.
In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”
According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.
For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.
The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.
Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.
But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.
In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.
The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.
In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.
Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.
Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”
The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.
On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.
Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.
What a difference a few years makes.
Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.
This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.
In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”
According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.
For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.
The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.
Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.
But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.
In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.
The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.
In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.
Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.
Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”
The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.
On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.
Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.
What a difference a few years makes.
The only moving goal post is your ever-changing definition of "climate change."
The impact of CO2 is too small to worry about. The AGW hypothesis is based on presumptions about the feedback from water vapour. That is a total unknown, meaning the AGW hypothesis remains unproven.
Your paper said that the figure it cited was "solely" for CO2 and only represented 10% of the energy measured.
If the number cited represented "ALL" of the forcing, it would be 100%, not 10%.
You're wrong.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around his claim that a researcher who thinks 99% of the warming is due to natural factors is a believer in "anthropogenic climate change."Frank you do realize you didn't even know what anthropogenic means, don't you?
In Sesame Street English there is no need to add human caused before OR after Anthropogenic. It already is.
Quite clearly, he doesn't know what "anthropogenic" means. :biggrin1:
- Status
