Epic Correction of the Decade

[pErvinalia]

Alcohol is a powerful drug.

If you add alcohol to piss, so that the result is 0.04% alcohol, you don't get a powerful brew.

You just get Australian beer.

At least if you were currently drinking beer there would be an excuse for your confusion. Gross % concentration (of CO2) doesn't equate to the same % of effect on any particular effect one wants to talk about. I.e. Your busted attempt at the "logic" that because relative CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is low, that it's effect on the greenhouse effect must also be low.

[Brian Peacock]

I noticed Hermy. I was going to post an explanation of why the size of the numbers doesn't matter, but what they reflect, why CO2 ppb levels are of interest and concern to scientists, adding the estimates for CO2 levels which compare yearly emissions from natural emission with human activity, and such like - but then I remembered that Mr M thinks any kind of science to do with the atmosphere is just made-up-shit from scientists whose overriding concerns are with tenure, funding, and avoiding embarrassment at dinner parties rather than understanding the world around us, so I didn't bother.

[JimC]

The critical thing to understand is that CO2, and the other greenhouse gases, absorb the long-wavelength radiation leaving Earth of space, reducing the heat loss, and actually maintaining a range of temperatures suitable to life. Without any such gases (and their low concentrations are not the issue), we would be fucking cold...

The thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet is very sensitive to small changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. My Year 11 students understand the physics behind that quite well - why can't others...

[pErvinalia]

Because they don't want to. It upsets their long held views of how the world should work.

[Animavore]

Here's what is so insanely bullshit about the scientists keep the lie going to keep their funding argument. Climate scientists only earn about $35,000 dollars a year. There are other fields, like genetics, which pay much more.

The fact is if you want to make the big bucks; become a blow piece for denialism.

Case in point. Last year Peabody bought 'expert' witnesses to a case in Minnesota to argue against a proposed rise compensation for the social cost of carbon. The witnesses, Spencer, Lindzen, and Happier, household names for contrarians, were all disclosed large amounts to appear. The scientists weren't paid anything. They just wanted to express how important the issue is.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguar ... court-case

It's worth reading. The scientists brought evidence. The Denialists, laughably, brought non-peer review articles and blog pieces which were easily debunked.

The moral of the story is that if you want big bucks; sell out to the fossil industry. And if any group can be accused of keeping a conspiracy going for the gravy train; it's contrarians.

EDIT: added ''

[Animavore]

More in-depth piece. It's as pathetic as Kitzmiller Vs Dover.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-and-lost

[pErvinalia]

That's all great, Ani, but it was cooler yesterday at mistermack's place than the same time last year. Therefore global cooling.

[mistermack]

The critical thing to understand is that CO2, and the other greenhouse gases, absorb the long-wavelength radiation leaving Earth of space, reducing the heat loss, and actually maintaining a range of temperatures suitable to life. Without any such gases (and their low concentrations are not the issue), we would be fucking cold...

The thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet is very sensitive to small changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. My Year 11 students understand the physics behind that quite well - why can't others...

The flaw in your argument, is that it's not true.
If our planet was so very sensitive to CO2 levels, then you would get runaway warming.
There is a vast reservoir of CO2 in the oceans. It pours out of solution into the atmosphere when the ocean warms. The ocean warms if the atmosphere warms. So, warming of the atmosphere, warms the oceans, which expels CO2, which warms the atmosphere.
A classic runaway reaction that doesn't happen.


For it NOT to happen, something has to be wrong. We KNOW that warmer temperatures lead to raised CO2, you only have to look at the records, over hundreds of thousands of years, to see that.
For it not to lead to runaway warming, the thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet can NOT be as sensitive to CO2 levels as you claim.

And that's not rocket science, or even climate science, it's the bleedin obvious.

[JimC]

Your diagram is utterly irrelevant - none of this involves "exothermic reactions", which involve the breaking of chemical bonds. In terms of atmospheric and dissolved CO2, we have a complex relationship - initially, excess atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. This produces a time lag, but eventually (for reasons not associated with "exothermic reactions"), global warming will first reduce, and then reverse the rate of absorption - then the real problems will begin...

[pErvinalia]

The critical thing to understand is that CO2, and the other greenhouse gases, absorb the long-wavelength radiation leaving Earth of space, reducing the heat loss, and actually maintaining a range of temperatures suitable to life. Without any such gases (and their low concentrations are not the issue), we would be fucking cold...

The thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet is very sensitive to small changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. My Year 11 students understand the physics behind that quite well - why can't others...

The flaw in your argument, is that it's not true.
If our planet was so very sensitive to CO2 levels, then you would get runaway warming.

Another non-sequitur. Warming can be very sensitive to CO2 levels, and you can not suffer from runaway warming. The two aren't necessarily correlated. I haven't looked into the latest science on this particular issue, but the reason why you didn't get runaway warming in the past was due to the change in orbit affecting the input energy levels to the planet and buggering up the usual Atlantic Ocean currents - leading to an ice age cycle. Another theory that was proposed as a general case was that as temperature rose, so to would surface water evaporation - leading to higher cloud cover reducing solar input to the planet.

What's ironic here is that you are more than happy to bleat about the climate/biosphere system being allegedly too complicated to bother modelling, but then have no problem proclaiming from your busted armchair that warming can't be highly sensitive to CO2 levels because it would simplistically lead to never ending warming. So which is it? Is the climate system complicated, or is it so simple that numpties like you can confidently proclaim our planet can't be sensitive to C02 levels because if it was it would warm indefinitely (dismissing the complexity of the system)?

For it NOT to happen, something has to be wrong. We KNOW that warmer temperatures lead to raised CO2, you only have to look at the records, over hundreds of thousands of years, to see that.
For it not to lead to runaway warming, the thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet can NOT be as sensitive to CO2 levels as you claim.

You seem to not understand the terms you are using. Thermodynamics is the study of energy, not temperature specifically. Just because temperatures change, doesn't meant that equilibrium doesn't exist. Heat energy is converted into other forms of energy, and vice versa. So in the case where temperature rises and then CO2 rises and then temperature rises as a result of that, and it repeats and repeats, until it doesn't.. in those cases the heat energy is converted to other forms of energy like chemical energy (at minute scales, and also at larger scales in the case of biomass).

And that's not rocket science, or even climate science, it's the bleedin obvious.

And it's wrong.

[mistermack]

Your diagram is utterly irrelevant - none of this involves "exothermic reactions", which involve the breaking of chemical bonds. In terms of atmospheric and dissolved CO2, we have a complex relationship - initially, excess atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. This produces a time lag, but eventually (for reasons not associated with "exothermic reactions"), global warming will first reduce, and then reverse the rate of absorption - then the real problems will begin...

I didn't say it did involve exothermic chemical reactions. Nice attempt at diverting attention.
But if your claim of climate sensitivity is right, then you would get a circular chain of events similar to the diagram.

And you haven't explained why it hasn't happened. And the evidence is clear that it hasn't.

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.
Just hearing it said over and over and over again doesn't make it any more true.
You can look at the graphs of hundreds of thousand of years worth of ice cores, and you can look at the last 20 years. They both tell the same story.
Rises in CO2 do not cause significant lasting warming. Warming causes rises in atmospheric CO2. THAT is true.
You can't have both.

[Hermit]

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

LOL

[mistermack]

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

LOL

Does that show that temperatures are sensitive to CO2 levels, or that CO2 levels are sensitive to temperature?

You tell me. Any fool can post a graph. Tell me what it shows.

[Brian Peacock]

The critical thing to understand is that CO2, and the other greenhouse gases, absorb the long-wavelength radiation leaving Earth of space, reducing the heat loss, and actually maintaining a range of temperatures suitable to life. Without any such gases (and their low concentrations are not the issue), we would be fucking cold...

The thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet is very sensitive to small changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. My Year 11 students understand the physics behind that quite well - why can't others...

The flaw in your argument, is that it's not true.
If our planet was so very sensitive to CO2 levels, then you would get runaway warming.
There is a vast reservoir of CO2 in the oceans. It pours out of solution into the atmosphere when the ocean warms. The ocean warms if the atmosphere warms. So, warming of the atmosphere, warms the oceans, which expels CO2, which warms the atmosphere.
A classic runaway reaction that doesn't happen.


For it NOT to happen, something has to be wrong. We KNOW that warmer temperatures lead to raised CO2, you only have to look at the records, over hundreds of thousands of years, to see that.
For it not to lead to runaway warming, the thermodynamic equilibrium of our planet can NOT be as sensitive to CO2 levels as you claim.

And that's not rocket science, or even climate science, it's the bleedin obvious.

Your appeal to common sense is misplaced here. Consider this: the largest estimates of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere each year from natural sources is about 500million tons. That's a big number and, of course, a Yuge amount of CO2, but it represents about 2% of the most conservative estimates of the amount of CO2 which human activity adds to the atmosphere each year, which is around 30billion tons. As I said earlier, to say that 'our planet can NOT be as sensitive to CO2 levels as you claim' is to necessarily engage in science denialism. If you wish to challenge the explanations of robust carbon science and the mechanism of the so-called greenhouse effect, and in so doing to support your 'common sense' claims about how the world works, please provide a rational, critically robust argument along with your hypothesis, data, methodology, and results.

In other words: the only thing that overturns science is more and better science, not mismatched appeals to common sense and incredulity.

[Hermit]

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

LOL

Does that show that temperatures are sensitive to CO2 levels, or that CO2 levels are sensitive to temperature?

You tell me. Any fool can post a graph. Tell me what it shows.

I was replying to your bald assertion that

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

How about you tell me how you worked that one out, and we'll take it from there?