CO2 does both simultaneously: it rises in response to the temp rise, and it also magnifies the effect of the temp rise. It kind of has a 'snow ball' effect (pardon the pun), up to a point in which some other part of the system overtakes its effect. We don't know yet if what we've done will have a mild effect, a moderate effect, or a severe effect on the climate in the next 100 to 200 years. (cont.)
Blackouts are a definite problem as the earth heats up on the surface. The water used to regulate coal fire plants becomes hotter too, making the plant less efficient (i.e. less power being produced). Coal fire plants already spend something like 44 days down, per plant, per year, and when they go down, they go down suddenly, making it hard on the grid. Wind, on the other hand, spends less days down than coal plants, per year, per farm, and when it does go down, it does so gradually.
Part 2: First I constructed an exponential curve that fit two sets of coordinates (0,390) and (88,(390+468)), where 0 is the year 2012 and 88 is the year 2100 (get it? 2100 minus 2012 = 88 years), and 390 is our current atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm, while, according to Monckton’s figures, (390+468) is the concentration in 2100, because he said we’d be adding 468ppm by 2100. I went with a parabola in my model of the form y=mx^2+b because it’s super easy to work with.
Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work. Could you give me the title of the video? Yeah, there's a real fine line between having some control of the climate, and that which occurs after a tipping point, where we will be at nature's mercy. And peace to you and yours as well.
Part 5: He also said the addition of 7T tons correlates with 7 degrees F warming and made the simple linear assumption that on could divide 7T by 7 degrees and conclude that for every ton of CO2 added the earth would heat 1 degree F. So using Monckton’s logic, an addition of 468ppm CO2 makes it 7 degrees hotter, thus dividing 468ppm by 7 degrees, one could conclude that we’re warming the earth by 1 degree for every 66ppm.
I would say that instead of your "Not sure how to repair a roof, but give me money" analogy, it's more like a "There's a hole in our boat and the only thing to stop it, is to fill it with dollar bills". They know they have to plug the hole or the ship will probably sink, but they haven't figured out the best way to divide up the money between the passengers, to stuff it in the hole. If they delay, it makes stuffing the money harder and more expensive. Well, I'm gonna move on to the next one
Because a few years from now we might be putting 3ppm CO2 per year into the atmosphere, then 4ppm per year after a few years, then 5, then 6, etc., the more we do to transition to clean energy right now, and make it a mainstay in our energy infrastructure, the more we avoid exponential growth of atmospheric CO2 and the less likely we'll see the dramatic 468ppm addition Monckton was talking about in the video.
Part 3:There is a price for ‘super easy’ though: the model is too conservative at first, and too dramatic at the end, but I’m just trying to demonstrate the idea of exponential growth, not trying to construct a real, working model. So we know that at 2012, x=0 and y=390, so it follows that 390=m(0)^2+b, thus b=390. So now we know b. Now lets plug the other coordinates in to find m: 390+468=m88^2+390. Thus, solving for m, we get the number 0.06. So our super easy ‘Monckton Model’ is y=0.06x^2+390
NOT THAT SIMPLE You're absolutely correct & that’s why Anthropogenic Climate Change proponents shouldn't present “solutions” as simple. Matter of fact the ongoing debate over a viable solution hasn’t even been resolved yet & already they want a “Carbon Tax”? "Yeah not sure how to repair your roof yet or if it can be but start giving me money now anyway." Flawed reasoning or opportunity for greed & control? Hmm. My previous illustration concerning immediate loss of life is still relevant. Peace.
I wouldn't get too caught up on just looking at percentages and figuring 'small percentages have small effects and large percentages have large effects'. Take, for instance, a chemical like strychnine which can kill a person with just 10mg per Kg of the person's weight. So at just 0.001% of a man's weight, strychnine is deadly, even if he is 60% water. The lesson here is that the magnitude of a percentage is meaningless on its own; it's the effect of a given percentage that counts.
(from cont.) But what we're trying to avoid is the moderate to severe effect because that makes it hard for civilization, as we know it, to function. Because our lives are so short compared to geologic events, we can't afford to 'wait it out' for the system to naturally right itself. We're in the Goldilocks zone right now, regarding keeping 7 billion people going; a percentage of such having high standards of living. (cont.)
I'm not sure why it happens, but sometimes when link is copied from a post, "clipboard" adds dash(es) within the pasted link. So the title is: Lord Christopher Monckton vs Al Gore on Climate Change Power Shift 2011 Global Warming Climategate BUT I'd like you to copy it again & after you paste it really compare all the characters in the link & look for 2 added dashes between "B" & "4". I'd like an independant witness to this so please let me know how things worked out. Thanks.
Sorry, I don't have an answer for you presently regarding the number of years of no emissions it would take, currently, to avoid 1 degree F of warming. I know it takes a while for the system to react to a change, so even if we stopped everything today, I believe I've heard the earth will still warm around 1 degree C over the next century, though don't quote me on that - just an approximate time and temp magnitude.
OK, I finally have an answer to your question about how many years in the dark we would have to sit to shave off 1 degree F, using Monckton’s assumptions, but taking into account the exponential growth of emissions that he does not in his final step. It took a while to find an algebraic method, which I wanted to use as I find most people can understand algebra, but when it gets to areas under curves, it’s easy to loose 95% of the audience.
Ok, I watched the video, but unfortunately I found a flaw in Monckton's rational: He's trying to apply today's rate of man made CO2 production to an accumulative figure that relies on exponential growth for it to be true. He's using a flat rate (today's rate) in his calculation, when he should be using an exponentially growing rate. It makes his 33 years per 1 degree F too large.
Part 8: Or in other words, if we shut off the lights for 6.15 years, then run my ‘Monkton Model’ starting at 2018, the concentration of CO2 will be 792 at 2100 (I’m pushing my curve to the right along the x axis by 6.15 years, relative to the original curve, to make 792ppm hit the year 2100).
But don't worry, we're not going to cut the cord all at once and leave people in the dark. If you look at Lazzard's Levelized Cost of Energy paper, the cheapest way to 'make' energy, is through efficiency: SuperTherm paint on homes and commercial building, Energy Star a/c, appliances, windows, etc. We've actually reduced America's emissions this year by replacing coal with nat.gas. It would be nice to see more nat. gas vehicles or even hybrids if for no other reason than to avoid oil wars
And we don't just want to do a clean transition just to avoid the temp rise: Right now we are using 40% of our clean water just to regulate temperatures of coal fire and nuclear power plants. Imagine if we double the number of coal fire power plants at some point and double the amount of fresh water they use. We would then be paying a lot more money for water than what we are used to (because we have to spend more money cleaning/extracting). In essence we would be paying a water 'tax'....
Sorry, I implied that an alternate calculation could be made using Monckton's ideas and that he had just one flaw in his rational. His other flaws were assumptions that 1) putting 30B tons of CO2 always translates to an addition of 2ppm/year; it's not that simple; 2) the number of degrees of warming is perfectly coupled to the amount of CO2 we've emitted in a simple linear relationship that's quantized annually; it's not that simple. Thus a calculation cannot be made: his model is way too simple
Part 7: So I’ll plug 792ppm into my model and find the number of years it takes to get there by solving for x: 792=0.06x^2+390. It turns out x = 81.85 years. So taking exponential growth into account, we would have to sit in the dark for 88 minus 81.85 years, which equals 6.15 years to reduce the temp by 1 degree F by 2100.
Yeah, I have no idea how to make a carbon tax work, or if it will work, etc... But that's the discussion that should be taking place. The big scientific pieces of the puzzle are solved, regarding the question, "Are we causing a change?" (There are still lots of smaller unknowns, that will take years to figure out.) And there is this huge disconnect between what the scientists know as fact and what the public believes that's been forged by Fred Seitz, and his pals in the 90's, in an effort..
Part 6: . So the question then becomes, how many years in my ‘Monckton Model’ does it take to reach not 390+468ppm, but 390+468-66ppm. In essence, I’m trying to find a concentration that is 66ppm less than the 2100 predicted concentration (according to Monckton), because for every 66ppm I shave off, I’m shaving off 1 degree of warming (according to Monckton logic). So 390+468-66ppm equals 792ppm.
If we (erroneously) use the 30B tons CO2 per year flat rate, and project that out to the year 2100, then we would get the (erroneous) figure of 176ppm CO2 added to the atmosphere (between 2012 and 2100; i.e. 88 years), or in other words an addition of 2,640B tons of CO2. That wrong. So you see you can't apply a flat rate of production to a calculation of a system that is dictated by exponential growth. Monckton understands algebra, but what he really needs to solve the problem is calculus.
I couldn't replicate the 2 dashes when pasting. The link looked exactly the same (but of course I'd add 'w w w .' in front the link to make it complete). But when I'd hit enter, it would take me back to my main page. See ya....
Now, just for the sake of fun and laughs, lets assume all of Monckton’s flawed assumptions are correct. So we’re spitting out 30B tons of CO2 per year which translates to 2ppm per year, thus every 15B tons ups the total atmospheric concentration by 1ppm. He said we’d add 468ppm by 2100, and because to him 1ppm represents 15B tons, this addition to the atmosphere would mean that 15 times 468 = 7,020B tons or 7T tons of CO2 would be added.
(from cont.) If the earth goes up 6C in 100 to 200 years, that's not enough time to adapt. That doesn't mean we'll all die out; it just means we'll have to reduce our population severely, press the reset button on our economies (which possibly could make it harder to maintain a lot of our scientific and medical knowledge), and 99% of us will have to get used to lower living standards: perhaps the average human lifespan will be significantly reduced, etc...
...government regulation don't have to get involved in the question, "What do we do bout it?" They can keep kicking the can down the road. Then we probably have other greedy people thinking, "How can we profit from carbon taxes?, etc..", so if the guys that fear regulation don't get up to the negotiating table, the carbon tax people are going to take advantage. That's what politicians do - they take any advantage they can.
People like you impress me. What kind of people? Humble sincere people willing to move toward truth regardless of their original concepts or beliefs. Thank you. I would very much like to ask you what was the determining factor(s) that led to your paradigm shift from human caused Global Warming to a natural cycle of ice ages verses warming period cycles? Thank you for your consideration. Peace
Firstly you cannot divide the incoming energy flux by 4. Secondly gases do not behave like solid pieces of glass. Thirdly, the fingerprint absorption and emission frequency of CO2 is 15µm which, according Wien's Displacement Law, has a corresponding temperature of -80º C. The troposphere, that's the part of the atmosphere we live in, is defined by molecules with a minimum temperature of - 60º C. Therefore IR emissions from CO2 do not cause any warming in the troposphere as it would violate the laws of physics. The "skin" you refer to is actually called the atmosphere's effective emission height. The temperature of the effective emission height is -18º C, the same as the average temperature of the moon.
Hello Professor, would you or any of your expert friend's like to review my two complementary papers on quantum mechanics and the atmosphere? 'Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory' and 'The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers'. I have shown N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR photons, can prove it by experiment (Frank-Hertz experiment and other) and that the so-called GHGs are really only the thermoelectric gases - they also emit and absorb IR photons but are not special other than they are received by thermoelectric transducers - thermopiles originally. I have uncovered a lot of other misconceptions relevant to radiation theory. No one seems to like what I have uncovered, and I mean no one (climate sceptics that is); but equally, no one, no expert, has told me directly where I have am wrong. Please, direct comments to the preprint paper. Thank you in advance. www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory www.researchgate.net/publication/329311153_The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers
If CO2 had a significant effect on the temperature, the rise would liberate CO2 from the oceans and the whole system would be completely unstable, which is not the case in the history of Earth. We can only assume CO2 is a product of warming and not the cause.
SURE, OK All you say is true & yet I respectfully submit that the belief that we humans can somehow undo the chain of effects that are currently set in motion is, well, arrogant & misguided, not due to a lack of desire as much as the math is truly against such a fantastic ambition. Here's the tip of the iceberg: ruclips.net/video/agyjz9pZfB/видео.html4&feature=related I wish you success & peace to your family.
Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) ----------- Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr". Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth. Funny how that study was published the same year you posted your opposite comment.
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 "1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption"" is pretty ignorant of the science, and "5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth" is pretty ignorant of the science, but otherwise sure.
@@grindupBaker yes actually it's 50 gigatons - as published by Natalia Shakhova. First Calibrated Methane Bubble Wintertime Observations in the Siberian Arctic Seas: Selected Results from the Fast Ice by Denis Chernykh 1,2,3,* [ORCID] , Natalia Shakhova 1,2,3, Vladimir Yusupov 1,2,4 [ORCID] , Elena Gershelis 2,5,6 [ORCID] , Boris Morgunov 3 and Igor Semiletov 1,2,3,5,* 1 V.I. Ilyichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 690041 Vladivostok, Russia 2 Laboratory of the Arctic Land Shelf Interaction, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia 3 Institute of Ecology, Higher School of Economics (HSE), 101000 Moscow, Russia 4 Federal Scientific Research Center “Crystallography and Photonics” RAS, Institute of Photon Technologies, 108840 Moscow, Russia 5 School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Tomsk Polytechnic University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia 6 International Research Center for Ecology and Climate Change, Sirius University of Science and Technology, 354340 Sochi, Russia "In winter, the flux of CH4 transported by rising bubbles to the bottom water in the shallow part of the ESAS was estimated at ~19 g·m−2 per day, while the flux reaching the water/sea ice interface was calculated as ~15 g·m−2 per day taking into account the diffusion of CH4 in the surrounding water and the enrichment of rising bubbles with nitrogen and oxygen. We suggest that this bubble-transported CH4 flux reaching the water /sea ice interface can be emitted into the atmosphere through numerous ice trenches, leads, and polynyas. This CH4 ebullition value detected at the water/sea ice interface is in the mid high range of CH4 ebullition value estimated for the entire ESAS, and two orders higher than the upper range of CH4 ebullition from the northern thermocarst lakes, which are considered as a significant source to the atmospheric methane budget."
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Yes but your "will double global warming temperatures on Earth" remains pretty ignorant of the science. I calculated it in 2016 using U.ofC. MODTRAN which is U.S. Air Force Space Vehicles Directorate & Spectral Services Inc 1987 as +0.75 degrees peak for 50 Gt CH4 (17 ppmv) but much more important for you because it's one of your blokes and well known, Peter Wadhams was in a group that computer modelled 50 Gt CH4 from the estimated (probably wildly over-estimated) 50 Gt CH4 hydrates at 20 m - ~40 m below sea bed released over 10 years (so a massively-fast, stupidly-unlikely coincidental release across 2 million km**2) and got a peak GAST increase of +0.6 degrees after 20 years before slowly going back down (so more-professional work than my +0.75 degrees MODTRAN calculation of 2016). So your "will double global warming temperatures" is what is known in formal scientific terms such as published papers as "misinformation Junk Science C R A P" but don't worry because that simply means your Highly Normal and not Abby Normal because most of what I've read & heard from Rank Amateurs over 11 years has been various levels of C R A P, and being Highly Normal like you are is the best way for a human unit to be, gives the best life. ---------- By the way I've also heard the total incompetent "Natalia Shakhova" who you cite state on the "Nick Breeze" "Channel" that the 50 Gt CH4 hydrates released would increase GAST by 3 degrees, absurd C R A P and when I pointed it out on the "Nick Breeze" "Channel" the "Nick Breeze" responded by not responding and permanently banning my comments on his Money-Making Easy-Coin "Channel". That's the bottom line with you people when Money-Making Easy Coin is involved, it's bottom line for all humans. Also, BTW I've been generally favorable about you owing to you're the only bod in 11 years, few thousand bods, who stayed with me when you asked why a "Guy McPherson" (who stole Jim Hansen's work to help his Business Model) lied outright & hugely about those 2 published aerosol papers and also doesn't have the thermodynamics understanding of a 12 year old British Grammar School child (me in 1959). Still, after finally agreeing with my correct assessment of clown-charlatan Guy McPherson you indicated that you didn't care about that lying anyway, but that's fair enough that's honest and not devious.
This is really interesting. I graduated with a MMath degree last year and am looking to go into climate science research in academia. Nice1 UC
CO2 does both simultaneously: it rises in response to the temp rise, and it also magnifies the effect of the temp rise. It kind of has a 'snow ball' effect (pardon the pun), up to a point in which some other part of the system overtakes its effect. We don't know yet if what we've done will have a mild effect, a moderate effect, or a severe effect on the climate in the next 100 to 200 years. (cont.)
Blackouts are a definite problem as the earth heats up on the surface. The water used to regulate coal fire plants becomes hotter too, making the plant less efficient (i.e. less power being produced). Coal fire plants already spend something like 44 days down, per plant, per year, and when they go down, they go down suddenly, making it hard on the grid. Wind, on the other hand, spends less days down than coal plants, per year, per farm, and when it does go down, it does so gradually.
Part 2: First I constructed an exponential curve that fit two sets of coordinates (0,390) and (88,(390+468)), where 0 is the year 2012 and 88 is the year 2100 (get it? 2100 minus 2012 = 88 years), and 390 is our current atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm, while, according to Monckton’s figures, (390+468) is the concentration in 2100, because he said we’d be adding 468ppm by 2100. I went with a parabola in my model of the form y=mx^2+b because it’s super easy to work with.
Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work. Could you give me the title of the video? Yeah, there's a real fine line between having some control of the climate, and that which occurs after a tipping point, where we will be at nature's mercy. And peace to you and yours as well.
Part 5: He also said the addition of 7T tons correlates with 7 degrees F warming and made the simple linear assumption that on could divide 7T by 7 degrees and conclude that for every ton of CO2 added the earth would heat 1 degree F. So using Monckton’s logic, an addition of 468ppm CO2 makes it 7 degrees hotter, thus dividing 468ppm by 7 degrees, one could conclude that we’re warming the earth by 1 degree for every 66ppm.
I would say that instead of your "Not sure how to repair a roof, but give me money" analogy, it's more like a "There's a hole in our boat and the only thing to stop it, is to fill it with dollar bills". They know they have to plug the hole or the ship will probably sink, but they haven't figured out the best way to divide up the money between the passengers, to stuff it in the hole. If they delay, it makes stuffing the money harder and more expensive. Well, I'm gonna move on to the next one
on the Einstein claim - study noncommutativity. Professor Basil J. Hiley, the collaborator of David Bohm.
Because a few years from now we might be putting 3ppm CO2 per year into the atmosphere, then 4ppm per year after a few years, then 5, then 6, etc., the more we do to transition to clean energy right now, and make it a mainstay in our energy infrastructure, the more we avoid exponential growth of atmospheric CO2 and the less likely we'll see the dramatic 468ppm addition Monckton was talking about in the video.
Part 3:There is a price for ‘super easy’ though: the model is too conservative at first, and too dramatic at the end, but I’m just trying to demonstrate the idea of exponential growth, not trying to construct a real, working model. So we know that at 2012, x=0 and y=390, so it follows that 390=m(0)^2+b, thus b=390. So now we know b. Now lets plug the other coordinates in to find m: 390+468=m88^2+390. Thus, solving for m, we get the number 0.06. So our super easy ‘Monckton Model’ is y=0.06x^2+390
NOT THAT SIMPLE
You're absolutely correct & that’s why Anthropogenic Climate Change proponents shouldn't present “solutions” as simple. Matter of fact the ongoing debate over a viable solution hasn’t even been resolved yet & already they want a “Carbon Tax”? "Yeah not sure how to repair your roof yet or if it can be but start giving me money now anyway." Flawed reasoning or opportunity for greed & control? Hmm. My previous illustration concerning immediate loss of life is still relevant.
Peace.
I wouldn't get too caught up on just looking at percentages and figuring 'small percentages have small effects and large percentages have large effects'. Take, for instance, a chemical like strychnine which can kill a person with just 10mg per Kg of the person's weight. So at just 0.001% of a man's weight, strychnine is deadly, even if he is 60% water. The lesson here is that the magnitude of a percentage is meaningless on its own; it's the effect of a given percentage that counts.
(from cont.) But what we're trying to avoid is the moderate to severe effect because that makes it hard for civilization, as we know it, to function. Because our lives are so short compared to geologic events, we can't afford to 'wait it out' for the system to naturally right itself. We're in the Goldilocks zone right now, regarding keeping 7 billion people going; a percentage of such having high standards of living. (cont.)
I'm not sure why it happens, but sometimes when link is copied from a post, "clipboard" adds dash(es) within the pasted link. So the title is:
Lord Christopher Monckton vs Al Gore on Climate Change Power Shift 2011 Global Warming Climategate
BUT I'd like you to copy it again & after you paste it really compare all the characters in the link & look for 2 added dashes between "B" & "4". I'd like an independant witness to this so please let me know how things worked out. Thanks.
Sorry, I don't have an answer for you presently regarding the number of years of no emissions it would take, currently, to avoid 1 degree F of warming. I know it takes a while for the system to react to a change, so even if we stopped everything today, I believe I've heard the earth will still warm around 1 degree C over the next century, though don't quote me on that - just an approximate time and temp magnitude.
OK, I finally have an answer to your question about how many years in the dark we would have to sit to shave off 1 degree F, using Monckton’s assumptions, but taking into account the exponential growth of emissions that he does not in his final step. It took a while to find an algebraic method, which I wanted to use as I find most people can understand algebra, but when it gets to areas under curves, it’s easy to loose 95% of the audience.
I am working on a model of global temperature and I should be able to demonstrate this.
Ok, I watched the video, but unfortunately I found a flaw in Monckton's rational: He's trying to apply today's rate of man made CO2 production to an accumulative figure that relies on exponential growth for it to be true. He's using a flat rate (today's rate) in his calculation, when he should be using an exponentially growing rate. It makes his 33 years per 1 degree F too large.
Part 8: Or in other words, if we shut off the lights for 6.15 years, then run my ‘Monkton Model’ starting at 2018, the concentration of CO2 will be 792 at 2100 (I’m pushing my curve to the right along the x axis by 6.15 years, relative to the original curve, to make 792ppm hit the year 2100).
But don't worry, we're not going to cut the cord all at once and leave people in the dark. If you look at Lazzard's Levelized Cost of Energy paper, the cheapest way to 'make' energy, is through efficiency: SuperTherm paint on homes and commercial building, Energy Star a/c, appliances, windows, etc. We've actually reduced America's emissions this year by replacing coal with nat.gas. It would be nice to see more nat. gas vehicles or even hybrids if for no other reason than to avoid oil wars
And we don't just want to do a clean transition just to avoid the temp rise: Right now we are using 40% of our clean water just to regulate temperatures of coal fire and nuclear power plants. Imagine if we double the number of coal fire power plants at some point and double the amount of fresh water they use. We would then be paying a lot more money for water than what we are used to (because we have to spend more money cleaning/extracting). In essence we would be paying a water 'tax'....
Sorry, I implied that an alternate calculation could be made using Monckton's ideas and that he had just one flaw in his rational. His other flaws were assumptions that 1) putting 30B tons of CO2 always translates to an addition of 2ppm/year; it's not that simple; 2) the number of degrees of warming is perfectly coupled to the amount of CO2 we've emitted in a simple linear relationship that's quantized annually; it's not that simple. Thus a calculation cannot be made: his model is way too simple
Part 7: So I’ll plug 792ppm into my model and find the number of years it takes to get there by solving for x: 792=0.06x^2+390. It turns out x = 81.85 years. So taking exponential growth into account, we would have to sit in the dark for 88 minus 81.85 years, which equals 6.15 years to reduce the temp by 1 degree F by 2100.
Yeah, I have no idea how to make a carbon tax work, or if it will work, etc... But that's the discussion that should be taking place. The big scientific pieces of the puzzle are solved, regarding the question, "Are we causing a change?" (There are still lots of smaller unknowns, that will take years to figure out.) And there is this huge disconnect between what the scientists know as fact and what the public believes that's been forged by Fred Seitz, and his pals in the 90's, in an effort..
Part 6: . So the question then becomes, how many years in my ‘Monckton Model’ does it take to reach not 390+468ppm, but 390+468-66ppm. In essence, I’m trying to find a concentration that is 66ppm less than the 2100 predicted concentration (according to Monckton), because for every 66ppm I shave off, I’m shaving off 1 degree of warming (according to Monckton logic). So 390+468-66ppm equals 792ppm.
If we (erroneously) use the 30B tons CO2 per year flat rate, and project that out to the year 2100, then we would get the (erroneous) figure of 176ppm CO2 added to the atmosphere (between 2012 and 2100; i.e. 88 years), or in other words an addition of 2,640B tons of CO2. That wrong. So you see you can't apply a flat rate of production to a calculation of a system that is dictated by exponential growth. Monckton understands algebra, but what he really needs to solve the problem is calculus.
...It was nice talking to you. Be well and safe. See ya...
I couldn't replicate the 2 dashes when pasting. The link looked exactly the same (but of course I'd add 'w w w .' in front the link to make it complete). But when I'd hit enter, it would take me back to my main page. See ya....
Now, just for the sake of fun and laughs, lets assume all of Monckton’s flawed assumptions are correct. So we’re spitting out 30B tons of CO2 per year which translates to 2ppm per year, thus every 15B tons ups the total atmospheric concentration by 1ppm. He said we’d add 468ppm by 2100, and because to him 1ppm represents 15B tons, this addition to the atmosphere would mean that 15 times 468 = 7,020B tons or 7T tons of CO2 would be added.
(from cont.) If the earth goes up 6C in 100 to 200 years, that's not enough time to adapt. That doesn't mean we'll all die out; it just means we'll have to reduce our population severely, press the reset button on our economies (which possibly could make it harder to maintain a lot of our scientific and medical knowledge), and 99% of us will have to get used to lower living standards: perhaps the average human lifespan will be significantly reduced, etc...
Just watching this simple model you understand anyone can make his own model. Science is one thing, interpretation another.
it started with the empirical data of Joseph Fourier two hundred years ago - he collected temperatures from different mines, etc. Nice try though.
...government regulation don't have to get involved in the question, "What do we do bout it?" They can keep kicking the can down the road. Then we probably have other greedy people thinking, "How can we profit from carbon taxes?, etc..", so if the guys that fear regulation don't get up to the negotiating table, the carbon tax people are going to take advantage. That's what politicians do - they take any advantage they can.
......instead of a carbon tax.
People like you impress me. What kind of people? Humble sincere people willing to move toward truth regardless of their original concepts or beliefs. Thank you.
I would very much like to ask you what was the determining factor(s) that led to your paradigm shift from human caused Global Warming to a natural cycle of ice ages verses warming period cycles? Thank you for your consideration.
Peace
Firstly you cannot divide the incoming energy flux by 4. Secondly gases do not behave like solid pieces of glass. Thirdly, the fingerprint absorption and emission frequency of CO2 is 15µm which, according Wien's Displacement Law, has a corresponding temperature of -80º C. The troposphere, that's the part of the atmosphere we live in, is defined by molecules with a minimum temperature of - 60º C. Therefore IR emissions from CO2 do not cause any warming in the troposphere as it would violate the laws of physics.
The "skin" you refer to is actually called the atmosphere's effective emission height. The temperature of the effective emission height is -18º C, the same as the average temperature of the moon.
NEED TO PROTECT EARTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES, BEST WAY IS BY TREE PLANTION
Hello Professor, would you or any of your expert friend's like to review my two complementary papers on quantum mechanics and the atmosphere? 'Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory' and 'The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers'. I have shown N2 and O2 absorb and emit IR photons, can prove it by experiment (Frank-Hertz experiment and other) and that the so-called GHGs are really only the thermoelectric gases - they also emit and absorb IR photons but are not special other than they are received by thermoelectric transducers - thermopiles originally. I have uncovered a lot of other misconceptions relevant to radiation theory. No one seems to like what I have uncovered, and I mean no one (climate sceptics that is); but equally, no one, no expert, has told me directly where I have am wrong. Please, direct comments to the preprint paper. Thank you in advance. www.researchgate.net/publication/328927828_Quantum_Mechanics_and_Raman_Spectroscopy_Refute_Greenhouse_Theory www.researchgate.net/publication/329311153_The_Greenhouse_Gases_and_Infrared_Radiation_Misconceived_by_Thermoelectric_Transducers
So did you get these published in a listed scientific journal ? And what responses did you get from other physicists ?
NOT THAT SIMPLE
If CO2 had a significant effect on the temperature, the rise would liberate CO2 from the oceans and the whole system would be completely unstable, which is not the case in the history of Earth. We can only assume CO2 is a product of warming and not the cause.
SURE, OK
All you say is true & yet I respectfully submit that the belief that we humans can somehow undo the chain of effects that are currently set in motion is, well, arrogant & misguided, not due to a lack of desire as much as the math is truly against such a fantastic ambition. Here's the tip of the iceberg:
ruclips.net/video/agyjz9pZfB/видео.html4&feature=related
I wish you success & peace to your family.
I recently discovered Simply Love Gardening (search on Google). it had everthing that i needed in one place
And still, climate predictions using this greenhouse narrative have failed to show anything.
Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) -----------
Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr".
Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth.
Funny how that study was published the same year you posted your opposite comment.
Such statement always betrays ignorance of the person saying it
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 "1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption"" is pretty ignorant of the science, and "5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth" is pretty ignorant of the science, but otherwise sure.
@@grindupBaker yes actually it's 50 gigatons - as published by Natalia Shakhova. First Calibrated Methane Bubble Wintertime Observations in the Siberian Arctic Seas: Selected Results from the Fast Ice
by Denis Chernykh
1,2,3,* [ORCID] , Natalia Shakhova
1,2,3, Vladimir Yusupov
1,2,4 [ORCID] , Elena Gershelis
2,5,6 [ORCID] , Boris Morgunov
3 and Igor Semiletov
1,2,3,5,*
1
V.I. Ilyichev Pacific Oceanological Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 690041 Vladivostok, Russia
2
Laboratory of the Arctic Land Shelf Interaction, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
3
Institute of Ecology, Higher School of Economics (HSE), 101000 Moscow, Russia
4
Federal Scientific Research Center “Crystallography and Photonics” RAS, Institute of Photon Technologies, 108840 Moscow, Russia
5
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Tomsk Polytechnic University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
6
International Research Center for Ecology and Climate Change, Sirius University of Science and Technology, 354340 Sochi, Russia
"In winter, the flux of CH4 transported by rising bubbles to the bottom water in the shallow part of the ESAS was estimated at ~19 g·m−2 per day, while the flux reaching the water/sea ice interface was calculated as ~15 g·m−2 per day taking into account the diffusion of CH4 in the surrounding water and the enrichment of rising bubbles with nitrogen and oxygen. We suggest that this bubble-transported CH4 flux reaching the water /sea ice interface can be emitted into the atmosphere through numerous ice trenches, leads, and polynyas. This CH4 ebullition value detected at the water/sea ice interface is in the mid high range of CH4 ebullition value estimated for the entire ESAS, and two orders higher than the upper range of CH4 ebullition from the northern thermocarst lakes, which are considered as a significant source to the atmospheric methane budget."
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Yes but your "will double global warming temperatures on Earth" remains pretty ignorant of the science. I calculated it in 2016 using U.ofC. MODTRAN which is U.S. Air Force Space Vehicles Directorate & Spectral Services Inc 1987 as +0.75 degrees peak for 50 Gt CH4 (17 ppmv) but much more important for you because it's one of your blokes and well known, Peter Wadhams was in a group that computer modelled 50 Gt CH4 from the estimated (probably wildly over-estimated) 50 Gt CH4 hydrates at 20 m - ~40 m below sea bed released over 10 years (so a massively-fast, stupidly-unlikely coincidental release across 2 million km**2) and got a peak GAST increase of +0.6 degrees after 20 years before slowly going back down (so more-professional work than my +0.75 degrees MODTRAN calculation of 2016). So your "will double global warming temperatures" is what is known in formal scientific terms such as published papers as "misinformation Junk Science C R A P" but don't worry because that simply means your Highly Normal and not Abby Normal because most of what I've read & heard from Rank Amateurs over 11 years has been various levels of C R A P, and being Highly Normal like you are is the best way for a human unit to be, gives the best life.
----------
By the way I've also heard the total incompetent "Natalia Shakhova" who you cite state on the "Nick Breeze" "Channel" that the 50 Gt CH4 hydrates released would increase GAST by 3 degrees, absurd C R A P and when I pointed it out on the "Nick Breeze" "Channel" the "Nick Breeze" responded by not responding and permanently banning my comments on his Money-Making Easy-Coin "Channel". That's the bottom line with you people when Money-Making Easy Coin is involved, it's bottom line for all humans. Also, BTW I've been generally favorable about you owing to you're the only bod in 11 years, few thousand bods, who stayed with me when you asked why a "Guy McPherson" (who stole Jim Hansen's work to help his Business Model) lied outright & hugely about those 2 published aerosol papers and also doesn't have the thermodynamics understanding of a 12 year old British Grammar School child (me in 1959). Still, after finally agreeing with my correct assessment of clown-charlatan Guy McPherson you indicated that you didn't care about that lying anyway, but that's fair enough that's honest and not devious.