Home/BlogSome commenters on my previous blog post, Net Zero CO2 Emissions: A Damaging and Totally Unnecessary Goal, were dubious of my claim that nature will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at about the same rate even if anthropogenic emissions decrease…or even if they were suddenly eliminated.
Rather than appeal to the simple CO2 budget model I created for that blog post, let’s look at the published data from the 123 (!) authors the IPCC relies upon to provide their best estimate of CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere, the Global Carbon Project team. I created the following chart from their data spreadsheet available here. Updated yearly, the 2023 report shows that their best estimate of the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by land and ocean processes has increased along with the rise in atmospheric CO2. This plot is from their yearly estimates, 1850-2022.
The two regression line fits to the data are important, because they imply what will happen in the future as CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. In the case of the nonlinear fit, which has a slightly better fit to the data (R2 = 89.3% vs. 88.8%) the carbon cycle is becoming somewhat less able to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. This is what carbon cycle modelers expect to happen, and there is some weak evidence that is beginning to occur. So, let’s conservatively assume that nonlinear rate of removal (a gradual decrease in nature’s ability to sequester excess atmospheric CO2) will exist in the coming decades as a function of atmospheric CO2 content.
A Modest CO2 Reduction Scenario
Now, let’s assume a 1% per year cut in emissions (both fossil fuel burning and deforestation) in each year starting in 2024. That 1% per year cut is nowhere near the Net Zero goal of eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050 or 2060, which at this point seems delusional since humanity remains so dependent upon fossil fuels. The resulting future trajectory of atmospheric CO2 looks like this:
This shows that rather modest cuts in global CO2 emissions (33% by 2063) would cause CO2 concentrations to stabilize in about 40 years, with a peak CO2 value of 460 ppm. This is only 2/3 of the way to “2XCO2” (a doubling of estimated pre-Industrial CO2 levels).
How Much Global Warming Would be Caused Under This Scenario?
Assuming all of the atmospheric CO2 rise is due to human activities, and further assuming all climate warming is due to that CO2 rise, the resulting eventual equilibrium warming (delayed by the time it takes for mixing to warm the deep oceans) would be about 1.2 deg.C assuming the observations-based Effective Climate Sensitivity (EffCS) value of 1.9 deg. C we published last year (Spencer & Christy, 2023). Using the Lewis and Curry (2018) value around 1.6-1.7 deg. C would result in even less future warming.
And that’s if no further cuts in emissions are made beyond the 33% cuts vs. 2023 emissions. If the 1% per year cuts continue past the 2060s, as is shown in the 2nd graph above, the CO2 content of the atmosphere would then decline, and future warming would not be in response to 460 ppm, which was reached only briefly in the early 2060s. It would be a still lower value than 1.2 deg. C. Note these are below the 1.5 deg. C maximum warming target of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which is the basis for Net Zero policies.
Net Zero is Based Upon a Faulty View of Nature
Net Zero assumes that human CO2 emissions must stop to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2. This is false. The first plot above shows that nature removes atmospheric CO2 at a rate based upon the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and as long as that remains elevated, nature continues to remove CO2 at a rapid rate. Satellite-observed “global greening” is evidence of that over land. Over the ocean, sea water absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in proportion to the difference in CO2 partial pressures between the atmosphere and ocean, that is, the higher the atmospheric CO2 content is, the faster the ocean absorbs CO2.
Neither land nor ocean “knows” how much CO2 we emit in any given year. They only “know” how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.
All that is needed to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 is for yearly anthropogenic emissions to be reduced to the point where they match the yearly removal rate by nature. The Global Carbon Project data suggest that reduction is about 33% below 2023 emissions. And that is based upon the conservative assumption that future CO2 removal will follow the nonlinear curve in the first plot, above, rather than the linear relationship.
Finally, the 1.5 deg. C maximum warming goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement would be easily met under the scenario proposed here, a 1% per year cut in global net emissions (fossil fuel burning plus land use changes), with a total 33% reduction in emissions vs. 2023 by the early 2060s.
I continue to be perplexed why Net Zero is a goal, because it is not based upon the science. I can only assume that the scientific community’s silence on the subject is because politically driven energy policy goals are driving the science, rather than vice versa.
“Neither land nor ocean knows how much CO2 we emit in any given year. They only know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.”
You keep forgetting to mention that the ocean also knows how much Co2 it already contains. And that it is rising in synch with the atmosphere, and staying within 7 ppm of it, so ~ 413 ppm.
So the near surface ocean excess over pre-industrial is 413-280 = 133 ppm.
And the excess of the atm is 140 ppm.
So as far as the near-surface ocean is concerned, it is 133/140 = 95 % of the way to equilibrium with the atmosphere.
But currently only about 30% of the excess atm C has transferred to the ocean. But we know that when the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the full ocean, about 98% of the added CO2 will be in the ocean.
So the atm must be very far from equilibrium with the full ocean, and it will take a loong time to reach that condition.
Nate: How do your comment disagree what I have shown? -Roy
The ocean has a lot of processes that sequester CO2 into mineral carbonates. Remember, the ocean pH is around 8.1 and most (93%) the CO2 is in the form of bi-carbonate ions and two of these ions can be associated with each Calcium or Magnesium ion. When the natural movement of seawater takes to warm shallow seas, atolls form with the help of coral forming polyps and the alkaline earth bicarbonates break down to mineral carbonates which sequesters half CO2 and half gets released to the ocean or the air. The alkaline bicarbonate ions actually become less stable as the water warms leading to a greater tendency to precipitate.
If warmer ocean waters can lead to faster formation of calcium and magnesium carbonates, then the next questions is how much of those alkaline minerals are in the ocean? Simple answer, their concentrations is 8x greater than the bicarbonate concentration so its very unlikely these sequestering agents will ever be depleted, particularly since the ocean already contains about 1000x more CO2 (mostly as bicarbonate ions) than the atmosphere does.
Well for one, you are still neglecting the fact the driving force for carbon to the ocean is the pco2 difference. Without emissions, that difference will become nil, then reverse.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Well for one, you are still neglecting the fact the driving force for carbon to the ocean is the pco2 difference. Without emissions, that difference will become nil, then reverse.”
No, if CO2 enters the ocean, it becomes food for phytoplankton. The CO2 that is converted to calcium carbonate (chalk), falls to the sea floor, and can build up 10 cm per 1000 years. More CO2 comes from the atmosphere, more plankton flourish, and so it goes. Presumably until CO2 levels drop too low, and all photosynthetic organisms die of starvation. Luckily, we are restoring CO2 levels to non-dangerous levels.
The White Cliffs of Dover graphically show what can be made out of CO2 extracted from the atmosphere a little bit at a time.
If you disagree, you might like to let others know why. Otherwise, you might be seen as just another fanatical GHE cultist.
As usual, Swenson focusses on one variable, and ignores all others.
“As usual, Swenson focusses on one variable, and ignores all others.”
Well, that is completely irrelevant, isn’t it?
Nate, please stop trolling.
” and ignores all others”
is what makes your posts rather pointless.
Let’s face it, you are not good at dealing with the least bit of complexity.
Nate,
Appealing to your own authority by writing “Lets face it, you are not good at dealing with the least bit of complexity.”, might demonstrate a lack of intellectual acuity on your part, rather than mine.
Initially, you made the rather simplistic and erroneous statement “Well for one, you are still neglecting the fact the driving force for carbon to the ocean is the pco2 difference. Without emissions, that difference will become nil, then reverse.”
A clear statement – of wishful thinking.
I merely pointed out that you were wrong, and why, and you are furiously trying to avoid facing the reality that you are both ignorant and gullible. Feel free to demonstrate that you are not, if you wish.
A few facts to support your demonstration might help to convince others how clever you are.
Off you go, now.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> might demonstrate
Does it, silly sock puppet?
“Initially, you made the rather simplistic and erroneous statement Well for one, you are still neglecting the fact the driving force for carbon to the ocean is the pco2 difference. Without emissions, that difference will become nil, then reverse.
A clear statement of wishful thinking.
I merely pointed out that you were wrong,”
And I merely pointed out that you mention one variable in the ocean carbon cycle, one of the SLOWEST ones, while neglecting all others.
And thus you were not rebutting my post at all, were you.
It is a shame that you occasionally want your posts to be taken seriously, but all your asinine posts leave you little credibility.
In the first figure, the sinking rate seems to be flattening, after 390 ppm, in 2010.
Similarly there is a flattening of the emissions curve since about 2010.
https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2023/PNG/s50_2023_Global_Sources_and_Sinks.png
But the atm concentration has continued to rise.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/imaunaloa_f.png
So this is not consistent with the sinking rate continuing at 2% of the excess atm concentration, but more consistent with it being an approximately fixed fraction of emissions.
Nate,
Carbon flows through the atmosphere as Berry has shown you. Human carbon does not build up in the atmosphere. The atmospheric level is greater because total emissions are greater.
I guess you didnt read Roy Spencer’s post.
Look at his first graph, which came from this source,
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/,
with all used measurements of carbon fluxes.
The graph clearly shows that all the annual NET CO2 fluxes going into the land and ocean only add up to be about half of human emissions. And have been for many years.
That means about half of human emissions have remained in the atmosphere. And that accounts for the observed growth in concentration.
Sorry that Berry’s theory doesnt agree with these measurements. It must be wrong.
Berry’s Theory has falsified that theory which has no physical basis. Berry’s Theory does. Einstein explained the Principle of Equivalence. Nature (and neither can you) differentiate between a human carbon dioxide and a natural carbon dioxide molecule. The theory you reference starts with an ending and then reverse engineers an explanation. That’s also the problem with Darwinism.
Stephen,
Here’s how Feynman put it:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Berry’s theory doesnt agree with the data. Sorry, its wrong.
Sure it does. He falsified the IPCC’s carbon cycle model in his third paper by using their data. He showed using math and the Equivalence Principle that their model was incorrect.
Fluxes into the ocean and land have been MEASURED, as discussed here:
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023.html
And one of the plots, for example
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-f10-web.png
shows MEASURED annual ocean net fluxes
https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2023/PNG/s50_2023_Global_Sources_and_Sinks.png
which add up to only 26% of human emissions since the 1800s.
This plot
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/essd-15-5301-2023-f09-web.png
shows that the measured sinks, have been only ~ 55% of total emissions since 1850s.
The remainder, 45 % ended up staying in the atmosphere.
It is irrelevant how much some people admire Berry or his theory.
If it disagrees with this data, it is wrong, sorry.
correction:
‘shows that the measured sinks, have been only ~ 55% of total emissions since 1950s’
You do realize those are models? Berry has falsified those models using their data. The carbon dioxide molecule can’t be classified and treated differently by nature based on where it originated, human origin or natural origin. Nature cannot tell the difference. It is the Equivalence Principle. All those models are done by pinheads with a predetermined outcome. They are false science. Berry has shown this.
Let me make it simple for you. You can’t have a human carbon cycle and a natural carbon cycle with different e times. Their e times are the same.
Also, they flow through the atmosphere the same. They flow from the land to the atmosphere, from the atmosphere to the land, from the atmosphere to the surface ocean, from the surface ocean to the atmosphere, and from the surface ocean to the deep ocean the same. There is no difference in their e times or flow constants. They are one in the same. The Equivalence Principle.
“You do realize those are models? Berry has falsified those models using their data.”
Nope. Some models, but also ocean flux data.
You need to open your mind and read.
“The carbon dioxide molecule cant be classified and treated differently by nature based on where it originated, human origin or natural origin.”
An no one is claiming that it is. When are you going to get that?
Simply, there is NET extra CO2 flux into the atmosphere, above that of a century ago, from fossil fuel burning and land clearing.
And as MEASURED, only about 55% of this added amount is removed to the land and ocean. The rest 45%, has remained in the atmosphere. And this has been the pattern for several decades.
And this, from the measured ocean fluxes shown in the paper,
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/5301/2023/#section3
may help you understand:
“The global NET airsea CO2 flux is a residual of large natural and anthropogenic CO2 fluxes into and out of the ocean with distinct regional and seasonal variations (Figs. 6 and B1). Natural fluxes dominate on regional scales but largely CANCEL each other out when integrated globally (Gruber et al., 2009).”
And thus CO2 has accumulated in the atmosphere.
And Berry cannot explain where this growth came from.
> assuming the observations-based Effective Climate Sensitivity (EffCS) value of 1.9 deg. C we published last year (Spencer & Christy, 2023). Using the Lewis and Curry (2018) value around 1.6-1.7 deg. C would result in even less future warming.
Big if true, as these two studies may push the limits of justified disingenuousness.
Willard: Our 2 studies push the limits of “justified disingenuousness”? How so? -Roy
> How so?
Your own source shows that, besides the Russian ones, all models have an ECS above 2. See especially Table 2. If the range is 1.8-5.4 and you insist that it should be 1.9 without considering the other side of that range, chances are you’ll lose that bet. Unless your luck is very warm, of course.
Willard: You are confusing theoretical models with observations-based estimates. Most of the models run too warm, we now know that. The observations say climate sensitivity is closer to 2 deg. C. Even if I assume 2.5 deg. C (which is well within the range of IPCC ECS estimates) I still only get 1.5 deg. C future warming because atmospheric CO2 won’t go higher than about 460 ppm under a 1%/yr emissions reduction scenario. -Roy
> You are confusing theoretical models with observations-based estimates
Then you do too:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-023-04634-7
I started at the Auditor’s, Roy. Please don’t mistake me for a Climateball rookie.
The use of ECS is disingenuous as the equilibrium take 500 years to unfold, and therefore useless for policymakers in this century .
To implicate that ECS is a step function that resolves at year 500 stops being disingenuous. It would completely be irrational. At least trying to conceal the fact that observation-based models are still models looks like an ordinary act of salesmanship.
“I started at the Auditors, Roy. Please dont mistake me for a Climateball rookie.”
Got that gibberish generator running well. Auditor? Climateball? Rookie?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Alarmistic post 2100 forcing scenarios show a flatline after 2100 assuming sink saturation. No present policymaker will live to tell 2100, compare with 1924 policymakers planning for 2000. Even in 1975 the year 2000 was considered far future.
Contrarians who stumble on money flow or confuse the PETM with the PTME should beware silly editorials on formal concepts they do not master very well and focus to make data backups.
Oh yes the PETM with 15C hotter global temperatures when primates migrated via Alaska to America, the flora and fauna was thriving and the only casualties were some cold loving ocean bottom critters.
That PETM?
Ah, yes, the Eocene. When in a short period of time the difference in temperatures from equator to pole changed markedly. Whereas in the Paleocene epoch the difference in seawater temperature between equator and pole was a hefty 17 degrees C, the difference had shrunk to only 6 degrees by early Eocene times. And as the high latitudes warmed, the heat exchange between the two regions slowed, reducing both the number and ferocity of storms. The world went calm and got very hot; a further consequence was mass extinction.
And let’s not forget the stench wafting around the world from rotting sea life.
Good times!
A,
You wrote –
“Ah, yes, the Eocene. When in a short period of time the difference in temperatures from equator to pole changed markedly. Whereas in the Paleocene epoch the difference in seawater temperature between equator and pole was a hefty 17 degrees C, the difference had shrunk to only 6 degrees by early Eocene times. And as the high latitudes warmed, the heat exchange between the two regions slowed, reducing both the number and ferocity of storms. The world went calm and got very hot; a further consequence was mass extinction.
And lets not forget the stench wafting around the world from rotting sea life.
Good times!”
Really?
The world went calm and got very hot? And that was due to magic, aliens, or a mythical “greenhouse effect”, was it?
If someone called you a deranged fanatical GHE cultist, I wouldn’t disagree. Would you?
Mike Flynn,
You seem incredulous –
“The world went calm and got very hot?”
Should anyone care about your silly incredulity?
Even before the Eocene-Oligocene boundary itself, during the early Priabonian, extinction rates went up in connection with falling global temperatures
Cold kills.
Why is the Oligocene called “Oligocene,” again?
The Priabonian was generally warmer than it is today. It is characterized by a greenhouse climate, with elevated global temperatures and high levels of atmospheric CO2. Tropical and subtropical conditions prevailed in many regions, with lush vegetation and diverse ecosystems, including extensive forests and swamps.
A,
You wrote –
“The Priabonian was generally warmer than it is today. It is characterized by a greenhouse climate, with elevated global temperatures and high levels of atmospheric CO2.”
Obviously, if it was warmer then, the surface has cooled to the present temperature. The “high levels of atmospheric CO2” resulted in cooling, rather than heating.
Is this cooling the result of the “greenhouse effect”, do you think? Or are “high levels of atmospheric CO2” supposed to result in higher temperatures, but only sometimes?
A GHE which can make things cooler or according to whim, doesnt seem particularly useful.
Mike Flynn,
Obviously, the fact that geological times with more CO2 in the atmosphere were hotter than today does not disprove the greenhouse effect.
It rather refutes the idea that the Earth is cooling at all times.
Silly sock puppet!
Whinnying Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Obviously, the fact that geological times with more CO2 in the atmosphere were hotter than today does not disprove the greenhouse effect.”
Quite apart from the fact that nobody can describe the mythical “greenhouse effect”, as you admit, CO2 levels were far higher in the past, and the temperature dropped to its present level. No “greenhouse effect” to be seen. Some fanatical GHE cultists claim that the planet has alternately cooled, heated, cooled . . ., for some magical reason – no physical reasons are supplied for such miraculous happenings.
Man no doubt evolved to take advantage of the lower temperatures, and is endeavouring to replace some of the sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.
If you dont like my universe, just ignore it. Live in a fantasy. You might enjoy it.
Mike Flynn,
You fabricate –
> as you admit
You already stole Graham D. Warner’s PSTering.
Are you trying to enter into the gaslighting business?
Silly sock puppet!
Willard, where did I “imply ECS is a step function? Please have a look at the definition of ECS in IPCC TAR: even after 200 years of continuosu CO2 forcing ECS rises barely above TCR.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
Here, Hans:
> The use of ECS is disingenuous as the equilibrium take 500 years to unfold, and therefore useless for policymakers in this century
The unfolding of ECS may not matter that much for processes that become irreversible long before they end.
Irreversible, well that is exactly what is debatable given the present low ocean bottom temperature which is did not happen in geological history for the last 300 million years.
In this context, dearest Hans, “irreversible” has a specific meaning:
https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122
The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this.
Wonky Wee Willy,
From your authority –
“The majority of the CO2 we emit will be soaked up by the ocean over a few hundred years, first being absorbed into the surface waters, and eventually into deeper waters, according to a long-term climate model run by Archer.”
Is the author completely ignorant of the fact that oceanic plankton turn CO2 into roughly half the world’s oxygen, or is he just a fanatical GHE cultist, living in a fantasy?
You are a gullible wee thing, aren’t you?
Mike Flynn,
Are you suggesting you clocked on another link?
It may have taken you more than two years, but at least you now try.
Keep displaying your incredulity, silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Should anyone care about your silly incredulity?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I think the difference between your model and the Bern model is at the longer times scales, where the Bern model has atm carbon persist for hundreds of years.
The fact that you have an ‘equilibrium’ of 295 ppm, instead of 275 ppm suggests that a significant fraction of the CO2 emitted prior to a century ago (or less) is still persisting in the atm.
If so, then a significant fraction of what has been emitted up to the present will persist and still be around a century from now.
Nate: I don’t think you understand what I’ve done in this post. I don’t use a baseline value here, I don’t use “my model”, there is no assumed CO2 equilibrium value… it’s all based upon Global Carbon Project yearly estimates of sources and sinks. Do you not agree that the change in CO2 from one year to the next is just the sum of net sources and sinks? That’s all I’m using. -Roy
True, you don’t use your model here.
I do agree that the change in CO2 from one year to the next is just the sum of net sources and sinks.
But we have had continuous emissions, so we havent tested what will happen to the sink rate when the emissions are shut off.
Your model predicts that, and so does the Bern model, and gives different results.
As I noted, the 295 base in your model suggests a longer persisitence time.
1. The emissions have grown ~ exponentially since 1900.
2. That means the cumulative emissions, which is the integral of emissions , will also grow exponentially, times a constant.
3. It appears that the faction of annual emissions sunk to the sinks is ~ constant 50%.
4. Your model has the fraction of cumulative emissions sunk to the sinks is a constant.
So it is not clear that 4 isn’t just an artifact of 1-3.
Nate,
As mankind creates more heat by producing and using energy of various types, “emissions” of some unstated type will probably rise.
Certainly, burning fossil fuels creates CO2 and H2O at a minimum. Are these the “emissions” to which you refer?
Maybe you are concerned about CO2 in particular, for some strange reason.
Plants die when deprived of CO2, and so will humanity – when deprived of plants and the O2 which they emit.
If you believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be limited to a particular concentration, you can no doubt quantify it, and provide the reasons for this concentration. I’m joking of course, you are just another fanatical GHE cultist, who refuses to be pinned down to specifics.
Very convenient, as you can’t be expected to justify anything at all. You can just claim you didn’t say anything definite! A cunning ploy – if everyone else is as gullible and ignorant as you believe.
Maybe they are.
“Plants die when deprived of CO2, and so will humanity when deprived of plants and the O2 which they emit.”
Nah, we have been over this before. Humanity flourished for millenia under your ‘plants-will-starve’ conditions.
You were just being alarmist.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Nah, we have been over this before. Humanity flourished for millenia under your “plants-will-starve” conditions.”
Well no, plants have always had access to enough CO2 to survive, if not to flourish as well as they could. You can play with semantics all you like, but without CO2, plant life dies. No plants, no people.
Are you opposed to putting CO2 back into the atmosphere? You dont seem to have any specific objections, just the usual fanatical GHE cultist belief in some sort of unspecified adverse consequences of something or other, sometime, somewhere.
All a bit vague, but if you want to worry on my behalf, go your hardest. I can’t be bothered, and I have no intention of starving while I freeze in the dark.
Nature created fossil fuels. Man evolved to take advantage of nature’s bounty. If you don’t like my reality, go create your own.
No skin off my nose.
“Well no, plants have always had access to enough CO2 to survive, if not to flourish as well as they could. You can play with semantics all you like, but without CO2, plant life dies. No plants, no people.”
Oh! You thought ending fossil fuel emissions will somehow remove ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere?
OMG.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Oh! You thought ending fossil fuel emissions will somehow remove ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere?”
Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels. I suppose you are going to claim that it would be “impossible” for plant life to become extinct due to insufficient food being available.
You have some reason for believing that nature gives a tinker’s curse for your fantasies?
I’d welcome a little comedic relief while you attempt to support your unsupported implication.
Go for it.
Another poster summed it up well:
“You lose all credibility when you insult and make asinine statements like:
‘Unfortunately, fanatical GHE cultists desire the extermination of all life on the planet by removing CO2.'”
Nate,
You wrote
“Oh! You thought ending fossil fuel emissions will somehow remove ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere?”
Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels. I suppose you are going to claim that it would be “impossible” for plant life to become extinct due to insufficient food being available.
You have some reason for believing that nature gives a tinkers curse for your fantasies?
I’d welcome a little comedic relief while you attempt to support your unsupported implication.
Go for it.
“Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels. ”
No it didnt. The more your repeat this stoopidity, the more credibility you lose.
Keep it up!
Nate,
You wrote
“Oh! You thought ending fossil fuel emissions will somehow remove ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere?”
Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels. I suppose you are going to claim that it would be “impossible” for plant life to become extinct due to insufficient food being available.
You have some reason for believing that nature gives a tinkers curse for your fantasies?
Id welcome a little comedic relief while you attempt to support your unsupported implication.
Go for it – you might need something better than appealing to your own authority, and saying “No it didn’t.”
Mike Flynn,
You proclaim –
> Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels.
On which authority do you hold that, your own, silly sock puppet?
Silly sock puppet!
Mike Flynn,
You attest –
> Of course.
So after commenting on Climateball blogs for more than 15 years you still do not know that part of the CO2 we dump in the atmosphere is basically forever?
Silly sock puppet!
“Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels.”
Nah. You offer nothing in the way of evidence to support this asinine claim.
“Nah. You offer nothing in the way of evidence to support this asinine claim.”
I suppose you think that your “Nah.” Is superior to four and a half billion years of history?
If you believe that nature does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, an$ turn it into fossil fuels, chalk, and so on, you obviously have but a tenuous grip on reality.
What’s wrong with more CO2 in the atmosphere anyway? You can’t quite put your finger on it, can you? That’s because you are a fanatical GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!
Not very convincing Nate. Appealing to your own authority is even more pathetic than appealing to authorities who don’t support you!
Try harder – “Nah.” Is not all that convincing.
“Is superior to four and a half billion years of history?”
Nah.
Where is the evidence in that history to support your asinine claims that ‘Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels.’ ?
“Nah. You offer nothing in the way of evidence to support this asinine claim.”
I suppose you think that your “Nah.” Is superior to four and a half billion years of history?
If you believe that nature does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, an$ turn it into fossil fuels, chalk, and so on, you obviously have but a tenuous grip on reality.
Whats wrong with more CO2 in the atmosphere anyway? You cant quite put your finger on it, can you? Thats because you are a fanatical GHE cultist who cant even describe the GHE!
Not very convincing Nate. Appealing to your own authority is even more pathetic than appealing to authorities who dont support you!
Try harder “Nah.” Is not all that convincing.
“Where is the evidence in that history to support your asinine claims”
By omission then, you are admitting that you have no evidence to support your asinine claims.
Thanks.
When caught making unsupportable asine claims:
Natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere resulted in dangerously low levels. ?
Swenson tries to morph them into something else, hoping no one will notice:
“If you believe that nature does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, an$ turn it into fossil fuels, chalk, and so on, you obviously have but a tenuous grip on reality.”
Notice the absence of “dangerously low levels.”
Oh well, we all knew he was a fraud.
Given that slavery ended because of unlocking fossil fuel technologies, the only logical outcome of Net Zero is a return to slavery.
Nix Net Zero
Bad at logic are we?
I guess when fossil fuels run out on their own, we’ll have to bring slavery back?
Hopefully there will be technologies that can replace fossil fuels.
I’m not holding my breath.
I sometimes wonder if the whole green agenda is about obfuscating the fact of our already being well beyond peak oil.
Reversion to slavery and serfdom is the outcome we should be planning for when fossil fuels peter out.
All that Net Zero does is hasten the inevitable.
“Reversion to slavery and serfdom is the outcome we should be planning for when fossil fuels peter out.”
You better start prepping, then.
Just read ‘Going off the grid for dummies’.
Obviously you don’t agree.
What do you think will happen when access to fossil fuels ends?
Before you go maundering about technologies that don’t exist … recall fusion power and how its been one step away from reality for over 60 years and counting …
“Bad at logic are we?”
Nate, please stop trolling.
“Just read Going off the grid for dummies.”
was supposed to be a hint, Ken.
How is it that people can be off the grid these days?
In the UK, currently renewables are beating fossil fuels in their share of total energy.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable
“December 2023 was the 15th month in a row where zero-carbon generation produced more than fossil fuel generation.”
Nate,
Why would any sensible person want to go “off the grid” apart from religious or other philosophical reasons?
If people prefer masochism, or believing they are occupying some lofty moral high ground by choosing to starve while they freeze in the dark, good luck to them.
You arent going to demonstrate the courage of your convictions any time soon, are you? Just another fanatical GHE cultist – full of advice for others.
That buzzing gnat again..
Nate,
Why would any sensible person want to go “off the grid” apart from religious or other philosophical reasons?
If people prefer masochism, or believing they are occupying some lofty moral high ground by choosing to starve while they freeze in the dark, good luck to them.
You aren’t going to demonstrate the courage of your convictions any time soon, are you? Just another fanatical GHE cultist full of advice for others.
That repetitive asinine noise again..
Swenson
I’d be most pleased if you never again participate in any discussion I am involved in.
‘Buzz’ off.
Ken,
You wrote –
“Id be most pleased if you never again participate in any discussion I am involved in.”
I see no reason to disagree with your desire for pleasure. Maybe you should keep your discussions private in future? I’d be most pleased if someone could at least describe the GHE in some way which agrees with reality.
I assume you have no desire to please me. Would I be correct?
I’ve been watching the data and debate for many decades now. The proposed reasonable cuts are more reasonable — but the are also still not very likely.
A few observations:
1) The Capitalist West could cease to exist tomorrow and human CO2 emissions would continue to rise. If we are on a collision with disaster, the underdeveloped world is in the driver’s seat.
2) Climate alarmists are their own worst enemy. If they were serious about CO2’s destructive power they would 1) Actively be pushing nuclear as fast as possible and 2) Actively banning superfluous, massive emitters like private jets, supercars, and yachts.
But since Nuclear is also bad despite the science and Climate Sacrifice is not for the 1%, I’ll just continue to watch and laugh.
” Nuclear is also bad”
Nah, just more expensive than other renewables.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Nah, just more expensive than other renewables.”
What’s that got to do with anything?
Maybe you live in a poverty stricken area? There are currently about 60 nuclear plants being constructed around the world, with about 300 proposed for the future.
You could always move to a richer and more advanced country, if yours cant afford to keep up with the rest of the world.
Mike Flynn,
Do you make so much money that you do not care about the price of things anymore?
Silly sock puppet!
I sincerely hope Swenson is not in business or investing. He seems to think a business that makes the identical product as others do, but at a higher cost, is a good investment.
Is there anything Swenson is good at?
“Do you make so much money that you do not care about the price of things anymore?”
Pretty much – within limits, of course. Why do you ask?
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> Pretty much.
Then how about you donate Roy 1K per month for your PSTering and your bad red clown act?
“Then how about you donate Roy 1K per month for your PSTering and your bad red clown act?”
Jealous, are you? So sad, too bad.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Instead of looking at rates, would it be possible to look at total accumulation. The carbon has to go somewhere. For different rate scenarios, it should be possible to look at the total accumulation at that time, and then determine what the ocean and green planet would look like at that time. Do those quantities then look realistic?
How is what you are asking different from the second graph? It’s the running sum of emissions minus sinks.
I guess my question would be to simply confirm that the ocean and green planet actually have the capacity to hold those quantities. How much additional biomass does that represent, and what is the new concentration of CO2 and bicarbonate in the new ocean?
I can offer a back of the envelope estimate. I understand that the important issues are the partial pressure in the atmosphere (very closely related to the ppmv value at see level) and the concentration in the ocean which should be variable at the surface depending on the temperature, since that effects the Henry’s Law Constant. The question I am interested in concerns the effect on the ocean of the increased uptake. This is the capacity question and not the rate question.
Here is my very simple analysis: Reasonable estimates predict that there is currently 50 times more CO2 in the ocean than the atmosphere. Therefore, if half of the current quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere goes into the ocean, then the total CO2 content will increase by just 1%. It then seems that the diffusion rate into the deep ocean becomes an important factor in the overall rate analysis.
Tim,
The arguments made herein typically don’t address what happens to the CO2 in the longer run which, it seems, is what you are leading to.
Instead of thinking about inorganic chemistry, think organic.
The C in the oceans will be used in photosynthesis by plant life, just as on land. Some of this will be consumed by animals, some will just die and sink to the floor. As that C is taken from the ocean and deposited on the floor, more is able to be taken from the atmosphere.
In the long run, a new layer of carbon becomes part of the ocean floor, turning into a fossil layer, and thus more fossil fuel becomes existent, to be used by future beings millions of years from now. (not so long in the geological time frames)
The same is true of land, but in dying, most C returns to the atmosphere.
For me, if the scary monster of CO2 is real, then I believe it is a good thing. Warmer is better than colder. The idea that some subjective amount of CO2 in the ATM is best is wrong. We can’t make that happen and, if as Dr. Spencer points out, CO2 concentrations start dropping, they won’t stop, just because they reach some idealized amount and the climate will continue to cool, wreaking havoc.
“if as Dr. Spencer points out, CO2 concentrations start dropping, they wont stop, just because they reach some idealized amount and the climate will continue to cool, wreaking havoc.”
Very strange ideas, Lewis.
Before fossil fuels were burned, we had stable CO2 concentrations, and no havoc as a result.
In all of human history, the fossil fuel period will just be a brief interlude.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Before fossil fuels were burned, we had stable CO2 concentrations, and no havoc as a result”
I don’t agree, and I believe that you are away with the fairies so to speak. Enmeshed in some fanatical GHE cultist fantasy.
The very existence of fossil fuels indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher in the past. The Earth still cooled.
Why would you believe that CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by natural processes would stop at your behest? That’s about as silly as believing in a GHE that you cannot even describe, or thinking that climate can be prevented from changing!
You are not really that silly, are you?
“I dont agree”
but offer nothing to support this feeling. Oh well!
Nate,
You wrote
Before fossil fuels were burned, we had stable CO2 concentrations, and no havoc as a result
I dont agree, and I believe that you are away with the fairies so to speak. Enmeshed in some fanatical GHE cultist fantasy.
The very existence of fossil fuels indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher in the past. The Earth still cooled.
Why would you believe that CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by natural processes would stop at your behest? Thats about as silly as believing in a GHE that you cannot even describe, or thinking that climate can be prevented from changing!
You are not really that silly, are you?
You obviously missed “The very existence of fossil fuels indicates that atmospheric CO2 levels were far higher in the past. The Earth still cooled.” No stable CO2 concentrations. Your fantasies are no substitute for facts.
Asinine unsupported claims, when repeated, are surprisingly just as asinine!
In the past, CO2 levels were far higher than the present (if the assumption that present fossil fuel reserves, chalk deposits and so on, came from CO2 in the atmosphere).
Before the first liquid water appeared, all of the most important “greenhouse gas” was in the atmosphere.
Internal radiogenic heat generation was orders of magnitude greater. Notwithstanding the highest atmospheric “greenhouse gas” levels, the surface cooled anyway.
In spite of the fact that the surface has cooled to its present temperatures (roughly -90 C to +90 C), some people believe that CO2 or pixie dust or something in the atmosphere has heated the surface recently, but cannot say why, exactly.
Maybe it is supposed to be due to a mysterious “greenhouse effect” which nobody at all can describe in any way which agrees with reality, but nobody seems to be sure.
Even NASA seems a wee bit confused, and after rambling on at great length, eventually says “As solar heating and “back radiation” from the atmosphere raise the surface temperature, the surface simultaneously releases an increasing amount of heatequivalent to about 117 percent of incoming solar energy.”
This indicates that for every 100 joules absorbed by the surface, the temperature rises until the surface radiates 117 joules – by magic, perhaps. Obviously, this can’t continue, because the surface would just keep getting hotter, and eventually melt! Not to worry, the NASA experts say “Because the maximum possible amount of incoming sunlight is fixed by the solar constant (which depends only on Earths distance from the Sun and very small variations during the solar cycle), the natural greenhouse effect does not cause a runaway increase in surface temperature on Earth.”
So when does this miraculous heating start and stop? It’s a great mystery, which NASA can’t explain. Complete nonsense, of course. An object on the surface gets hotter in the Sun, and cools after sunset.
No heating due to CO2 at all. No “greenhouse effect” resulting in increased temperatures.
Net zero is just pure silliness – a triumph of collective madness, flying in the face of reality.
“No heating due to CO2 at all. No greenhouse effect resulting in increased temperatures.”
Somebody is saying stuff, but its not making sense and just sounds like background noise.
Nate,
I wrote “No heating due to CO2 at all. No greenhouse effect resulting in increased temperatures.”
I am assuming you don’t agree, but you are too intellectually deficient to be able to say why.
Others are free to make their own assumptions, based on their own assessments.
Maybe you could say something like “Somebody is saying stuff, but its not making sense and just sounds like background noise.”, and hope that someone, somewhere might value your opinion.
Let me know if you are able to name such a person. I can laugh twice as hard, if I try.
Carry on.
I keep hearing a that buzzing noise. Must be a gnat that needs swatting.
Nate,
I wrote “No heating due to CO2 at all. No greenhouse effect resulting in increased temperatures.”
I am assuming you dont agree, but you are too intellectually deficient to be able to say why.
Others are free to make their own assumptions, based on their own assessments.
Maybe you could say something like “Somebody is saying stuff, but its not making sense and just sounds like background noise.”, and hope that someone, somewhere might value your opinion.
Let me know if you are able to name such a person. I can laugh twice as hard, if I try.
Carry on.
By the way, don’t blame me for your defective comprehension. You appear to be trying to listen to the written word. No wonder you believe you are hearing things that don’t exist. Do you hear voices as well?
[he’s obviously not the brightest bulb in the box]
Mike Flynn,
You say –
> I wrote
You rather declared by fiat.
Silly sock puppet!
The more you repeat your nonsense, the more your posts will be considered background noise, to be safely ignored.
Nate,
I wrote “No heating due to CO2 at all. No greenhouse effect resulting in increased temperatures.”
I am assuming you don’t agree, but you are too intellectually deficient to be able to say why.
Others are free to make their own assumptions, based on their own assessments.
Maybe you could say something like “Somebody is saying stuff, but its not making sense and just sounds like background noise.”, and hope that someone, somewhere might value your opinion.
Let me know if you are able to name such a person. I can laugh twice as hard, if I try.
Carry on.
By the way, dont blame me for your defective comprehension. You appear to be trying to listen to the written word. No wonder you believe you are hearing things that dont exist. Do you hear voices as well?
[hes obviously not the brightest bulb in the box]
Assuming all of the atmospheric CO2 rise is due to human activities, and further assuming all climate warming is due to that CO2 rise, the resulting eventual equilibrium warming (delayed by the time it takes for mixing to warm the deep oceans) would be about 1.2 deg.C assuming the observations-based Effective Climate Sensitivity (EffCS) value of 1.9 deg. C we published last year (Spencer & Christy, 2023). Using the Lewis and Curry (2018) value around 1.6-1.7 deg. C would result in even less future warming.”
These numbers don’t make sense.
Currently we are at ~ 1.25 C (5 y ave) above pre-industrial @ 415 (5 y ave) ppm.
When we were at ~ 1.0 C the CO2 was 385 ppm, about 2010.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
If the current trend continues, we can expect to reach 1.5 C in 10-15 years.
Nate,
“If the current trend continues, we can expect to reach 1.5 C in 10-15 years.”
If my aunt had testicles, i would expect her to be my uncle.
Have you anything of value to contribute? Could you describe the “greenhouse effect”, for example?
Or even explain its role in the surface cooling each night?
No? Colour me unsurprised!
“Could you describe the greenhouse effect, for example?”
Its been described for you many times here by many posters and sources. We’re sorry that you couldn’t understand it all those previous times.
Obviously it is total waste of time to explain science to you.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Its been described for you many times here by many posters and sources.”
In other words, neither you nor anybody else can describe the “greenhouse effect”.
That’s because it’s a myth promoted by fanatical GHE cultists.
Keep pretending – maybe someone will believe you.
Mike Flynn,
How is the fact that Nate described the greenhouse effect many times to you proof that he cannot describe the greenhouse effect?
Silly sock puppet!
“In other words, neither you nor anybody else can describe the greenhouse effect.”
No one?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Oh well, you are just a liar and stoopid.
No one.
Your link mentions the “greenhouse effect” several times, but does not describe it, of course. For example, the author attempts to equate a “greenhouse effect” which he cannot describe, to an insulator, much like Raymond Pierrehumbert who wrote that CO2 is just “planetary insulation”. He couldn’t describe the GHE either.
From your link –
“This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earths surface from the “cold” depths of outer space.” Unfortunately, such an “insulator” would also protect the surface from the fierce rays of the Sun – insulators being equal opportunist in such matters.
As usual, the link you provide contains no description of the “greenhouse effect”.
By the way, if you want to call someone “stupid”, you could at least spell “stupid” correctly.
Go on, have another stupid attempt at trying to describe the GHE.
Good luck.
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist who doesnt read his links]
> does not describe it
Step 1 – Pure, Naked Denial
“Step 1 Pure, Naked Denial”
Of what, precisely?
Willard, please stop trolling.
“Your link mentions the greenhouse effect several times, but does not describe it”
Yes it does:
“Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (IR) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space.
In other words, energy in equals energy out. This is the same concept that governs the temperature of anything; if energy is gained faster than it is lost, warming occurs but if energy is lost faster than it is gained, cooling occurs.
Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, the energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 to 240 watts per square meter. We dont really know for sure because our global observations from spaceborne satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure those flows of radiant energy.
Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankinds burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, slightly less infrared energy is lost to outer space, strengthening the Earths greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface, and at the same time causes the upper atmosphere (especially the stratosphere) to cool. From an energy standpoint, its similar to adding insulation to the walls of a heated house in the winter; for the same rate of energy input (no thermostat), the result will be that the walls are warmer on the inside, and colder on the outside. This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earths surface from the cold depths of outer space.”
So you were lying. Oh well.
Nate, you nutter,
Nobody has described the “greenhouse effect”.
Your link even says “We dont really know for sure because our global observations from spaceborne satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure those flows of radiant energy.”
It’s obvious that the Earth’s surface has cooled since it was molten, so it is obvious to anyone except a fanatical GHE cultist that energy out exceeded energy in, resulting in cooling.
The surface also cools each night, losing all the heat of the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat. Once again, more energy out than in.
Notwithstanding any facts which you wish to ignore, nowhere does your appeal to authority contain a description of the “greenhouse effect”. The only place the “greenhouse effect” is even mentioned is “This is analogous to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere insulating the Earths surface from the cold depths of outer space.” Are you seriously describing the “greenhouse effect” as atmospheric insulation?
The plain fact is that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, and does so every night. You may pretend it hasn’t and doesnt if you wish.
Your snappy repartee “So you were lying. Oh well.” is unlikely to impress others with your vast knowledge of physics. Here’s a tip – try starting off “the greenhouse effect is a phenomenon which may be observed . . . “. You can’t, of course.
Try appealing to a different authority – one which actually describes the supposed phenomenon referred to as the “greenhouse effect”. At least Willard’s description of the GHE reflects reality, stupid and pointless as it is – “not cooling, slower cooling”.
No “greenhouse effect”. CO2 heats nothing – but the process which creates CO2 (combustion of hydrocarbons) certainly does. You arent the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?
So when presented with a description of the Greenhouse Effect made right here on this blog by Roy Spencer, Swenson doubles down on his asinine claim:
“Nobody has described the greenhouse effect.”
Why does he keep restating a thing which is obviously false? Nobody knows.
The trace gas CO2 cannot warm Earth, because Earth’s atmosphere is a thin atmosphere, and because Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t act as some kind of a warm blanket.
CO2 is a trace gas in the Earth’s thin atmosphere.
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect (because theoretically there should be some, since Earth’s atmosphere consists from substance, but it is very rare and thin substance)
Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is something about
0.4 degrees Celsius.
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is some ~ 400 ppm, a very small content. For comparison it is
1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ENSO fluctuates. SOI has fallen again.
https://i.ibb.co/vXgzgj9/cdas-sflux-ssta-global-1.png
Looks like La Nina is starting.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino12Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino3Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino4Mon.gif
https://i.ibb.co/tJvszWS/nino34.png
SOI values for 24 Apr, 2024
Average SOI for last 30 days -7.31
Average SOI for last 90 days -7.76
Daily contribution to SOI calculation -15.50
La Nina means warm Dry summer for us in BC.
“La Nina is starting.”
Why do Coolistas show a projection of possible future events, and then suggest that it is already happening?
In fact, we are now just started neutral conditions.
“El NioSouthern Oscillation neutral
“ENSO Outlook
El Nio has ended and the El NioSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) has returned to neutral. Climate models indicate ENSO will likely continue to be neutral until at least July 2024.”
A different projection.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20240416.sstOutlooks_nino34.png
Temperatura przy powierzchni jutro w Australii.
https://i.ibb.co/qs0SphZ/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240425t1600-29s131e.jpg
Despite the high number of sunspots, the solar wind speed is decreasing and there are no geomagnetic storms.
https://i.ibb.co/mS6pjkX/plot-image.png
Still plenty of ozone in high latitudes. Since ozone is a heavy gas, the pressure over the Arctic Circle is elevated.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2024.png
https://i.ibb.co/mNCj74C/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
Here’s another exponential model, from 2014.
https://euanmearns.com/the-carbon-cycle-a-geologists-view/
EM,
Thanks. I totally agree that “It seems to have become engrained in the folklore of climate science that manmade CO2 emissions may linger for many millennia in the atmosphere [6]. I do not know what evidence exists to support this notion..
As the post points out, the IPCC makes some stunning assumptions for which precisely no evidence exists.
The link’s author’s conclusion –
“Up to the point when emissions are switched off 56% of all prior emissions are already sequestered into the non-permanent reservoirs. I can think of no reason why the biological processes active before 1995 should somehow stop working. The pre 1995 emissions that remain in the atmosphere would continue to be sequestered at the same rate as before, i.e. 2.8% per annum, drawing down the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels after about 120 years.”
– seems reasonable, given his assumptions.
It is hard to argue that the C currently sequestered in fossil fuels, chalk deposits, etc., did not arise from atmospheric CO2, resulting in progressive CO2 reduction to the levels before man started releasing C back into the atmosphere by burning hydrocarbons of various sorts.
What’s the role of the GHE in all of this? None at all. The GHE is a myth.
Mike Flynn,
You say –
“Thanks.”
Does that mean you clocked on a link for a change?
“Does that mean you clocked on a link for a change?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Swenson
“Up to the point when emissions are switched off”
Note the difference between Mears model and Spencer’s model.
Means is calculating how long it would take for the sinks to return aymospheric CO2 to preindustrial levels after emissions stop.
Spencer’s model is saying that CO2 concentration will start to decrease even if emissions continue.
EM,
You wrote –
“Note the difference between Mears model and Spencers model.”
Why? What difference does it make?
Both models rely on uncertain assumptions, and are trying to foresee the future. The future is unknowable, and anyone who supports reducing, rather than increasing, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is implicitly proposing limiting the human population – based on eugenic principles or just fanatical ignorance.
I vote for more food, not less.
If you really believe that you can make a thermometer hotter by the cunning use of CO2, I pity you. You can’t. If you don’t believe me, give it a try. Even you are not that silly, are you?
Mike Flynn,
You query –
> Why?
Did you read the link on which you pretend to have clocked?
Silly sock puppet!
“Did you read the link on which you pretend to have clocked?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
SOI decline since the end of March. Eastern circulation in the central equatorial Pacific is weak.
https://i.ibb.co/KbS410M/Screenshot-2024-04-25-09-45-32.png
Weather in Concordia Station, Antarcticahttps://i.ibb.co/mDN0vpG/Screenshot-2024-04-25-10-07-59.png
https://i.ibb.co/mDN0vpG/Screenshot-2024-04-25-10-07-59.png
Dr. Roy Spencer is absolutely right. Studies have shown that photosynthesis increases with CO2 concentration. Conversely, at low CO2 levels, plant respiration outweighs photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is converted into sugars in a process called carbon fixation; photosynthesis captures energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. Carbon fixation is an endothermic redox reaction. In general outline, photosynthesis is the opposite of cellular respiration: while photosynthesis is a process of reduction of carbon dioxide to carbohydrates, cellular respiration is the oxidation of carbohydrates or other nutrients to carbon dioxide. Nutrients used in cellular respiration include carbohydrates, amino acids and fatty acids. These nutrients are oxidized to produce carbon dioxide and water, and to release chemical energy to drive the organism’s metabolism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Algae and other monocellular organisms
From a 2010 study by the University of Maryland, photosynthesizing cyanobacteria have been shown to be a significant species in the global carbon cycle, accounting for 2030% of Earth’s photosynthetic productivity and convert solar energy into biomass-stored chemical energy at the rate of ~450 TW.[7] Some pigments such as B-phycoerythrin that are mostly found in red algae and cyanobacteria has much higher light-harvesting efficiency compared to that of other plants. Such organisms are potentially candidates for biomimicry technology to improve solar panels design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
Ireneusz, For the moment, I think solar panels will not improve based on biomimicry. This all hangs around the Kreb cycle which is creating ATP from AMP. You would have to be able to convert the ATP -> ADP -> AMP energy exchange to an electrical exchange.
Instead of going from photon to electron, you would now add another whole complicated process to go from photon to Kreb cycle to ATP energy release for electrons. Occum’s Raisor says one path is better.
That is just my view on it. I have not seen anything about using ATP as an energy source.
Did your autocomplete provide “Occums Raisor” instead of Occam’s Razor?
Just curious, no offence intended.
I agree with the thrust of your comment. Nature is generally pretty lazy, taking the path of least resistance in most cases (certainly, in the case of Ohm’s Law).
A carbon dioxide concentration in the air of about 0.036% is much lower than optimal for photosynthesis under favorable light conditions and adequate temperature. Under optimal conditions, the rate of photosynthesis increases up to a CO2 concentration of about 0.1%. At extremely low CO2 concentrations, respiration and photorespiration processes produce more CO2 than is assimilated in photosynthesis. The concentration of CO2 at which its secretion balances with photosynthetic uptake is called the carbon dioxide concentration compensation point. For plants with C4 photosynthesis, it is close to zero, and for plants with C3 photosynthesis, depending on the species and temperature, it lies in the range of 0.009-0.018% CO2. The intensity of photosynthesis for C4 plants is at low concentrations of carbon dioxide higher than for C3 plants. At values close to the optimum concentration, C3 plants gain a slight advantage in CO2 fixation intensity, and this is exploited in greenhouse crops by fertilizing plants with CO2 under favorable temperature and light conditions.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg#/media/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg
Dr Spencer, you misrepresent (misunderstand?) Net Zero when you write the following:
“Net Zero assumes that human CO2 emissions must stop to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2.”
…
“All that is needed to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 is for yearly anthropogenic emissions to be reduced to the point where they match the yearly removal rate by nature.”
…
“I continue to be perplexed why Net Zero is a goal, because it is not based upon the science.”
…
Anyone who bothers to check the original source will find that Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement states (emphases mine):
I can only conclude that your sleight of hand is politically motivated.
Arkady:
The “Net Zero” policies being promoted in response to the Paris Agreement are calling for reducing CO2 emissions to close to zero. The Paris Agreement, of course, did not specify how the goal of 1.5 to 2 deg C of warming would be met. But in response to the Agreement, “Net Zero” has come to mean essentially zero CO2 emissions. That cannot be disputed. I can only conclude your sleight of hand on this is politically motivated. 😉 -Roy
I wish it were that simple!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01245-w
A,
“Net zero is intrinsically a scientific concept”
Nonsense. There is no “greenhouse effect”, just a farrago of pseudoscientific claptrap, claiming that CO2 makes thermometers hotter, or colder, or something. Nobody seems to know.
You certainly can’t describe the mythical “greenhouse effect” in any way that agrees with reality, can you?
That’s because you are a fanatical GHE cultist, ignorant and gullible. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
> There is no greenhouse effect
Step 1 – Pure Denial
***
> You certainly cant describe
Step 2 – Sammich Request
***
> Thats because you are a fanatical
Step 3 – Saying Stuff
Willard, please stop trolling.
You are just generating meaningless gibberish for no good reason at all.
Mike Flynn,
The fact that you are still playing dumb after all these years only shows that you are a silly sock puppet.
Silly sock puppet!
“The fact that you are still playing dumb after all these years only shows that you are a silly sock puppet.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I guess I’m just tired of this debate. Net Zero is clearly not about climate change, and why even waste time playing pretend. FYI the core issue is related to redistribution and destruction of capitalism, not the climate. 2 trillion a year and no impact. So it’s hard to even establish how much to fix this “problem”. To quantify a division by zero is what it is! cost in USD change to CO2.
‘No impact’
Not really. As you can see here, emissions have actually been flattening in the last decade or so.
https://robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2023/PNG/s50_2023_Global_Sources_and_Sinks.png
Mostly due to the rise of renewables.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/change-in-co2-emissions-from-energy-combustion-and-avoided-emissions-from-deployment-of-major-clean-technologies-2019-2023
Here is link to ICLEI:
https://iclei.org/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwxLKxBhA7EiwAXO0R0EOyvUCewdRvjI-lxQXF7MgrjcRnigbmUA6WpntkI3Xw1y9czWpAABoC0mUQAvD_BwE
The ICLEI agenda is infiltrating all local governments. ICLEI is where the fight against NET Zero needs to happen. You need to convince your councilmen and Mayor that ICLEI is not in the best interest of your community (and it really isn’t).
1% per year emissions cut from 2023 emissions, with the first 1% being accomplished in 2024, means 40% not 33% decrease of emissions from 2023. Unless, each year’s 1% cut is by 1% of the previous year’s emissions, which would have 2024 having a greater cut in terms of tonnage of emissions than the following years, and tonnage of emissions cut decreasing 1% each year afterwards along with tonnage of emissions.
Donald,
If by “emissions” you mean CO2, why do some people want less, rather than more, in the atmosphere?
Is there supposed to be some benefit from restricting the amount of CO2 available to the plant life upon which we all depend for survival?
It seems a bit strange to me, so maybe you can amplify your comment by way of explanation.
Mike Flynn,
Do you have anything else and an if-by-whiskey for your ankle biting?
Silly sock puppet!
Cheers.
“Do you have anything else and an if-by-whiskey for your ankle biting?”
Willard, please stop trolling.
I Will take that as a no, Mike.
Do continue, silly sock puppet!
“Do you have anything else and an if-by-whiskey for your ankle biting?
Willard, please stop trolling.
In the course of evolution, plants have had to adapt to changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Therefore, C4-type plants have developed a dual mechanism for CO2 fixation.
C4 binding is in addition to the primary and more common C3 carbon binding. The main carboxylating enzyme in C3 photosynthesis is RuBisCO, which catalyzes two different reactions using CO2 (carboxylation) or oxygen (oxidation) as substrate. The oxidation of RuBisCO gives rise to phosphoglycolate, which is toxic and requires the expenditure of energy to recycle through photorespiration. C4 photosynthesis reduces photorespiration by concentrating CO2 around RuBisCO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
It can be seen that C4 plants do much better at lower CO2 concentrations.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg#/media/File:Photosynthesis_CO2_concentration.svg
Thanks. I didnt think actual surface (ground) temperatures were easily found.
Even 5 cm temps are not ground temperatures. Frost on the ground, killing plants, when the air above is hotter. That’s why radiative frost occurs. Many people seem to be ignorant of basic physics and meteorology.
Regardless of other reasons, plants deprived of CO2 will die.
And all of us.
The question is what is the optimal temperature for CO2 assimilation by plants.
https://i.ibb.co/1KhbsHg/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240426t0800-43n83w.jpg
Ren,
Have you a chart that shows surface temperatures? Most crops are less than 2m above the ground when growing.
Maybe Michael Mann (ersatz climate scientist) might know. He apparently communes with dead trees, who tell him what their surrounding air temperatures were – from the ground to the crown, I guess.
Deprive plants of CO2 and they die. Deprive humans of O2 and they die. Humans convert O2 to CO2, and plants covert CO2 to O2. Seems like win-win to me. More CO2 in the atmosphere, benefits plants and humans.
I should go and hug a tree, then roll in the grass, I suppose. Only joking. Don’t worry – be happy.
https://www.ventusky.com/?p=40.3;-90.6;3&l=temperature-5cm
Current minimum temperatures in Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/MNmB3PY/gfs-ant-lea-t2min-d1-3-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/0mZ3vqj/ventusky-temperature-2m-20240427t1300.jpg
Dr Spencer, in your Net Zero CO2 Emissions April 18th, 2024 post you wrote:
“… atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming) will…”
If we assume the counterfactual, that CO2 does not cause global warming, can you answer the question, what happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface?
I pose the same question to all the other skeptics commenting on this blog.
I will take my answer sitting down. No opinions please; citations needed. Thanks in advance.
It also depends on the planet’s rotation speed.
Silly premise.
CO2 does cause global warming. Just not anywhere near as much as is ballyhooed by climate alarmists. Doubling to 840 ppm would lead to about 0.7 C further warming; not enough to matter.
The effect is logrithmic; at a certain point the spectrum is saturated; not much more warming is possible. We are well past that point.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03098
Ken,
As Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Your linked paper commences “The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space.”
Of course, the “greenhouse effect” is not described – the only time the “greenhouse effect” is mentioned is where the authors claim that increased CO2 levels creates a “negative greenhouse effect”! A wonder! Increased “greenhouse gas” (undefined) causes heating or cooling – it all depends.
Just more unsupported modelling from authors who don’t seem to realise that the surface cools at night, showing that all (all) radiation from the surface leaves, and the temperature drops as a result. They don’t even mention that the Earth has cooled since the surface – much higher levels of “greenhouse gases” notwithstanding!
Are you more ignorant or gullible? Do you actually read the texts before you appeal to their authority. Passionate belief in something nobody can describe is religion, not science.
Try appealing to another authority – reading it first might help.
Mike Flynn,
Glad you clocked on another link.
Have you tried to find support for the *premise* Kennui finds silly?
As Feynman might have said, Sky Dragon cranks are a long way from the pituitary!
Cheers, silly sock puppet.
“Sky Dragon cranks are a long way from the pituitary!”
Willard, please stop trolling.
1/
“Silly premise.
CO2 does cause global warming.”
Yes, I had a similar reaction when I read Dr Spencer’s comment that …atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming)…,” although I don’t think he’s being silly so much as pandering to the ignorance of others.
+
++
2/
You say, “ Doubling to 840 ppm would lead to about 0.7 C further warming,” but your linked reference says that doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 to 800 ppm results in 2.2 K of surface warming. Regardless, and although 0.7 is below the range of current estimates, it is directionally correct.
+
++
+++
3/
“ The effect is logrithmic; at a certain point the spectrum is saturated; not much more warming is possible. We are well past that point.”
Note that CO2 was higher in the geologic past, and when CO2 was higher, temperature was also higher. The atmosphere is nowhere near being saturated.
There is a great reference on the subject: Infrared Physics and Engineering, by John Jamieson et al. McGraw-Hill 1963; Chapters 2-4. It was published before this scientific issue was made into a political and culture war pissing contest.
A,
You wrote –
“Note that CO2 was higher in the geologic past, and when CO2 was higher, temperature was also higher.”
So the planet has cooled, and nature has removed CO2 from the atmosphere. Nothing new there.
Why does anyone to “take note”? Are they all fanatical GHE cultists who have difficulty accepting reality?
You also quoted Dr Soencer saying “atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming . . . “.
An assumption. A guess. A speculation. That’s the way science often works – guesses are made, and experiments either support or disprove them. Nobody has actually managed to make a thermometer hotter by reducing the amount of energy it absorbs – which principle is supposed by some to be behind a GHE which nobody can describe!
As Feynman said “Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. I agree. An assumption, guess or speculation is not a “theory”. You can’t even describe the GHE, can you? About all you can do is whine endlessly that somebody else must have described the GHE – surely! Produce a description, and Ill do my best to demonstrate that it is just a fantasy, and doesn’t agree with reality.
You can’t even justify your apparent concern about putting back into the atmosphere a portion of the CO2 previously sequestered by nature. Do you perhaps believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter? That would be pretty silly, wouldn’t it.
Mike Flynn,
You declare –
> So the planet has cooled
The planet has also warmed. It has stayed lukewarm for a while too.
Did you have a point, silly sock puppet?
Cheers.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You wrote “The planet has also warmed. It has stayed lukewarm for a while too.”
Don’t be stupid. Without invoking magic, you cannot warm the Earth. What does “lukewarm” even mean? Sun induced surface temperatures vary between about 90 C and -90 C. You must be using the fanatical GHE cultist definition of “lukewarm” – the one where “lukewarm” means anything you want it to!
Just saying things like “the planet has also warmed” makes you look like a fanatical GHD cultist, rapidly descending into an area of severe mental instability.
Keep the laughs coming.
Mike Flynn,
Do you really dispute that the Earth’s temperature isn’t linear?
You really are a silly sock puppet.
But as Feynman would say, fall in love with some activity, and do it!
Glad you chose to be a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
“Do you really dispute that the Earths temperature isnt linear?”
What? Are you quite mad? You really need to get a few hints on writing effective gotchas.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You play dumb –
> What?
What what?
As Feynman used to say, you… are worse than a WHORE!
You’re a silly sock puppet.
Cheers.
The diagram shows doubling CO2 would result in further reduction of direct thermal radiation to space by 3Wm-2.
The current GHE is 340Wm-2. The GHE means surface temperature is 15C and not -18C. That works out to about 1C warming for every 10Wm-2.
3Wm-2 won’t result in 2.2C warming. More like 0.7C.
“As Feynman used to say, you are worse than a WHORE”
Willard, please stop trolling.
Ken,
You wrote –
“The current GHE is 340Wm-2. The GHE means surface temperature is 15C and not -18C. That works out to about 1C warming for every 10Wm-2”
No, reality means that if the surface temperature is 15C, it’s 15C. There are no “should be” thermometers. You cannot even describe the GHE, so saying “The current GHE is 340Wm-2” is completely meaningless.
Any object above 6C or so, can radiate 340 W/m2. A shiny silver teapot full of boiling water, for example.
You really don’t understand what you are talking about, do you?
The Earth’s surface has cooled to its present temperature. You don’t have to go too far into the mantle before the temperature reaches white heat. Over 400,000 W/m2! I could ask you where all that heat goes, but you wouldn’t be able tell me, would you?
“The current GHE is 340Wm-2. The GHE means surface temperature is 15C and not -18C. That works out to about 1C warming for every 10Wm-2.”
Where from?
In the usual accounting the GHE is the reduction in OLR emitted to space, compared to the surface LW IR emission.
The surface @ 288 K, emissivity ~ 0.92, emits
5.67e-8*0.92*288^4 = 359 W/m^2.
Whereas the OLR emitted from the Earth to space is ~ 240 W/m^2.
SO that gives a GHE of ~ 120 W/m^2
Nate, for some bizarre reason you wrote –
“SO that gives a GHE of ~ 120 W/m^2”.
Have you got a secret description of the GHE – I haven’t seen anybody silly enough to claim that the GHE is a phenomenon which can be measured in terms of radiative intensity!
If your emitter has an emissivity of 1, then you are saying that the GHE is a temperature of around – 58 C, which sounds silly, doesn’t it? Maybe you are really trying to say something else, but can’t quite figure out what it is!
Not your finest effort to date, but close. How low can you go? How about a GHE of 100, or even 20?
Dimwit.
“I havent seen anybody silly enough to claim that the GHE is a phenomenon which can be measured in terms of radiative intensity!”
Swenson let slip that he has seen the GHE described by people. And he thinks he knows the proper way to describe it, after all!
Tee hee hee!
What happens to the infrared energy emitted by the surface? It depends on the density of the air in the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2024.png
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
Ren,
“What happens to the infrared energy emitted by the surface?”
It all eventually flees to space – never to be seen again. That’s why the Earth has cooled. In spite of four and a half billion years of sunlight.
More energy out than in, resulting in cooling overall. Any hotter thermometers are the result of more heat in the vicinity – not any mythical “greenhouse effect”.
Onward and upward!
All it takes is a slight change in the angle of the Earth’s axis to the plane of orbit, by about 1.5 degrees, and human expansion will come to a halt.
Ren,
Change in which direction? Am I correct in assuming about Milankovich cycles, or have you something else in mind?
You wrote “human expansion will come to a halt.”. I can’t see why, but maybe you can provide some reasons for your statement that rely on information that I don’t have, or may have misinterpreted.
In any case, I am not worried. I can live with present surface temperatures of between -90 C and +90 C. So can the other eight billion or so humans.
So far so good.
Obliquity The angle Earths axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with respect to Earths orbital plane. The greater Earths axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away. Larger tilt angles favor periods of deglaciation (the melting and retreat of glaciers and ice sheets). These effects arent uniform globally — higher latitudes receive a larger change in total solar radiation than areas closer to the equator.
Earths axis is currently tilted 23.4 degrees, or about half way between its extremes, and this angle is very slowly decreasing in a cycle that spans about 41,000 years. It was last at its maximum tilt about 10,000 years ago and will reach its minimum tilt about 10,000 years from now. As obliquity decreases, it gradually helps make our seasons milder, resulting in increasingly warmer winters, and cooler summers that gradually, over time, allow snow and ice at high latitudes to build up into large ice sheets. As ice cover increases, it reflects more of the Suns energy back into space, promoting even further cooling.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Ren,
I wrote “You wrote “human expansion will come to a halt.”. I can’t see why, but maybe you can provide some reasons for your statement that rely on information that I don’t have, or may have misinterpreted.”
None of your response relates to anything I asked.
Why do you say “human expansion will come to a halt.”?
Ireneusz,
“Obliquity The angle Earths axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with respect to Earths orbital plane. The greater Earths axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are, as each hemisphere receives more solar radiation during its summer, when the hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun, and less during winter, when it is tilted away.”
–
“The greater Earths axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are,”
–
A sphere emitting the same amount of IR energy, the less differentiated the surface temperatures are, the higher the average surface temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christis when the tilt angle is low summers at high latitudes will be cool, and the tropics will be closer to the equator. Therefore, the ice will not melt in the summer because the warm oceans will provide plenty of snow in the winter. This is already happening. Ice sheets and albedo will increase. This is inevitable.
https://i.ibb.co/MBV9TYq/nh-swe.png
Sorry: Christos
Thank you, Ireneusz, for your response.
“when the tilt angle is low summers at high latitudes will be cool, and the tropics will be closer to the equator. Therefore, the ice will not melt in the summer because the warm oceans will provide plenty of snow in the winter. This is already happening. Ice sheets and albedo will increase. This is inevitable.”
–
“when the tilt angle is low summers at high latitudes will be cool, and the tropics will be closer to the equator.”
Winters at high latitudes will be warmer, and the tropics will be closer to the equator.
So, the picture has cleared for me, thank you, the more tilted the axis is, the less annually differentiated the surface temperatures are.
A sphere emitting the same amount of IR energy, the less differentiated the surface temperatures are, the higher the average surface temperature.
Now, the tilt gradually lessens, and, as a result, the annual surface temperatures are getting more differentiated, therefore the planet average surface temperature lessens.
–
Thank you, Ireneusz.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I tried to replicate the second graph of the lead post. I got only slightly different results.
My graph starts at 1960, and shows forecast CO2 concentrations assuming a 1%/yr and 0.5%/yr reduction starting in 2024.
My graph is https://friendsofscience.org/assets/images/co2-emissions-and-sinks.jpg
Comparing Roy’s to my 1%/yr emissions case, Roy’s maximum CO2 is 460 ppm in 2063, while mine is 457 in 2061.
Excel file https://friendsofscience.org/files/co2-emissions-and-sinks.xlsx
The link Roy provided goes to the paper dated 05 Dec 2023 which says the preliminary 2023 fossil CO2 will be 36.8 GtCO2 which was described as an increase of 1.1% from the 2022 value. However the data file shows 37.15 GtCO2 for 2022. A 1.1% increase from 37.15 would be 37.6 GtCO2, not 36.8. CO2 from land use changes in 2023 is estimated at 4.0 GtCO2. Therefore, the total CO2 emissions for 2023 that I used for the graph was 41.6 GtCO2 assuming 1.1% increase from the datafile 2022 fossil emission.
The 1%/yr emissions reduction is larger than necessary. The 0.5%/yr emissions reduction results in a maximum CO2 of 479 ppm in 2088. The net social benefit of CO2 emissions is positive, due to the benefit of CO2 fertilization, so no reductions of CO2 emissions are necessary this century.
We live in a magnificent interglacial era. The expansion of agriculture began just 5,000 years ago, when the glaciers in Europe retreated. We should appreciate this. I believe, we still have about 1,000 years to function in a temperate climate.
Dr Spencer wrote –
“Over the ocean, sea water absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in proportion to the difference in CO2 partial pressures between the atmosphere and ocean,”, which is true, but slightly misleading. NOAA points out “Scientists estimate that roughly half of the oxygen production on Earth comes from the ocean.”
This oxygen comes from the CO2 absorbed into the ocean, increasing the difference in partial pressures, and thus sinking more CO2, even as the atmospheric CO2 concentration drops.
Dr Spencer mentions “Satellite-observed “global greening” is evidence of [increased antmospheric CO2 levels] over land. The same satellite observed “greening” is observed with regard to the oceans. Strangely enough, NASA implies that increasing plankton growth is due to less nutrients “This scenario would favor plankton adapted to a nutrient-poor environment.”, rather than more.
The Earth’s history indicate that nature can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than it can be replaced, atmospheric CO2 being an essential item for photosynthetic life, which can only increase up to the limit of available CO2, at which time CO2 famine occurs, plankton and everything that depends on them dies off, rots, producing CO2, and off we go again.
Chaos rules. “Chaos theory discloses triggers and drivers of plankton dynamics in stable environment” is but one paper documenting experimental support for presumably chaotic population behaviour independent of external influences.
It would be convenient if chaotic behaviour was amenable to numerical modelling, but it isn’t. Algal blooms, for example, are unpredictable. They may be beneficial, if their predators can consume them quickly enough – “While marine animals such as fish and whales eat phytoplankton, it can also prove toxic in large amounts, starving the ocean of oxygen and leading to “dead zones” that wreak chaos on the food chain and fisheries. A 2016 algal bloom near Chile, for example, cost salmon farms $800 million.” (Nature study) – or toxic.
Net zero? Sums up the intelligence of people who think they know what they are talking about when predicting outcomes in the natural world. As Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Cyanobacteria are need only water, CO2 and atmospheric nitrogen.
Some cyanobacteria can fix atmospheric nitrogen in anaerobic conditions by means of specialized cells called heterocysts. Heterocysts may also form under the appropriate environmental conditions (anoxic) when fixed nitrogen is scarce. Heterocyst-forming species are specialized for nitrogen fixation and are able to fix nitrogen gas into ammonia (NH3), nitrites or nitrates, which can be absorbed by plants and converted to protein and nucleic acids (atmospheric nitrogen is not bioavailable to plants, except for those having endosymbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria, especially the family Fabaceae, among others).
Free-living cyanobacteria are present in the water of rice paddies, and cyanobacteria can be found growing as epiphytes on the surfaces of the green alga, Chara, where they may fix nitrogen. Cyanobacteria such as Anabaena (a symbiont of the aquatic fern Azolla) can provide rice plantations with biofertilizer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
Ren,
What you say may well be true, but are you posting the information for any particular reason? It doesnt seem to have any bearing on my comment, but maybe I missed something.
What did I miss about your response?
Thanks.
“The same satellite observed greening is observed with regard to the oceans. Strangely enough, NASA implies that increasing plankton growth is due to less nutrients This scenario would favor plankton adapted to a nutrient-poor environment., rather than more.”
“The Earths history indicate that nature can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than it can be replaced”
Except in the last 65 years.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Oh well, yet again Swenson says stuff and that is easily debunked.
Nate, you nitwit, learn to read.
I said “The Earths history indicate that nature can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than it can be replaced”. That’s created fossil fuels, chalk deposits, etc. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than it was replaced.
If you dont want to believe it, you can just say “Nah!”.
At the moment, mankind is doing a sterling job, valiantly managing to temporarily boost CO2 levels, enabling man’s continuing ability to survive, if you don’t like it, you can always stop contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Ceasing to breathe for 30 minutes will prove temporarily successful, but then you will decay, and generate CO2, which will provide plants with food.
Eventually becoming fossil fuel, chalk deposits and so on. Exterminating mankind by removing all CO2 from the atmosphere won’t change things for long.
You can’t even say why CO2 levels should be interfered with, can you? Putting CO2 back into the atmosphere is evil?
You are quite mad, but luckily you are completely impotent, unable to get anyone with any influence to listen to you. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist – who can’t even describe the GHE!]
Obviously you missed the fact that the last 65 years utterly failed to conform to your asinine claim that The Earths history indicate that nature can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than it can be replaced”.
Just as the warming 20,000 years ago, and again in the last century, failed to conform to your asinine claims that the Earth has been only ever cooling in its history.
Just as Roy’s old article describing the GHE demolished your asinine claims that nobody ever described the GHE.
Undoubtedly you will keep making unsupportable asinine claims. Its what you do.
Nate, you nitwit, learn to read.
I said “The Earths history indicate that nature can remove CO2 from the atmosphere more quickly than it can be replaced”. Thats created fossil fuels, chalk deposits, etc. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than it was replaced.
If you dont want to believe it, you can just say “Nah!
At the moment, mankind is doing a sterling job, valiantly managing to temporarily boost CO2 levels, enabling mans continuing ability to survive, if you dont like it, you can always stop contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Ceasing to breathe for 30 minutes will prove temporarily successful, but then you will decay, and generate CO2, which will provide plants with food.
Eventually becoming fossil fuel, chalk deposits and so on. Exterminating mankind by removing all CO2 from the atmosphere wont change things for long.
You cant even say why CO2 levels should be interfered with, can you? Putting CO2 back into the atmosphere is evil?
You are quite mad, but luckily you are completely impotent, unable to get anyone with any influence to listen to you. Thats a good thing, isnt it?
As usual, you claim everyone else has described the GHE – except you! Your bizarre appeal to authority falls flat – you can’t actually find Dr Spencer’s GHE description, can you? You just make unsupported assertions, and hope someone more gullible than you will acdep5 your fantasies as facts.
As I said previously, some dimwits like you claim that the Earth cools down, heats up, cools down . . . – for no reason that you can produce. Off you go Nate, just claim that everyone else but you has the answers – but they wont share them with because you are too clever, no doubt!
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist who cant even describe the GHE!]
Currently, another wave of heavy storms is starting in Texas. Plenty of water will fall in the south of the state.
https://i.ibb.co/TBnngVX/ventusky-cape-20240430t1500-29n95w.jpg
Possible totals of today’s rainfall in Texas. Today only.
https://i.ibb.co/7jx2Qbr/ventusky-rain-ac-20240429t2200-3026n9411w.jpg
Eastern Canada must wait for a real spring.
https://i.ibb.co/dLTb0BH/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20240429t0600-52n85w.jpg
We have our planet Earth and our Moon orbiting sun.
Earth receives per square metre 28% less solar energy than Moon, because of Earths higher than Moons Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68Cwarmer than Moon.
The air (O2, N2, Ar) do not absorb infrared; only water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and some other, some other even more minor greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation.
This looks like a scientific paradox, since Earths atmosphere is thin and transparent and cannot support on average surface the +68Cdifference.
And this is NOT a violation of the 1st LOT (the First Law of Thermodynamics), because NATURE does not violate the laws of physics.
There is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which explains the difference of +68Cbetween our Moon and our planet Earth.
We havereconciledthat difference it is not a scientific paradox any more.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can see the decrease in LOD since 1970 by more than 3ms. You can see the correlation with the Sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle and the lunar cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/LODws.gif
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg/1280px-Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg.png
“Earth receives per square metre 28% less solar energy than Moon, because of Earths higher than Moons Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).”
I find 22% less. (1-.306)/(1-.11) = 0.78
“This looks like a scientific paradox, since Earths atmosphere is thin and transparent and cannot support on average surface the +68Cdifference.”
Not at all.
There is a greenhouse effect, which you should not ignore.
Even if the Moon spun very fast, its average SB temperature could only reach [(1360*(1-.11)/4)/sigma]^0.25 = 270 K, still 18 K less than Earth.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“I find 22% less. (1-.306)/(1-.11) = 0.78”
It is (1-.11)/(1-.306) = 1.28
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
(1-.11) = 0.89
(1-.306) = 0.694
0.89 – 0.694 = 0.196
0.196 /0.694 = 0,2824
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, Nate, when comparimg Earth with Moon it is 22% less.
When comparing Moon with Earth it is 28% more.
So it should be read above:
Earth receives per square meter 22% less solar energy than Moon, because of Earth’s higher than Moon’s Albedo (0,306 vs 0,11).
Yet Earth is on average +68C warmer than Moon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If the Moon spun as Earth, its average temperature would be 333 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Nate,
You wrote –
“There is a greenhouse effect, which you should not ignore.”
What is this “greenhouse effect” supposed to do? Willard said “not cooling, slower cooling”. What does that even mean?
Maybe you agree with Entropic Man –
The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets. How many blankets? If the blankets are stacked on a thermometer exposed to direct sunlight, the thermometer will get colder.
You need to be a tad mores specific, if you expect anyone to value your opinion. If Christos “ignores” your mythical “greenhouse effect”, what then? Will you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? I’d be interested in seeing that!
Carry on.
“If the Moon spun as Earth, its average temperature would be 333 K.”
If it was 333 k, then according to SB law it will emit,
5.67e-8*333^4 = 697 W/m^2 on average, or 641 W/m^2 if emissivity is ~ 0.9 like most natural surfaces.
But if it spun fast, with albedo 0.11, then it will receive from the sun 1360/4*(1-0.11) = 303 W/m^2 on average.
So you have it emitting more than twice what it receives.
So NO, it cannot be 333 K.
Nate,
You wrote
“There is a greenhouse effect, which you should not ignore.”
What is this “greenhouse effect” supposed to do? Willard said “not cooling, slower cooling”. What does that even mean?
Maybe you agree with Entropic Man
“The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets”. How many blankets? If the blankets are stacked on a thermometer exposed to direct sunlight, the thermometer will get colder.
You need to be a tad mores specific, if you expect anyone to value your opinion. If Christos “ignores” your mythical “greenhouse effect”, what then? Will you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? Id be interested in seeing that!
Carry on avoiding reality.
What is this greenhouse effect supposed to do? ”
Obviously Swenson, or Flynnson, or Mike Flynn, or whatever alias he goes by, seems highly determined to remain both ignorant and asinine.
Even after being shown Roy Spencer’s clear description of the GHE and what it does, he continues to assert that nobody described the GHE.
Is he a nut-case? Leaking brain fluid? What say you readers?
Nate,
You wrote –
“Even after being shown Roy Spencers clear description of the GHE and what it does, he continues to assert that nobody described the GHE.”
You haven’t actually provided this “clear description of the GHE”, have you? That’s because it exists only in your imagination. Certainly, Dr Spencer has never provided a clear description of the GHE, regardless of what you think. If he had, no doubt fanatical GHE cultists like you would be waving it proudly in my face – but, alas, you can’t. It doesn’t exist.
Maybe you overlooked Dr Spencer writing things like this –
“Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.”
Is this part of your “clear description of the GHE”? Dr Spencer remains open to other causes of hotter thermometers – apart from CO2.
If you and other fanatical GHE cultists want to believe that a “clear description of the GHE” exists, but you can’t actually put it into words, that’s religion, not science.
I asked what is this greenhouse effect supposed to do? Is it responsible for the Earth’s surface no longer being molten? Does it have any role in surface cooling at night.
thar
Mike Flynn,
You said –
> thar
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?
Roy Spencer DOES describe the GHE, so that thoroughly debunks Swenson’s asinine claims that no one has described the GHE.
Oh well.
Clearly, Swenson reads selectively, ignoring what doesnt fit his claims.
Roy Spencer fully accepts that the increased GHE will cause warming, but he is a skeptic regarding the amount of warming to be expected.
But in the mind of Swenson, this is distorted into a BIG LIE:
“Dr Spencer has never provided a clear description of the GHE”
As a tro.ll, Swenson seems to feel unconstrained by facts or reality.
Nate, That sums it up; Swenson is a tr.oll unconstrained by facts or reality.
Unfortunately your assessment will not bring a change in Swenson’s behavior.
Unfortunately, we cannot vote the nut-case off the island.
I agree.
He is like a buzzing gnat that is best ignored…but once in while needs swatting.
Nate,
You wrote –
“Roy Spencer DOES describe the GHE, so that thoroughly debunks Swensons asinine claims that no one has described the GHE.”
It’s curious that you can’t provide a that description, isn’t it? All you can do is claim it exists.
You also write “Roy Spencer fully accepts that the increased GHE will cause warming, but he is a skeptic regarding the amount of warming to be expected.” increased GHE? This is as opposed to the “ordinary” GHE, is it?
Maybe you could quote Dr Spencer, instead of putting words in his mouth. Or maybe you couldn’t, because you’re putting words in his mouth!
In another comment, you acted like a fanatical GHE cultist, writing –
“I agree.
He is like a buzzing gnat that is best ignoredbut once in while needs swatting.”
Swat away, fool, swat away! All youll do is make yourself red in the face – your inept and impotent handwaving has precisely zero effect on me.
Accept reality – the Earth has cooled. Each night the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little of its remnant internal heat. If you don’t agree, that’s your right.
Go on, tell everyone what role your GHE played in reducing the molten surface of the Earth to its present temperature. Maybe Ken can help you to turn fantasy into fact? Only joking, he’s obviously as dim as you.
Willard,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn,
You said
> thar
What are you braying about, silly sock puppet?”
You got me thar, pardner!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Thank you, Nate, for your response.
“If it was 333 k, then according to SB law it will emit,
5.67e-8*333^4 = 697 W/m^2 on average, or 641 W/m^2 if emissivity is ~ 0.9 like most natural surfaces.
But if it spun fast, with albedo 0.11, then it will receive from the sun 1360/4*(1-0.11) = 303 W/m^2 on average.
So you have it emitting more than twice what it receives.
So NO, it cannot be 333 K.”
–
Also you wrote earlier,
“Even if the Moon spun very fast, its average SB temperature could only reach [(1360*(1-.11)/4)/sigma]^0.25 = 270 K, still 18 K less than Earth.”
–
–
“If it was 333 k, then according to SB law it will emit,”
The Stefan-Boltzman emission law is about the uniform surface temperature emission intensity.
Planets do not have uniform surface temperatures. For planets the S-B law is an approximation.
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is an abstraction. It doesn’t define the mechanism the matter emits EM energy, because the blackbody is described as surface at some uniform temperature. It was not said blackbodies consist from some kind of matter.
Blackbodies do not have any chemical composition, because blackbody is an abstraction.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is an abstraction.”
No it is not. It is a law of physics that has been tested thoroughly in the real world, and it passes.
If you have to deny its validity, then you are not doing real science, are you.
“The Stefan-Boltzman emission law is about the uniform surface temperature emission intensity.
Planets do not have uniform surface temperatures. For planets the S-B law is an approximation.”
You can certainly apply it to surfaces with non-uniform temperature, by calculating a latitude average, then average over all latitudes, and in that calculation, a rather small difference is found from the calculation using the average temperature.
But feel free to show us a calculation from a legitimate source that agrees with you.
“You can certainly apply it to surfaces with non-uniform temperature, by calculating a latitude average, then average over all latitudes, and in that calculation, a rather small difference is found from the calculation using the average temperature.”
–
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law is an abstraction. It doesnt define the mechanism the matter emits EM energy, because the blackbody is described as surface at some uniform temperature. It was not said blackbodies consist from some kind of matter.
Blackbodies do not have any chemical composition, because blackbody is an abstraction.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Planets do not have uniform surface temperatures.”
Planets with oceans and land cannot have uniform surface temperatures at any latitude.
Christos, With the use of emissivity, the SB law can be applied to any surface, not just black bodies.
It was used to measure the Moon’s temperature that you quoted.
So it cannot be considered an abstraction.
“MEASUREMENT of the temperature of the Moon is generally done by absolute radiometry assuming the emissivity of the lunar surface to be independent of wave-length and to be that of a black-body, namely, ε = 1.00, and calculating the temperature from Stefan’s law” – nature.
If you can’t see anything wrong with that, you are not trying.
You really don’t know what you are talking about, do you?
As usual, Swenson offers a quote from an unknown source..guess he doesnt want anyone to check the context.
Nah, they determine the Moon’s emissivity and use it with radiometry to determine temperature.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10137389
Loads of papers discuss this effort, which began with:
“As part of the Apollo program, astronauts measured
and collected samples from different landing areas on the lunar
surface to validate ground-based observations of lunar soil
temperature, thermophysics, and spectral properties. Despite
the limited location, a link between the information obtained
by lunar orbiting satellite of the lunar landing site and the
actual samples of the same site has been established to support
the application of lunar orbiting remote sensing data”
etc.
Swenson’s quote was from this paper.
Errors in the Measurement of the Temperature of the Moon
EUGENE A. BURNS & R. J. P. LYON
Nature volume 196, pages463464 (1962)
The ignoramus seems to think our knowledge of the Moon’s properties got stuck in 1962!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Swensons quote was from this paper.. . .”
See? Not that hard, was it?
From your later link “Only part of the lunar surface has been explored by these missions.”
And of course, you just assume that the part represents the whole. The problem is that determining emissivity is not easy – it can (and generally does) vary with emission wavelength. And of course, direction and polarisation need to be accounted for.
Measuring temperature by any means is not easy. You may be aware that thermometers were also used to measure surface temperature, and temperatures at various distances below the surface on various missions. Which is more “accurate”? Contact thermometer or SB estimation?
Nah, you cant describe the GHE, so you are just trying to scuttle off in a direction.
The fact remains that the Earth’s surface temperatures in sunlight vary between +90 C and -90 C, and no amount of cunning Stefan-Boltzmann calculations based on insolation can change that – nor the fact that the surface has cooled over the past four and a half billion years.
Scuttle away!
In theory the rate of increase in CO2 should have an effect on global warming, but the magnitude of that effect is impossible to know. Laboratory experiments and computer simulation cannot model the real atmosphere. The possible effect of warming on climate is complete speculation, but cannot be eliminated as a concern for those who are pushing that claim.
The most important reality is that energy is a difficult problem. Fossil fuels are not endless in supply and will become increasingly more difficult to find. Without the advances in fracking, crude oil would already be in very short supply.
The current battery technology is probably not a genuine “renewable” option. We need more cost effective batteries for stationary storage to make solar power useful. The weight of a stationary battery does not matter. Lightweight batteries should be used only for transportation, and a new generation of battery technology is needed for many reasons.
Ultimately, Sustainable biofuels are the best option for transportation. There are many different ways to do this. Batteries and hydrogen power for aviation are not as useful as liquid fuel that is burned enroute. Hydrogen has many problems related to the fact that it is not a source of engergy — it consumes energy and is dangerous.
Relying on technologies that do not yet exist lacks substance. For example Fusion has been one breakthrough from reality for over 60 years. Batteries are at the limit of technological breakthrough; it’d be a serious mistake to plan for a new generation of battery technology.
Adoption of Ethanol is just one example where corn was diverted to fuel from someone elses food supply. Using food for biofuel and letting people go hungry as a result is not ‘sustainable’ by any definition.
Synthetic fuels are probably the more viable option to replace oil.
“Laboratory experiments and computer simulation cannot model the real atmosphere. The possible effect of warming on climate is complete speculation, but cannot be eliminated as a concern for those who are pushing that claim.”
That’s like saying the stratosphere and the ionosphere are complete speculation, because ya know, we cannot produce them in the lab!
Nate,
You wrote –
“Thats like saying the stratosphere and the ionosphere are complete speculation, because ya know, we cannot produce them in the lab!”
No, that’s actually saying . . . . Only joking, you just made that stuff up, didn’t you? Maybe you aren’t aware that the stratosphere and ionosphere are part of the atmosphere, so trying to sound sciency hasn’t done you much good, has it?
As the IPCC pointed out “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Some people talk about “Global warming theory”, but there is no such thing, so no chance for experiment!. You can’t write out a description of the GHE, but just continuously claim that somebody else has. Your fantasies are no substitute for facts.
No description of the GHE, no “global warming theory”, no way CO2 makes thermometers hotter – you don’t seem to be all that well acquainted with reality.
[laughing at fanatical GHE cultist]
Swenson
” Feynman said It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.”
You quote this frequently, but you don’t accept that it discredits your own opinions.
Hypocrite.
Ent, maybe you should rethink your belief that passenger jets fly backward before using the word “hypocrite”.
Clint R says:
May 1, 2024 at 7:43 AM
Ent, maybe you should rethink your belief that passenger jets fly backward before using the word hypocrite.
Certainly.
An airliner flying Eastward along Earth’s Equator at an airspeed of 600 mph is also carried Eastward by the Earth’s rotation at 1000 mph and Westward by the Earth’s orbital velocity at 67,000 mph.
It’s net velocity = 600 + 1000 – 67000 = -65400mph.
The airliner is therefore pointing Eastward while travelling Westward at 65,400mph.It is travelling backwards.
QED
Ent, if only you were as good at physics as you are at perverting reality.
But, you make Norman look good, because he denies your nonsense. And, making Norman look good is hard to do….
Test for the student.
Don’t be rude about my calculation, falsify it.
Ent, the 1000 mph and 67000 mph speeds don’t play into it. Earth’s system takes those into account. A jet is in Earth’s system.
You have no clue.
What desperate cult tactic will you try next?
Where does it say that when measuring the movement of an aircraft I should only consider one vector?
If the aircraft was SOFIA measuring redshift of distant quasars I would need to measure every vector up to and including the Milky Way’s motion within the local group.
https://www.space.com/sofia-observatory.html
You don’t need to know anything ing about distant quasars or Milky Way,, to circumnavigate Earth, Ent.
What desperate cult tactic will you try next?
EM,
You wrote –
“Swenson
” Feynman said It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wrong.
You quote this frequently, but you dont accept that it discredits your own opinions.
Hypocrite.”
What “opinions” are you referring to? What relevance do my “opinions” have to Feynman’s statement? You can’t quite say, can you? All the opinions in the world, plus $5 cash, will buy a $5 cup of coffee. Feel free to correct me, if you think I am in error.
In your opinion, I am a hypocrite – but you can’t back up your valueless opinion with facts! What mental defect leads you to believe I might value your opinion? I don’t, but you don’t have to believe me.
Carry on.
“In theory the rate of increase in CO2 should have an effect on global warming…”
And that effect would be a very minor cooling. CO2 can not warm a 288K surface. But it can only emit little energy to space. It can not warm, and it is very poor at cooling.
It’s best use is food for vegetation.
“Its best use is food for vegetation”
And for making bubbles in beer and champagne! Who likes flat beer or champagne?
Clint R
Your “Strawman” opinion is noted. Now come up with evidence to support it.
The GHE (you have been told this several times but like Gordon Robertson you reject valid science and hold on to your unsupported opinion) does not state that the cooler atmosphere is warming the surface. It is acting as a radiant barrier, it slows the heat loss rate of the surface so the Solar input will allow the surface to reach a higher average temperature. Similar to how any insulating material allows a heated object to reach a higher temperature than one the is not insulated. No matter how many times this simple understanding is explained to you, you divert to own version of GHE and then claim it is not correct. Science does not say a cooler object heats a warmer one. Science says a cooler object will allow a heated object to reach a higher temperature as it reduces the heat loss depending upon the cooler objects temperature.
This is good valid science, you can reject it. It won’t make your opinion correct.
Sorry Norman, but N2 and O2 insulate, not CO2. CO2 emits energy to space. N2 and O2 act as a blanket, insulating Earth from the severe cold of space.
You need to grow up, learn some science, and stop with the cult tactics.
Clint R
No cult tactics. I provide real and valid science. Your reasoning is not the best. Since space is a vacuum there would be no conductive heat transfer to space so N2 and O2 do not act as insulation from space. Vacuum only allows radiative heat transfer. Please learn some real physics before you attempt insulting me. You are the poster who does not understand physics. I do not have problems with science.
Again Norman, you do not understand the basics. You have some real problems with science.
I never said O2 and N2 were radiating to space. I said CO2 emits to space.
O2 and N2 act as a blanket. Without O2 and N2, the lapse rate would be severely affected, allowing cold space temperatures way into the lower troposphere. Investigate nighttime temperatures on Moon, for a reality check.
What goofiness will you try next?
Clint R
Slow down a bit. You are saying some really illogical things.
Here: “allowing cold space temperatures way into the lower troposphere. Investigate nighttime temperatures on Moon, for a reality check.”
There is no cold space that will cool the lower troposphere. The Moon gets cold only because it radiates away heat during its night. Nothing to do with the space temperature cooling the surface. Not sure how you came up with that one!
If the Moon had a Nitrogen atmosphere as thick as the Earth’s with no GHG it would still get quite cold as the N2 would not stop what is already cooling it at night, radiant heat loss.
CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT COOL the surface. It will cool the upper troposphere by radiant emission NOT the surface. I have already talked to you about this.
You do seem a like mind of Gordon Robertson. You don’t know any physics, you think yourself a genius, and you post endless opinions on things you have no clue about.
You are a clueless cult minded poster that does not understand what a cult is and what science is.
You will keep posting but does anyone here really care? I guess you told us why you do it (pretending to help Gordon). You are a basketcase and your therapist told you to post to help your condition. You made it seem as if was Gordon’s issue but it was really your own.
Sorry Norman, but you’re just rambling again. You STILL haven’t learned that keyboarding is NOT science.
Stop with the rambling and cult tactics. Then, learn some science.
Clint R
Excellent. You are taking your therapists advice and posting on a blog. It seems to help you.
“CO2 in the atmosphere DOES NOT COOL the surface. It will cool the upper troposphere by radiant emission NOT the surface. I have already talked to you about this.”
Oooooooh! You have already “talked” to him about this! Gee, that would have been helpful, wouldn’t it?
Go on, “talk”to me – tell me why the surface cools at night. Feel free to use your vast knowledge of CO2 (or even the GHE, if you like).
You sound more like an idiot than an expert, and Feynman said “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”.
Norman, that’s not very original, is it?
If you were a responsible adult, you would admit you’re copying me.
But, we know that ain’t going to happen….
Norman,
You wrote –
“The GHE (you have been told this several times but like Gordon Robertson you reject valid science and hold on to your unsupported opinion) does not state that the cooler atmosphere is warming the surface.”
Just describe the GHE, and I’ll point out where your description is defective. Can’t do it? Won’t do it? Arent allowed to copy it?
What a pity.
It’s good to know that the GHE doesn’t warm the surface – Im surprised it has taken so long for you to accept that at night, the surface loses all the heat it absorbed during the day, plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.
That has resulted in the surface having cooled from its initial molten condition to its current temperature. No wonder you are having problems stating what the GHE is doing, rather than what it is not doing.
No GHE at all – none.
Clint R
Excellent. You are taking your therapists advice and posting on a blog. It seems to help you.
Norman, you’re just mindlessly repeating your unoriginal comment.
That’s not very original, is it?
Nate, I think you took the wrong approach. I am trying to be helpful. You should realize by now that I am interest in learning, sharing, and understanding as much as possible about climate. I am driven by curiosity about science, and not anyone else’s agenda. I am always more interested in facts than speculation.
Instead of making a silly comment about applying science to complex systems, you could have stated that the very wide range of results in the climate models is not the correct analysis. You could state that the “real” climate models, that actually work, all agree very well. After all, Gavin Schmidt says so, and he is a very objective and honest person.
Tim, how is being helpful to keep using hyperbolic language like this to describe the uncertainty in climate science?
“In theory the rate of increase in CO2 should have an effect on global warming, but the magnitude of that effect is impossible to know. Laboratory experiments and computer simulation cannot model the real atmosphere. The possible effect of warming on climate is complete speculation”
As noted the current climate change understanding is built on lots facts.
It is hardly ‘speculation’.
And it is certainly not ‘impossible to know’.
And as noted, we don’t need lab experiments in order to measure, model and understand the atmosphere, eg its structure with , and troposphere, stratosphere etc and its heat transfer within it.
Nate claims: “As noted the current climate change understanding is built on lots facts.
Sorry Nate, but the CO2 nonsense is built on false beliefs. It’s so bad you can’t even provide a viable description/definition.
Prove me wrong.
Nate,
You wrote –
“And as noted, we dont need lab experiments in order to measure, model and understand the atmosphere, eg its structure with , and troposphere, stratosphere etc and its heat transfer within it.”
You are free to disagree with Richard Feynman and me if you wish.
Feynman wrote –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You make really stupid statements like –
“As noted the current climate change understanding is built on lots facts.
It is hardly “speculation”.”
Lots facts? Are you sloppy or incompetent? Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations, and, as such, changes continuously. You may be trying to say something else, but can’t find a way to translate your fantasies into words. You’re not being terribly persuasive, but given that you can’t even describe the GHE, that’s not really surprising.
Carry on looking irrelevant. At least it comes naturally to you.
“Your version has the passenger jet flying backwards and upside down, halfway around the journey. ”
Only by reference to the extremely local reference frame that he insists on.
The real problem with ClintR’s model of the universe is that he insists on applying the same local reference frame to astronomical objects like the Moon.
I find that as ridiculous as he finds my application of the inertial reference frame to terrestrial objects.
This is partly why I continue to push the “passenger jets flying backwards” meme.
It illustrates
1) You can describe motion using any reference frame.
2) For some applications the correct choice of reference frame is important. Choosing an inappropriate frame can lead you to the wrong conclusion; which is what happened to the non-spinners.
You and DREMT have chosen a terrestrial reference frame which supports the illusion of non-rotation when direct measurement of the Moon by accelerometers, gyroscopes or Foucault pendulum would show that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Non-spinning is a form of special pleading because the illusion is only properly visible from a limited set of locations near the centre of the Earth’s orbit. Anywhere else in the universe the Earth is visibly and measurably spinning.
You and ClintR remind me of the old lady who complained to the police that she could see a naked man from her window. A policeman duly visited, looked out of the window and could not see a naked man. “No, no.” says the old lady”, “You have to stand on a chair and crane your head to the left”.
You can always tell when cultists get desperate — their comments get longer and longer, filled with more and more made-up nonsense.
Yeah, Entropic Man…the moon issue really is not resolved by reference frames. I know you think that it is, but it isn’t. I’ve tried so hard to explain it to you, but every time I do, you just disappear, then reappear a few weeks later making the exact same mistakes.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own internal axis, once a day, just because the Earth is rotating. That’s an "absolute" not, in other words it is not rotating on its own internal axis wrt any reference frame. It is rotating instead about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. You would accept that of Mt. Everest, or a large rock sitting motionless on the Earth’s surface, but move the rock 239,000 miles above the Earth’s surface, and all of a sudden you think it’s rotating on its own internal axis!
Sheesh.
Gaslighting Graham gaslights again.
NOTHING in particular “solves” the Moon issue.
It has ALREADY been solved.
By MANY things.
Team Science has SCIENCE to support itself.
Moon Dragon cranks only have toy models and antisocial behavior.
Little Willy’s bored again.
Puffman’s attack bot has things to say.
I’m just here to help, as usual.
As for the goofy analysis of planes going backward, doesn’t that depend on the time of day at the location of the plane? Just asking for a friend who is interested in such things.
The passenger jet flying backward nonsense is an attempt by the Spinners to come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Passenger jets don’t fly backward so their model fails the viability test. But facts don’t bother cultists.
Tim S
This came up as part of a discussion of velocity. To define velocity you need a reference. Velocity is then measured as a speed and direction, a vector, relative to that reference frame. In this case there are four frames of reference.
You’ll note that I defined a situation. The aircraft flew Eastward along Earth’s Equator at noon.
That defined two velocity vectors in two different reference frames. It moved at 600mph relative to the air around it and was carried along with the air at 1000mph counterclockwise around the Earth. At noon that is in the opposite direction to the third vector, the Earth’s orbital motion.
Put the three vectors together and you get the aircraft’s net motion relative to the fourth reference frame, the inertial reference frame preferred by physicists (sometimes referred to as the distant stars). The aircraft is pointing in one direction while actually moving in the opposite direction in the inertial reference frame ie flying backwards.
As you saw, ClintR struggles with the concept of different defence frames and continues to misunderstand.
You are digging a hole for yourself with the backwards plane. How do you explain the massive change in momentum for not just the plane but everything on earth every 12 hours?
My friend who is interested in this problem has a question. It is final exam time:
There are two airplanes at roughly the same location and altitude on the equator. One is flying true west (the W plane) and one is flying true east (the E plane). These are true headings, not magnetic headings. Describe a condition where one or both planes could be flying backwards. If not, explain why that is not possible. Then if different, describe the flight path of the other plane. Explain your answer in terms of the chosen frame of reference and classical Newtonian Physics.
Tim S
“You are digging a hole for yourself with the backwards plane. How do you explain the massive change in momentum for not just the plane but everything on earth every 12 hours? ”
Indeed. Everything on the surface is accelerated relative to the inertial reference frame.. At the Equator the actual velocity change is about 1000 ms^-2 every 12 hours or 0.02ms^-2.
That is too small to feel on the human scale. It is 2000 times weaker than the 9.8 ms^-2 due to Earth’s gravity, but it is enough to generate the Coriolis force which forms rotating weather systems.
Though individual particles undergo a considerable momentum change, the increased momentum of particles on one side of the planet is balanced by decreased momentum on the other side.
The net change in momentum is zero.
Sorry.
That should be
“At the Equator the actual velocity change is about 1000 ms^ -1 every 12 hours or 0.02ms^-2.”
Final exam.
In my earlier example the plane “flying East” had a net velocity of 600+1000-67000 =65400mph Westward relative to the inertial reference frame and is flying backwards
The second plane you described as “flying Westward” has a net velocity of -600+1000-67000=66600mph relative to the inertial reference frame and is flying forwards.
If you want to understand this in more detail research the difference between the inertial reference frame and accelerated reference frames.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame
A simpler example might help.
I am on a train travelling at 100mph. I am walking towards the rear of the train at 3mph.
I perceive myself moving forwards at 3mph relative to the interior of the train.
An observer beside the track will measure the train moving past at 100mph and me travelling backwards at 97mph.
This is what Clint R means:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGEEJSpSi4/qZ0QwpIqz7FeMW1IBycWyw/view?utm_content=DAGEEJSpSi4&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor
DREMT
Yes. It’s the difference between using a non-local inertial reference frame and a local accelerated reference frame.
Note that the aircraft in the right hand diagram is only not spinning relative to the point on Earth’s surface it is flying ing over at any instant. Relative to the Earth as a whole it still has to spin 360 degrees around its pitch axis during each circumnavigation.
No, it is the difference between the "Spinners" and the "Non-Spinners" idea of "orbit without spin". Your version has the passenger jet flying backwards and upside down, halfway around the journey. This is why Clint R keeps ridiculing you.
“Your version has the passenger jet flying backwards and upside down, halfway around the journey. This is why Clint R keeps ridiculing you.”
He is silly for doing so.
Much more relevant is what a satellite in orbit could do, and it would have NO problem doing the the Spinner version.
What airplanes do, in the atmosphere, has been big red herring for a long time.
Notice Nate and Ent fully support the nonsense that passenger jets fly backward. They have to! They have no viable model of “orbiting without spin”, so they have to pervert realty.
It’s the same with their GHE nonsense. They can’t provide a viable description/definition so they have to claim that ice cubes can boil water.
They have no science, so they attempt to pervert science and reality. They’ve got NOTHING.
Just happy to help point out that everything Entropic Man was talking about in his 6:13 PM comment from May 1st had absolutely nothing to do with Clint R’s point about "passenger jets flying backwards". It never has done. I’ve seen Entropic Man get confused about what Clint R means so many times that I thought maybe if I drew him a picture it would help straighten things out once and for all. That is what is meant.
> It is final exam time:
Step 2 – Very Intelligent Sammich Request
Maybe when I have some time, I will score some of the exam answers for accuracy and more importantly for creativity. Where is Gordon when some humor is needed? In general, the word backward can have different meanings which must be defined. The word flying when applied to an aircraft usually involves aerodynamics, and that would seem to limit the possible answers using that word.
I notice one person almost never provides thoughtful answers, but prefers to post quotes that appear thoughtful. Does this person really understand any of this?
Carry on.
FYI
https://www.iflscience.com/people-are-confused-why-flying-against-the-earths-rotation-doesnt-speed-up-flights-74030
Any of our guys?
Naturally the spreader of the ice-cube red herring is the same one spreading the plane flying backwards red herring!
Tim S doesn’t seem to understand that none of what he and Entropic Man have discussed has anything to do with Clint R’s point.
And DREMT neglects to say that how airplanes fly in the atmosphere has ZERO relevance to how bodies in space orbit.
This red herring keeps being brought up for one reason only: to tro.ll.
…S doesn’t seem to understand that none of what he and Entropic Man have discussed has anything to do with Clint R’s point.
Did ClintR make a point?
That would be a first.
“The passenger jet flying backward nonsense is an attempt by the Spinners to come up with a viable model of orbiting without spin”
Nah, looks like non-spinners made the boneheaded diagram with airplanes in orbit!
In America’s Biggest Oil Field, the Ground Is Swelling and Buckling
Satellite data reveal the impact of oil and gas drilling on the Permian Basin’s landscape; earthquakes, pressure increases have local communities worried.
NIMBY. But do keep the royalty checks coming.
A,
Why don’t you stop whining, and do something, if you’re concerned?
Because you’re incompetent and impotent, or because you’re just pointlessly trolling?
Ark, just think how many earthquakes we’re preventing.
Yes, but NIMBY; and do keep the royalty checks coming!
Ruang volcano continues to send ash into the atmosphere.
https://i.ibb.co/X8s26fp/RUA202405011200.jpg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/may/01/indonesia-volcano-eruption-tsunami-fears-mount-ruang-vola-malaysia-ash
The trace gas CO2 cannot warm Earth, because Earths atmosphere is a thin atmosphere, and because Earths atmosphere doesnt act as some kind of a warm blanket.
CO2 is a trace gas in the Earths thin atmosphere.
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect (because theoretically there should be some, since Earths atmosphere consists from substance, but it is very rare and thin substance)
Earths atmosphere greenhouse effect is something about
0.4 degrees Celsius.
CO2 content in Earths atmosphere is some ~ 400 ppm, a very small content. For comparison it is 1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earth’s five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
H2O is by far the most common and the most important.
Thank you, Arkady, for your response.
–
Thank you for the interesting paper you provided.
When scrolling thru the text, I asked myself, because at those highs there is almost not any air.
It is not the concentrations of Earths five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 what really matters, it is their actual densities, which are almost non-existent.
“Do you know how the air temperature at higher troposphere, at stratosphere and at mesosphere is measured? Because there is almost not any air.”
Arkady, do you know how the air temperature at higher troposphere, at stratosphere and at mesosphere is measured?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
1/
Don’t thank me. This appears to be Ken’s favorite paper, although it doesn’t say what he thinks it says.
1a/
I’m sure the authors would be happy to hear your thoughts on their findings, and you should write to them. Note that they provided their contact information.
2/
There are a variety of methods for measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere. Satellite remote sensing, Lidar, and Rocket-borne instruments come to mind.
Arkady,
You might be just a tiny bit gullible, like other fanatical GHE cultists.
Do you realise that surface temperatures drop at night, even when the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?
That fact might indicate to anybody attached to reality that your apparent belief that “The atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of Earths five most important, greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4 control the cloud-free, thermal radiative flux from the Earth to outer space.” may not actually have the relevance you believe it has.
The authors obviously disregard reality, so why would anybody waste their time writing to such people?
If you could actually describe the role of the mythical GHE in surface cooling in any location, over any time scale, you might convince people that you know what you are talking about. Of course you can’t – because you live in a fantasy world, where faith is superior to fact.
Keep at it anyway. You might convince someone even more ignorant and gullible than yourself that a slower rate of cooling is really an Increase in temperature.
“There are a variety of methods for measuring the temperature of the upper atmosphere. Satellite remote sensing, Lidar, and Rocket-borne instruments come to mind.”
Ark believes that it can be measured to the tenth-decimal.
Satellites measure the radiation wave of oxygen molecules. Oxygen O2 in the upper stratosphere absorbs photons below 242 nm and gives off energy to neighboring air atoms, which increases their kinetic energy. Almost no UVC radiation reaches the tropopause, so the temperature drops. Therefore, the kinetic energy of particles in the tropopause is the lowest. Ozone production already begins in the lower mesosphere, where many short UV photons reach.
However, the air there is very diluted at pressures below 0.4 hPa.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2024.png
Please, Ireneusz, help me to understand, because you know about it.
In the article Arkady provided, there is a graph with the atmospheric temperatures profile.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
Are those temperatures taken at some particular hour and at some particular latitude, or they are the global average atmospheric temperatures profile?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The ozoneoxygen cycle is the process by which ozone is continually regenerated in Earth’s stratosphere, converting ultraviolet radiation (UV) into heat. In 1930 Sydney Chapman resolved the chemistry involved. The process is commonly called the Chapman cycle by atmospheric scientists.
Most of the ozone production occurs in the tropical upper stratosphere and mesosphere. The total mass of ozone produced per day over the globe is about 400 million metric tons. The global mass of ozone is relatively constant at about 3 billion metric tons, meaning the Sun produces about 12% of the ozone layer each day.This is an overview chart. However, it shows the high kinetic energy of air particles at the boundary between the mesosphere and stratosphere, where most photons below 242 nm arrive. For an O3 molecule to form, a short-wavelength UV photon must break an O2 molecule into oxygen atoms by transferring excess energy to an adjacent air molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone%E2%80%93oxygen_cycle
No, the revolution will not be catered.
https://youtu.be/MLs1tC17wo8
According to Richard Muller (Berkeley Earth?), –
“According to the general theory of relativity, the Sun does orbit the Earth. And the Earth orbits the Sun. And they both orbit together around a place in between. And both the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the Moon.”
Now, if the Earth is orbiting the Moon (perfectly valid, according to Einstein), then the Moon is indeed rotating about an internal axis – otherwise it would not be able to present the same face to the orbing Earth.
I prefer the Moon orbiting the Earth – not rotating about an internal axis.
To each his own.
The active Semeru volcano in Indonesia.
https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/img/ga/SMR/SMR202405020600.png
Earlier, Entropic Man wrote –
“Final exam.”, no doubt assuming that enough ignorant and gullible people would accept his non-existent authority to determine the knowledge of others.
Unfortunately, EM could not pass even the first “Climate Science” exam, the first question of which is “Describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality”.
He failed.
[chortling at pretentious fool]
Chortling right back at you.
Unfortunately, EM could not pass even the first “Climate Science” exam, the first question of which is “Describe the GHE in any way which reflects reality”.
He failed.
[chortling again at pretentious fool]
Dear Roy, thanks for this analysis! I’ like to know if you have taken into account that – according to researchers – ecosystems may turn from carbon sinks to carbon sources as the warming (or their destruction) continues. Most prominently, the tropical rainforests are supposed to reach such a – what they call – tipping point. I’m wondering if this, if it’s true, is quantitatively large enough to alter your results. Thanks!