Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[Lord of Planar]

1.5 billion cars, buses, trucks. Factories galore. Power plants. Billions of people. Im sure we are having an effect.

Yes, we have an effect. But until we recognize that CO2 is not the problem we will never get better. We need to focus on the actual problems.

Modern gasoline cars are have an insignificant footprint of pollutants. Diesel however needs to get to near zero emissions or we need to stop using them.

Are you concerned? Do you best to never buy imports that are transported across the Atlantic or Pacific. These cargo ship are among the worse atmospheric polluters we have outside of coal plants.

 

[George50]

Actually the TSI decreased about 1799, so Tambora may have aggravated an already bad situation.

Look at it that way if you want, but most look at the volcano eruption in 1815 as the cause of the 1816 “year with no summer” that caused the widespread suffering due to crop failures and such.

AIRS is using the channels to be able to decode atmospheric content and temperature, not OLR, yes it is part of OLR but
that is not what they are measuring, that is what CERES is designed to measure.

AIRS measures the levels of outgoing infrared radiation. Thus the name.

Not what I asked, Because the graphic has both above and below zero readings which side do you think is for warming,
because the opposite is cooling?

Above the zero line is warming, below is cooling.

In the 2x to 1x graph you would read it as “when we go from 2x to 1x we have what is represented on the graph.” That would be some warming in the middle wavemeters but more cooling in the wavemeters on either side.

Not at all, the cumulative effect would be the same curve, and .2C for an increase of 47 ppm equals a maximum warming of 1.2C per doubling.
Of course that assumes that the doubling forced a 3.71 W m-2 longwave energy imbalance, which is itself in question.

The graph in you study shows the effect being larger and faster with smaller pulses. Also, I don’t agree with your “airborne fraction” assumption since the study clearly states that the numbers are based on the amount released, not the amount that remains in the atmosphere after some period of time.

How closely does China's decrease in SO2 correlate to reduced cloud cover? or is global SO2 emissions a greater factor?

I thought I was clear with:

Cloud cover in China was decreasing while their huge run up in SO2 was occurring. When the government decided to turn things around and stop emitting so much SO2 cloud coverage continued to decrease. It appears something else is the cause.

In fewer words, when SO2 was increasing, cloud cover was decreasing. When SO2 was decreasing, cloud cover was decreasing. That was true both in China and globally. They are not correlated.

we also do not know for sure that added CO2 is causing the raising temperatures,

As I have shown from satellite observations CO2 is keeping some outgoing radiation from escaping into space thus lowering OLR from what it would otherwise be and thus increasing the difference between ASR and OLR thus contributing to warming.

for that raising temperature to cause a reduction in cloud cover!
Saying that the cloud cover decreases with increased temperature is not the same as saying the cloud cover decrease was
caused by the increase in CO2 levels.

Yes it is. Not entirely, but in part.

 

[George50]

I keep seeing people throw around the 1.5C like it means something.
Here is GISS's number, GISS temp
1880 to 1900 average

[td width="51pt"]
-0.2181

[/td]​

2015 to 2024 average

[td width="51pt"]
0.987

[/td]​

Delta

[td width="51pt"]
1.205095C

[/td]​

This is the way the IPCC calculates warming.

That’s one way to do it. The 1.5 comes from the beginning and the end of your source. -0.17 vs 1.29 = a change of 1.46C.

Different sources will of course yield slightly different numbers because the early data is so fuzzy.

Also not all the observed warming is required to be from added CO2

Very true. Just the factors we control are both positive and negative:

, and the IPCC's assumptions
are just that assumptions, based on the idea that 2XCO2 causes 3.71 W m-2 of longwave energy imbalance

As we get more empirical data those assumptions are being more and more difficult to refute. I have provided studies that show how satellite observations confirm how greenhouse gases are impacting OLR.

In the AIRS-observed CO2 band's wing (710–720 cm−1) (second graph) we find a clear decline of emission over the observed time period, signifying a contribution to the heating of the planet (Figure 1b). The OLR at 1,270–1,280 cm−1 associated with CH4 and N2O also shows a steady decline, but not as large as the CO2 wing's OLR trend:



Global-mean spectral climatology and trends during 2003–2021. (a) Time-mean spectral outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) fluxes. (b) Time series of CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands in AIRS channels. Dashed lines indicate trends. These trend values are plotted in (c). (c) Trends in spectral OLR fluxes. Uncertainties given by the gray envelope that denotes a 95% CI. (d) Same as (c) but for clear-sky. Positive indicates more emission (cooling the planet) and vice-versa.

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2, CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former, yielding a positive broadband OLR trend. We conducted novel global line-by-line radiative transfer simulations and showed that the observed changes are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1). These are three tenets of global warming theory predicted by our climate change simulations, which we show is now evident in the hyperspectral satellite record.

In the global-mean, our forcing estimates are in excellent agreement with the IPCC analytical expressions, signaling the value of the IPCC analytical expressions in estimating global-mean forcing.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947

Methane is much more difficult as it has a lower climate sensitivity and only about a 10 year residence time.

Yes.

By the way at ~425 ppm above 280 ppm, we are 60% of along the way towards forcing doubling.

Looking at ppm, I get (425-280)/280 = 51.8% increase.

 

[George50]

You put up a graph titled:

Global mean temperature 1850-2024
Difference from 1850-1900 average

That shows that world temperature is up.

So what? That's not in dispute. What's in dispute is, and you didn't say but
probably believe, that it represents a "Climate Crisis." At least in your previous
post you referred to it as such. It was pointed out to you that a warmer world,

So you think it’s a good idea if the main temperate areas in the Northern Hemisphere were Canada and Russia? The rest becomes too hot for people to spend time outdoors for large parts of the year.

with longer growing seasons,

Some places. Too hot others. More wildfires.

more rain,

Crops don’t like deluges and droughts. Worse storms.

more arable land

Are you sure? Where?

and greening as a
result of increasing CO2 don't represent a problem. You were silent on those
points. Why?

Why were you silent on my actual questions?

Regarding sea level you didn't comment on the ridiculous claim from Google AI
of 0.6 meters of sea level rise by 2100. That comes to 8mm/yr starting right now.
Do you think that's going to happen?

What makes you think it’s ridiculous?

First the prediction is less if the world tries to mitigate warming, more if the world adopts the Trump approach. Second, the predictions were based on comparisons to 1986 to 2005 average, not from today.

See level rise was about 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year during the 20th century, but increased to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006-2015.

Last year, the models predicted the rise would be 4.3 mm, it was 5.9 mm.

At 3.6 mm/yr from 1997, the middle of the baseline period, to now that would amount to 0.101 meters. At only the current 2024 rate of 5.9 mm/yr for the next 75 years that would amount to 0.442 meters. Add them together and you have 0.543 meters.

Do you still think an increase of 0.6 meters is ridiculous? If so, why?

And thermal expansion. That's local, if the middle of the Pacific warms up, that
doesn't make the oceans rise in New York and London.

What makes you think that only the middle of the Pacific will warm up?

The rest of your post consists of unsupported assertions.

And yours are not only unsupported but often just plain wrong.

 

[longview]

Look at it that way if you want, but most look at the volcano eruption in 1815 as the cause of the 1816 “year with no summer” that caused the widespread suffering due to crop failures and such.

The impact of volcanic activity is usually just a few years, but the cooler temps lasted for decades.

AIRS measures the levels of outgoing infrared radiation. Thus the name.

You mean this? Again CERES measures the energy paths in and out of Earth, AIRS, looks at the temperature in the atmospheric column.

Atmospheric Infrared Sounder on NASA's Aqua satellite, gathers infrared energy emitted from Earth's surface and atmosphere globally, every day. Its data provides 3D measurements of temperature and water vapor through the atmospheric column along with a host of trace gases, surface and cloud properties.

Above the zero line is warming, below is cooling.

In the 2x to 1x graph you would read it as “when we go from 2x to 1x we have what is represented on the graph.” That would be some warming in the middle wavemeters but more cooling in the wavemeters on either side.

If above zero is warming, then added CO2 will produce more cooling going forward, because that graphic has more area below zero than above!

The graph in you study shows the effect being larger and faster with smaller pulses. Also, I don’t agree with your “airborne fraction” assumption since the study clearly states that the numbers are based on the amount released, not the amount that remains in the atmosphere after some period of time.

The time lag to reach maximum warming is faster, and their simulation is for 47 ppm, 470 ppm 2350 ppm pulses,
So if the maximum warming for a change from 389 ppm to 859 ppm is 1.75 C, then the 2XCO2 maximum warming
is 1.75/ln(859/389) = 2.20, 2.20 X ln(2) = 1.53 C so a little higher with the larger pulse.

I thought I was clear with:

Cloud cover in China was decreasing while their huge run up in SO2 was occurring. When the government decided to turn things around and stop emitting so much SO2 cloud coverage continued to decrease. It appears something else is the cause.

In fewer words, when SO2 was increasing, cloud cover was decreasing. When SO2 was decreasing, cloud cover was decreasing. That was true both in China and globally. They are not correlated.

I think we have a poor understanding of how and why clouds form.

As I have shown from satellite observations CO2 is keeping some outgoing radiation from escaping into space thus lowering OLR from what it would otherwise be and thus increasing the difference between ASR and OLR thus contributing to warming.

I do not think added CO2 can cause any warming unless the amount of longwave radiation absorbed, is greater than the OLR, i.e. measured decreasing OLR.

Yes it is. Not entirely, but in part.

Again I do not think we have a good understanding on what causes cloud cover to increase or decrease.
Globally Humidity has increased, which should lead to more clouds, but we have less clouds.
Theories include everything from pollution to and inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays.

 

[longview]

That’s one way to do it. The 1.5 comes from the beginning and the end of your source. -0.17 vs 1.29 = a change of 1.46C.

Different sources will of course yield slightly different numbers because the early data is so fuzzy.








Yes.


Looking at ppm, I get (425-280)/280 = 51.8% increase.

As for the temperature I was following the IPCC's lead.
IPCC AR6 SPM

Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900,

They averaged 2011-2020 vs the average of 1850-1900, not the high end point.

Very true. Just the factors we control are both positive and negative:

you have to keep in mind that those estimates are assumptions based on assumptions.
The first assumption is that those factors produce real positive and negative energy imbalances,
and the second assumption is that the ratio of forcing to warming is higher than all the greenhouse effect that came before it.
AR6 SPM has a ratio of between 0.51 C per W m-2 and 0.57 C per W m-2, the entire greenhouse effect is ~0.22 C per W m-2!

As we get more empirical data those assumptions are being more and more difficult to refute. I have provided studies that show how satellite observations confirm how greenhouse gases are impacting OLR.

In the AIRS-observed CO2 band's wing (710–720 cm−1) (second graph) we find a clear decline of emission over the observed time period, signifying a contribution to the heating of the planet (Figure 1b). The OLR at 1,270–1,280 cm−1 associated with CH4 and N2O also shows a steady decline, but not as large as the CO2 wing's OLR trend:

I am not saying that added CO2 does not absorb some IR in it's band it does, but warming comes from positive forcing.
For the added CO2 to be causing warming, it would have to decrease the OLR, but the OLR is increasing.
I am a bit curious why your cited study only looked at the higher frequency wing of CO2, 710 to 720 cm-2,
there is another side around 625 cm-1?
I also wonder why they did not show the time series of the central band at 667 cm-1 (likely because it is flat or negative).

Global-mean spectral climatology and trends during 2003–2021. (a) Time-mean spectral outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) fluxes. (b) Time series of CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands in AIRS channels. Dashed lines indicate trends. These trend values are plotted in (c). (c) Trends in spectral OLR fluxes. Uncertainties given by the gray envelope that denotes a 95% CI. (d) Same as (c) but for clear-sky. Positive indicates more emission (cooling the planet) and vice-versa.

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2, CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former, yielding a positive broadband OLR trend. We conducted novel global line-by-line radiative transfer simulations and showed that the observed changes are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1). These are three tenets of global warming theory predicted by our climate change simulations, which we show is now evident in the hyperspectral satellite record.
In the global-mean, our forcing estimates are in excellent agreement with the IPCC analytical expressions, signaling the value of the IPCC analytical expressions in estimating global-mean forcing.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947

I think this matches up with my low water dam analogy, the band for CO2 are blocked or slowed, so the water(Energy) simply flows
around the blockage in a different band," yielding a positive broadband OLR trend."!

By the way at ~425 ppm above 280 ppm, we are 60% of along the way towards forcing doubling.

"Looking at ppm, I get (425-280)/280 = 51.8% increase."
I do not think it works that way since it is a natural log equation.
If the full doubling is 3.71 W m-2 and 5.35 X ln(425/280) = 2.233 W m-2, then
2.233/3.71 = 0.601, 60%!

 

[George50]

The impact of volcanic activity is usually just a few years, but the cooler temps lasted for decades.

True.

You mean this? Again CERES measures the energy paths in and out of Earth, AIRS, looks at the temperature in the atmospheric column.

AIRS does not measure temperature directly. The AIRS instrument is a 2378-channel spectrometer measuring the intensity of infrared radiance at 2378 different wavelengths in the range 3.7–15.4 µm. The charts I have been showing you are showing the results of that measured data.

Temperature is a derived number calculated from the intensity of the various wavelengths as are a number of other so called data products available. You have been mentioning the data products which are derived from the actual measurements of infrared radiation.

If above zero is warming, then added CO2 will produce more cooling going forward, because that graphic has more area below zero than above!



View attachment 67581020
The time lag to reach maximum warming is faster, and their simulation is for 47 ppm, 470 ppm 2350 ppm pulses,
So if the maximum warming for a change from 389 ppm to 859 ppm is 1.75 C, then the 2XCO2 maximum warming
is 1.75/ln(859/389) = 2.20, 2.20 X ln(2) = 1.53 C so a little higher with the larger pulse.




I think we have a poor understanding of how and why clouds form.

Yes, that is why the IPCC says that clouds represent the biggest uncertainty in their reports.

I do not think added CO2 can cause any warming unless the amount of longwave radiation absorbed, is greater than the OLR, i.e. measured decreasing OLR.

Yes, I know you think that, below is how I see it.

Here are a couple of simplified scenarios :

Scenario 1

Given at the beginning of the year:

Absorbed sunlight = 60 (Basically incoming-reflected or ASR)
Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 100
Greenhouse effect = 40% of thermal radiation emitted by surface = 40
OLR = Thermal radiation emitted by surface -Greenhouse effect = 60

Everything is in balance ASR = 60, OLR = 60


Next, during the year:

We added CO2 or whatever and Greenhouse effect increases to 40.1% = 40.1

Now

OLR Equals 59.9

Now ASR = 60, OLR = 59.9 and we are out of balance by 0.1

I think you agree that in this scenario that the increased CO2 caused warming.



Scenario 2

Given at the beginning of the year:

Absorbed sunlight = 60 (Basically incoming-reflected or ASR)
Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 100
Greenhouse effect = 40% of Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 40
OLR = Thermal radiation emitted by surface-Greenhouse effect = 60

Everything is in balance ASR = 60, OLR = 60

Next, during the year:

Reflected solar decreases by 1 therefore Absorbed sunlight or ASR = 61 and Thermal radiation emitted by surface increases to say 100.9

That change by itself would result in:

Greenhouse effect = 100.9 x 40% = 40.36

OLR = 100.9 - 40.36 = 60.54

Now ASR = 61 OLR = 60.54 and we are out of balance by 0.46

So one added unit of increased ASR caused 0.46 of warming.



However during the same year we added CO2 or whatever and Greenhouse effect increases to 40.1%

Now at the end of the year we have instead:

Greenhouse effect = 100.9 x 40.1% = 40.4609

OLR = 100.9-40.4609 = 60.4391

Now ASR = 61 OLR = 60.4391 and we are out of balance by 0.5609 instead of only 0.46.

So increased ASR caused 0.46 of warming and increased CO2 caused an additional 0.5609-0.46 = 0.1009 of warming even though OLR went up.

Again this is simplistic but maybe it makes some sense.

For reference:

Again I do not think we have a good understanding on what causes cloud cover to increase or decrease.

True.

Globally Humidity has increased, which should lead to more clouds, but we have less clouds.
Theories include everything from pollution to and inverse relationship between solar activity and cosmic rays.

We have also observed that SO2 has no apparent effect.

There is also this from one of the studies I quoted earlier:

If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid troposphere, decreases (increases) the cloud cover by 1.5 percentage points (pp). But if the relative humidity is not conserved, then the cloud cover decreases (increases) by 7.6 pp.

Since the temperature has been going up rapidly recently, we may be in a situation where relative humidity is not being conserved as temperature rises.

Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity - Scientific Reports

On a global and annual average, we find a parameterization in which the cloud cover increase is proportional to the mid tropospheric temperature increase, with a negative proportionality factor. If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid...

www.nature.com

 

[longview]

True.

AIRS does not measure temperature directly. The AIRS instrument is a 2378-channel spectrometer measuring the intensity of infrared radiance at 2378 different wavelengths in the range 3.7–15.4 µm. The charts I have been showing you are showing the results of that measured data.

Temperature is a derived number calculated from the intensity of the various wavelengths as are a number of other so called data products available. You have been mentioning the data products which are derived from the actual measurements of infrared radiation.


Yes, that is why the IPCC says that clouds represent the biggest uncertainty in their reports.


Yes, I know you think that, below is how I see it.

Here are a couple of simplified scenarios :

Scenario 1

Given at the beginning of the year:

Absorbed sunlight = 60 (Basically incoming-reflected or ASR)
Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 100
Greenhouse effect = 40% of thermal radiation emitted by surface = 40
OLR = Thermal radiation emitted by surface -Greenhouse effect = 60

Everything is in balance ASR = 60, OLR = 60


Next, during the year:

We added CO2 or whatever and Greenhouse effect increases to 40.1% = 40.1

Now

OLR Equals 59.9

Now ASR = 60, OLR = 59.9 and we are out of balance by 0.1

I think you agree that in this scenario that the increased CO2 caused warming.



Scenario 2

Given at the beginning of the year:

Absorbed sunlight = 60 (Basically incoming-reflected or ASR)
Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 100
Greenhouse effect = 40% of Thermal radiation emitted by surface = 40
OLR = Thermal radiation emitted by surface-Greenhouse effect = 60

Everything is in balance ASR = 60, OLR = 60

Next, during the year:

Reflected solar decreases by 1 therefore Absorbed sunlight or ASR = 61 and Thermal radiation emitted by surface increases to say 100.9

That change by itself would result in:

Greenhouse effect = 100.9 x 40% = 40.36

OLR = 100.9 - 40.36 = 60.54

Now ASR = 61 OLR = 60.54 and we are out of balance by 0.46

So one added unit of increased ASR caused 0.46 of warming.



However during the same year we added CO2 or whatever and Greenhouse effect increases to 40.1%

Now at the end of the year we have instead:

Greenhouse effect = 100.9 x 40.1% = 40.4609

OLR = 100.9-40.4609 = 60.4391

Now ASR = 61 OLR = 60.4391 and we are out of balance by 0.5609 instead of only 0.46.

So increased ASR caused 0.46 of warming and increased CO2 caused an additional 0.5609-0.46 = 0.1009 of warming even though OLR went up.

Again this is simplistic but maybe it makes some sense.

For reference:

View attachment 67581091


True.


We have also observed that SO2 has no apparent effect.

There is also this from one of the studies I quoted earlier:

If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid troposphere, decreases (increases) the cloud cover by 1.5 percentage points (pp). But if the relative humidity is not conserved, then the cloud cover decreases (increases) by 7.6 pp.

Since the temperature has been going up rapidly recently, we may be in a situation where relative humidity is not being conserved as temperature rises.

Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity - Scientific Reports

On a global and annual average, we find a parameterization in which the cloud cover increase is proportional to the mid tropospheric temperature increase, with a negative proportionality factor. If the relative humidity is conserved throughout the troposphere, a 1 °C heating (cooling) of the mid...

www.nature.com

I could see how it could work but the amounts of imbalance attributed seem way too high.
Also positive forcing is based on the idea that the reduction in OLR exceed the known increase in Planck radiation,
and the fact that we do not have a longwave energy imbalance, makes me question the levels predicted.

 

[George50]

As for the temperature I was following the IPCC's lead.
IPCC AR6 SPM

They averaged 2011-2020 vs the average of 1850-1900, not the high end point.

Yes, they try to be conservative in what they say. Either one is accurate but it’s important to know what the numbers are based on.

you have to keep in mind that those estimates are assumptions based on assumptions.
The first assumption is that those factors produce real positive and negative energy imbalances,

Given that we can actually measure the imbalances for several of the factors now that we have AIRS data I think it’s more than an assumption.

and the second assumption is that the ratio of forcing to warming is higher than all the greenhouse effect that came before it.
AR6 SPM has a ratio of between 0.51 C per W m-2 and 0.57 C per W m-2, the entire greenhouse effect is ~0.22 C per W m-2!

I’m not sure which ratio you are referring to.

I am not saying that added CO2 does not absorb some IR in it's band it does, but warming comes from positive forcing.
For the added CO2 to be causing warming, it would have to decrease the OLR, but the OLR is increasing.
I am a bit curious why your cited study only looked at the higher frequency wing of CO2, 710 to 720 cm-2,
there is another side around 625 cm-1?
I also wonder why they did not show the time series of the central band at 667 cm-1 (likely because it is flat or negative).

They showed a graph of 710 to 720 which is one of the channels broken down by year in the second panel. They show all of the channels averaged over all years in the 3rd panel. There are 2378 channels and they obviously can’t show graphics of all of them. You may be correct that the central band could be flat or negative, but it is not representative of what happens to the entire spectrum as CO2 is added. Even way out to 32xCO2 we see that the total spectrum becomes very positive even though the central band is negative compared to the others.

I think this matches up with my low water dam analogy, the band for CO2 are blocked or slowed, so the water(Energy) simply flows
around the blockage in a different band," yielding a positive broadband OLR trend."!

I know that if outgoing radiation encounters for example CO2 it can be absorbed and re-emitted at a different wavelength. Are you now saying that outgoing radiation can change its mind and just change to a different wavelength?

"Looking at ppm, I get (425-280)/280 = 51.8% increase."
I do not think it works that way since it is a natural log equation.
If the full doubling is 3.71 W m-2 and 5.35 X ln(425/280) = 2.233 W m-2, then
2.233/3.71 = 0.601, 60%!

I was thinking 2xCO2, a doubling of ppm, but I see what you are saying.

 

[longview]

Yes, they try to be conservative in what they say. Either one is accurate but it’s important to know what the numbers are based on.



They showed a graph of 710 to 720 which is one of the channels broken down by year in the second panel. They show all of the channels averaged over all years in the 3rd panel. There are 2378 channels and they obviously can’t show graphics of all of them. You may be correct that the central band could be flat or negative, but it is not representative of what happens to the entire spectrum as CO2 is added. Even way out to 32xCO2 we see that the total spectrum becomes very positive even though the central band is negative compared to the others.

View attachment 67581148


I know that if outgoing radiation encounters for example CO2 it can be absorbed and re-emitted at a different wavelength. Are you now saying that outgoing radiation can change its mind and just change to a different wavelength?

No ethe one is not accurate, A single year means little in terms of climate, which is usually considered a 30 year average.
The IPCC is not being conservative by choosing the the decade average for the end point.

Given that we can actually measure the imbalances for several of the factors now that we have AIRS data I think it’s more than an assumption.

AIRS is only looking down, CERES looks both up and down, I believe AIRS role is that of a infrared spectrophotometer.
It can measure the spectral lines (and the level of those lines) but is not the tool for measuring the OLR.
What they are evaluating is the upwelling longwave radiation, and from the lines evaluated are deciding
things like atmospheric concentrations at different altitudes, temperature, etc.

and the second assumption is that the ratio of forcing to warming is higher than all the greenhouse effect that came before it.
AR6 SPM has a ratio of between 0.51 C per W m-2 and 0.57 C per W m-2, the entire greenhouse effect is ~0.22 C per W m-2!

I’m not sure which ratio you are referring to.

The ratio of the total greenhouse effect is 33C/150 Wm-2 = 0.22C per W m-2.
AR6 SPM says,

It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C,

and

Human-caused radiative forcing of 2.72 [1.96 to 3.48] W m–2 in 2019 relative to 1750 has warmed the climate system.

These two define a range 1C/1.96W m-2 = 0.51 C per W m-2, and the high end is 2C /3.48 W m-2 = 0.57 C per W m-2.
They use a higher ratio than the entire greenhouse effect!

They showed a graph of 710 to 720 which is one of the channels broken down by year in the second panel. They show all of the channels averaged over all years in the 3rd panel. There are 2378 channels and they obviously can’t show graphics of all of them. You may be correct that the central band could be flat or negative, but it is not representative of what happens to the entire spectrum as CO2 is added. Even way out to 32xCO2 we see that the total spectrum becomes very positive even though the central band is negative compared to the others.

The problem is the HITRAN database may assume that all CO2 molecules stay at ground state, and that is likely not correct.

I know that if outgoing radiation encounters for example CO2 it can be absorbed and re-emitted at a different wavelength. Are you now saying that outgoing radiation can change its mind and just change to a different wavelength?

Actually with CO2 it ether emits a 15 um photon up to seconds later, or it looses it's energy via collusion with some other
atom or molecule that can absorb the energy. The emission wavelength then moves to that of the new atom or molecule.

In laboratory we use helium to force CO2 back to ground state, but that is not present in the atmosphere.
I was speculating that H2O might fill that role, but if that is the case, then CO2 only functions at
it's highest efficiency where high humidity exists, and the line by line of added CO2 is missing the movement of the energy to the
very broad H2O longwave bands.

 

[George50]

No ethe one is not accurate, A single year means little in terms of climate, which is usually considered a 30 year average.
The IPCC is not being conservative by choosing the the decade average for the end point.

I think it’s important to know that the temperature has warmed half as much in the last 15 years as it did in the previous 125. Particularly when we know the our measurements of the last 15 years are by far the most accurate. Certainly it’s possible that 2025 will result in a decrease, but we should still be aware.

What they are evaluating is the upwelling longwave radiation, and from the lines evaluated are deciding
things like atmospheric concentrations at different altitudes, temperature, etc.

Technically upwelling radiation is only surface radiation but AIRS measures not only that but also radiation from clouds and the atmosphere. AIRS can measure OLR not necessarily in the same manner but with good results, as per below.

The problem is the HITRAN database may assume that all CO2 molecules stay at ground state, and that is likely not correct.

As far as HITRAN goes this is what the AI says:

No, the HITRAN database does not assume that all CO2 molecules remain in their ground state
.
Here's why:

• Focus on Spectroscopic Transitions: HITRAN is designed to provide spectroscopic parameters for a wide range of molecules, including CO2. These parameters are used in radiative transfer calculations to model how light is absorbed and emitted in various gaseous environments.
• Temperature Dependence: The absorption and emission of light are strongly influenced by the distribution of molecules across different energy levels, which in turn depends on temperature. The HITRAN database provides information and tools to calculate line intensities (a measure of absorption/emission strength) at different temperatures, taking into account the population of various rotational and vibrational states.
• Partition Functions: Crucially, HITRAN incorporates total internal partition sums (TIPS) which are essential for calculating the population of molecules in different quantum states as a function of temperature. These partition functions specifically account for the contribution of both vibrational and rotational energy levels.

In essence, HITRAN provides the data and tools necessary to accurately model the spectroscopic behavior of molecules like CO2, which includes accounting for the presence of molecules in excited vibrational and rotational states at temperatures relevant to atmospheric and astrophysical applications.

In the citation I quoted they compared AIRS with CERES and found them to be consistent.

In addition to AIRS, we use Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balance and Filled (EBAF) Ed4.1 observations of broadband all-sky OLR and CERES Single Scanner Footprint to corroborate the consistency between the AIRS and CERES broadband and window band (800-1,200 cm−1; Table S1 in Supporting Information S1) fluxes, respectively (Loeb et al., 2018). We find consistency between AIRS and CERES (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1), thus allowing for a deciphering of CERES’ broadband OLR changes in frequency space.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947

In laboratory we use helium to force CO2 back to ground state, but that is not present in the atmosphere.
I was speculating that H2O might fill that role, but if that is the case, then CO2 only functions at
it's highest efficiency where high humidity exists, and the line by line of added CO2 is missing the movement of the energy to the
very broad H2O longwave bands.

H2O can and does force CO2 back to ground state well but N2 and O2 do most of it because they are way more prevalent.

Recent Advances in Climate Change Research: Part IX - How Carbon Dioxide Emits IR Photons - GeoExpro

Skydive with us into the quantum world, where we provide to those unafraid of molecular energy transfer an answer to the question: what happens to Earth’s radiated infrared (IR) photons after they are absorbed by IR active CO₂ molecules in the lower atmosphere? Skydive with us into the quantum...

geoexpro.com

As far as the H2O longwave bands they were also analyzed:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2, CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands.

 

[Volunteer]

Modern gasoline cars are have an insignificant footprint of pollutants.

Who agrees with that besides you?

 

[longview]

I think it’s important to know that the temperature has warmed half as much in the last 15 years as it did in the previous 125. Particularly when we know the our measurements of the last 15 years are by far the most accurate. Certainly it’s possible that 2025 will result in a decrease, but we should still be aware.


As far as HITRAN goes this is what the AI says:

No, the HITRAN database does not assume that all CO2 molecules remain in their ground state
.
Here's why:

• Focus on Spectroscopic Transitions: HITRAN is designed to provide spectroscopic parameters for a wide range of molecules, including CO2. These parameters are used in radiative transfer calculations to model how light is absorbed and emitted in various gaseous environments.
• Temperature Dependence: The absorption and emission of light are strongly influenced by the distribution of molecules across different energy levels, which in turn depends on temperature. The HITRAN database provides information and tools to calculate line intensities (a measure of absorption/emission strength) at different temperatures, taking into account the population of various rotational and vibrational states.
• Partition Functions: Crucially, HITRAN incorporates total internal partition sums (TIPS) which are essential for calculating the population of molecules in different quantum states as a function of temperature. These partition functions specifically account for the contribution of both vibrational and rotational energy levels.

In essence, HITRAN provides the data and tools necessary to accurately model the spectroscopic behavior of molecules like CO2, which includes accounting for the presence of molecules in excited vibrational and rotational states at temperatures relevant to atmospheric and astrophysical applications.

In the citation I quoted they compared AIRS with CERES and found them to be consistent.

In addition to AIRS, we use Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balance and Filled (EBAF) Ed4.1 observations of broadband all-sky OLR and CERES Single Scanner Footprint to corroborate the consistency between the AIRS and CERES broadband and window band (800-1,200 cm−1; Table S1 in Supporting Information S1) fluxes, respectively (Loeb et al., 2018). We find consistency between AIRS and CERES (Figure S3 in Supporting Information S1), thus allowing for a deciphering of CERES’ broadband OLR changes in frequency space.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103947

The period of modern warming claimed by AGW began in 1978, so 47 years ago.
As for the rate per decade, was the 2000 to 2010 the warming has slowed since then.

Technically upwelling radiation is only surface radiation but AIRS measures not only that but also radiation from clouds and the atmosphere. AIRS can measure OLR not necessarily in the same manner but with good results, as per below.

I am not saying that AIRS cannot measure the upwelling longwave radiation, it can, but it is just looking down.
It is a good data point that AIRS tracks well with CERES.

As far as HITRAN goes this is what the AI says:

I know it is a subtle difference, but the total internal partition sums (TIPS) may not consider that Excited CO2 cannot absorb 15 um photons.

H2O can and does force CO2 back to ground state well but N2 and O2 do most of it because they are way more prevalent.

The citation does a good job of explaining what I seem to be failing at.

Recall that the radiative lifetime of CO2 de-excitation is around 1.1s. Since the collisional processes are much faster, a CO2*(010) molecule can de-excite in 20 μs and excite back to the (010) state in 400 μs. It is quite a pace!

For a lot of the time, CO2 cannot absorb any 15 um photons, and almost never emits a 15 um photon in the lower atmosphere.

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2, CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands.

This describes my river dam analogy, the CO2 band is blocked, the the energy flow simply moves around the obstruction.

 

[George50]

The period of modern warming claimed by AGW began in 1978, so 47 years ago.
As for the rate per decade, was the 2000 to 2010 the warming has slowed since then.

It looks like the warming of the air at the surface has been increasing faster since 2010 it’s up about 0.5C just since then:



Also at TOA the EEI was steadily increasing from 2010 until about mid 2023 (a wider yellow band denotes a larger EEI - data is from CERES):

I am not saying that AIRS cannot measure the upwelling longwave radiation, it can, but it is just looking down.
It is a good data point that AIRS tracks well with CERES.


I know it is a subtle difference, but the total internal partition sums (TIPS) may not consider that Excited CO2 cannot absorb 15 um photons.


The citation does a good job of explaining what I seem to be failing at.

For a lot of the time, CO2 cannot absorb any 15 um photons, and almost never emits a 15 um photon in the lower atmosphere.


This describes my river dam analogy, the CO2 band is blocked, the the energy flow simply moves around the obstruction.

I think the problem with the river dam analogy is that it sounds like all the water in the river is the same and reacts the same. Here’s a good explanation from the same source as last time:

The atmospheric gases (N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, He etc.) are constantly bombarded by IR radiation, or photons, emitted from Earth’s surface in myriads, but only the greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HFCs) can absorb the IR photon energy. When a photon hits a greenhouse gas molecule, the photon’s energy is absorbed, causing it to vibrate. A molecule, however, cannot absorb any old photon; the photon must have certain wavelengths, or energies. Those with energies not within the narrow wavelengths correct for the molecule will just pass by and look for friendlier greenhouse gas molecules that are able to absorb their energies. If they do not meet any friendly molecule, then they disappear into space.

Recent Advances in Climate Change Research: Part VIII - How Carbon Dioxide Absorbs Earth’s IR Radiation - GeoExpro

Skydive with us into the quantum world and find out how carbon dioxide molecules absorb thermal IR radiation. “I call this Spirit, unknown hitherto, by the new name of Gas, which can neither be constrained by Vessels, nor reduced into a visible body, unless the feed being first extinguished.”...

geoexpro.com

 

[longview]

It looks like the warming of the air at the surface has been increasing faster since 2010 it’s up about 0.5C just since then:

View attachment 67581464

Also at TOA the EEI was steadily increasing from 2010 until about mid 2023 (a wider yellow band denotes a larger EEI - data is from CERES):


View attachment 67581469



I think the problem with the river dam analogy is that it sounds like all the water in the river is the same and reacts the same. Here’s a good explanation from the same source as last time:

The atmospheric gases (N2, O2, H2O, Ar, CO2, He etc.) are constantly bombarded by IR radiation, or photons, emitted from Earth’s surface in myriads, but only the greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HFCs) can absorb the IR photon energy. When a photon hits a greenhouse gas molecule, the photon’s energy is absorbed, causing it to vibrate. A molecule, however, cannot absorb any old photon; the photon must have certain wavelengths, or energies. Those with energies not within the narrow wavelengths correct for the molecule will just pass by and look for friendlier greenhouse gas molecules that are able to absorb their energies. If they do not meet any friendly molecule, then they disappear into space.

Recent Advances in Climate Change Research: Part VIII - How Carbon Dioxide Absorbs Earth’s IR Radiation - GeoExpro

Skydive with us into the quantum world and find out how carbon dioxide molecules absorb thermal IR radiation. “I call this Spirit, unknown hitherto, by the new name of Gas, which can neither be constrained by Vessels, nor reduced into a visible body, unless the feed being first extinguished.”...

geoexpro.com

That’s why it’s better to run the numbers as opposed to looking at the graph!

In the graph it looks like the yellow band has gotten smaller in the last year. Also the delta is the entire longwave and shortwave spectrum

Yea I need to think about the dam analogy a bit.
Molecule absorption is even more complicated because the molecules must be at ground state, AND the correct wavelengths. While pressure broadening is real, it requires pressure, so the broadening decreases with altitude.

 

[George50]

That’s why it’s better to run the numbers as opposed to looking at the graph!

In the graph it looks like the yellow band has gotten smaller in the last year.

Yes, as I said, the increase was from 2010 to mid 2023.

Also the delta is the entire longwave and shortwave spectrum

It didn’t look right to me at first either.

The way it works is:

They have shown it as EEI = TSI - (OLR + Reflected Solar)

Which is the same as:

EEI = (TSI - Reflected Solar) - OLR

Since (TSI - Reflected Solar) = ASR

EEI = ASR - OLR

Yea I need to think about the dam analogy a bit.
Molecule absorption is even more complicated because the molecules must be at ground state, AND the correct wavelengths. While pressure broadening is real, it requires pressure, so the broadening decreases with altitude.

 

[longview]

Yes, as I said, the increase was from 2010 to mid 2023.


It didn’t look right to me at first either.

The way it works is:

They have shown it as EEI = TSI - (OLR + Reflected Solar)

Which is the same as:

EEI = (TSI - Reflected Solar) - OLR

Since (TSI - Reflected Solar) = ASR

EEI = ASR - OLR

Yes since 2023 the EEI on that graph looks smaller.

As for EEI, total EEI determines if we are warming or cooling,
but added greenhouse gases can only directly cause warming by reducing the OLR.
What portion of the observed warming is coming from added greenhouse gases?
That is a very complex question, and we may never have a solid answer.
I like Judith Curry's approach.
5 minutes

Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:’

Its warming. The warming is caused by us. Warming is dangerous. We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming. Once we do that, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme.

So what’s wrong with this narrative? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debate. The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Does all this mean we should do nothing about climate change? No. We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 7 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.

 

[Steve Case]

Yes since 2023 the EEI on that graph looks smaller.

As for EEI, total EEI determines if we are warming or cooling,
but added greenhouse gases can only directly cause warming by reducing the OLR.
What portion of the observed warming is coming from added greenhouse gases?
That is a very complex question, and we may never have a solid answer.
I like Judith Curry's approach.
5 minutes

"Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:"

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem. [ * ]
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

* Search on "Hardiness zone increase and more arable land" and Google's AI comes up with this:

Overall, while the increasing hardiness zones and the CO2 fertilization effect might suggest a future
of more arable land and higher crop yields, the reality is more complex. Climate change also brings
significant challenges like increased pests and weeds, water scarcity, and decreased crop nutritional
value that require careful adaptation and mitigation strategies to ensure global food security.

MIGHT SUGGEST more arable land & crop yields. But more pests, weeds, droughts, & less nutrition,
has no such qualifier (might, maybe perhaps suggest etc.) just a raw assertion.

I suppose someone will bring up the Duke U. study claiming some protein in some variety of soy beans
decreased under an elevated CO2 atmosphere.

OK that last bit was a strawman sue me.

 

[George50]

Yes since 2023 the EEI on that graph looks smaller.

As for EEI, total EEI determines if we are warming or cooling,
but added greenhouse gases can only directly cause warming by reducing the OLR.

Which they do. OLR would be higher without them.

What portion of the observed warming is coming from added greenhouse gases?
That is a very complex question, and we may never have a solid answer.

Best answer we have is:



Ranges of uncertainty are shown, we will never get them to zero.

I like Judith Curry's approach.
5 minutes

From your Judith Curry quote:

The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Nonsense.

EVs, solar power, wind power, are all technologically feasible. The technology exists for the world to get the vast majority of their energy from renewables.

The solutions are also politically feasible in 95% of the world. Except for Iran, Libya, and Yemen only Republicans in the U.S. present a political problem. All other countries have signed up to the Paris accords.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Is falling way behind technologically compared to the rest of the world and in particular China. China has leapt ahead in technology when it comes to batteries, EVs and solar power.

For example, GM committed to going all electric back in January of 2021. They have invested billions in EV development but did not realize that Republicans would make them part of their stupid culture wars. Because of anti EV sentiment stoked by Republican politicians the U.S. is way, way, behind the rest of the world when it comes to EV adoption.

 

[George50]

"Let me start with a quick summary of what is referred to as the ‘climate crisis:"

1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem. [ * ]
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn't any Climate Crisis.

* Search on "Hardiness zone increase and more arable land" and Google's AI comes up with this:

Overall, while the increasing hardiness zones and the CO2 fertilization effect might suggest a future
of more arable land and higher crop yields, the reality is more complex. Climate change also brings
significant challenges like increased pests and weeds, water scarcity, and decreased crop nutritional
value that require careful adaptation and mitigation strategies to ensure global food security.

MIGHT SUGGEST more arable land & crop yields. But more pests, weeds, droughts, & less nutrition,
has no such qualifier (might, maybe perhaps suggest etc.) just a raw assertion.

I suppose someone will bring up the Duke U. study claiming some protein in some variety of soy beans
decreased under an elevated CO2 atmosphere.

OK that last bit was a strawman sue me.

Sounds great! Canada’s agriculture industry can start producing what the U.S.produces and the U.S. can become a banana republic.

 

[Steve Case]

Sounds great! Canada’s agriculture industry can start producing what the U.S. produces and the U.S. can become a banana republic.

A day or two ago you posted, "Are you sure? Where?" to my assertion that warming from CO2 will result in "More arable Land'

Your humorous quip tells me that you accept the idea that running up global temperature will produce more arable land. As far
as where is concerned, Canada is likely to enjoy that prospect. You don't have to search very diligently on the net to find out that
the hardiness zones are getting wider and extending further north into Canada.

 

[George50]

A day or two ago you posted, "Are you sure? Where?" to my assertion that warming from CO2 will result in "More arable Land'

Your humorous quip tells me that you accept the idea that running up global temperature will produce more arable land. As far
as where is concerned, Canada is likely to enjoy that prospect. You don't have to search very diligently on the net to find out that
the hardiness zones are getting wider and extending further north into Canada.

Nor do you have to search very far on the net to find out that extreme weather is already causing more crop failures in certain areas of the U.S.

My point was that Canada will gain arable land, but agriculture will be problematic in the US for the crops we now produce. For example our 3 largest crops are corn, soybeans and wheat are mostly grown in the northern US. That production may shift to Canada. Yes, we could grow more bananas. But is the net result good for us? Plus, it’s already hot enough in the southern US, we don’t need it to be hotter.

As far as Canadians go they aren’t too happy with their forests burning up either.

 

[longview]

Which they do. OLR would be higher without them.

You say the OLR would be higher without the greenhouse gases, which is likely true, but
does not answer the question if added CO2 causes warming.
Warming from the longwave spectrum would only happen if the decrease in OLR exceeded the increase in Planck radiation,
and it has not.

Best answer we have is:



Ranges of uncertainty are shown, we will never get them to zero.

The IPCC's is based on the same flawed assumptions that added greenhouse gases always cause warming,
but what happens if the log curve is not continuous, and above a certain concentration added greenhouse gases
no longer cause warming? That is where we look like we are.

From your Judith Curry quote:

The solutions that have been proposed are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.

Nonsense.

EVs, solar power, wind power, are all technologically feasible. The technology exists for the world to get the vast majority of their energy from renewables.

It is a question of scale and energy storage.
It is one things to say this country or that gets 80% of their electricity from alternative energy sources,
but that's not the whole story. With the exception of hydro, wind and solar are not dispatchable sources,
and not all the energy countries use is in the form of electricity. There is a large gap between what we produce with wind and solar
and what our current demands are. Yes we can reduce that gap, but not as fast as required.

The solutions are also politically feasible in 95% of the world. Except for Iran, Libya, and Yemen only Republicans in the U.S. present a political problem. All other countries have signed up to the Paris accords.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Is falling way behind technologically compared to the rest of the world and in particular China. China has leapt ahead in technology when it comes to batteries, EVs and solar power.

For example, GM committed to going all electric back in January of 2021. They have invested billions in EV development but did not realize that Republicans would make them part of their stupid culture wars. Because of anti EV sentiment stoked by Republican politicians the U.S. is way, way, behind the rest of the world when it comes to EV adoption.

There are solutions that will get Earth to net zero CO2 emissions, but the people driving the agenda do not like them.
Battery electric cars in their current state, will not solve the problem. (if a problem exists).
The real problem is not cars, but Jets, Ships and Heavy trucks, all the applications that require portable
high density energy storage.
Anti EV sentiment, is not what you think and not anti EV, people have real concerns that Battery electric vehicles
cannot fill the need of how they used their vehicles currently, paying more for something that does not do all the jobs.
I admit the the battery technology is very close, and if they can get to 500 Wh/kg, that would do for 99% or cars, but
still would not solve the other problems.
The solution is to make the fuel carbon neutral, this would allow the surpluses from wind and solar to be stored
for years, and used on demand. All it needs is a higher price for oil, and that is happening on it's own.

Imagine for a second that in 2030 the price of oil reaches $100 a barrel, the refineries can purchase
surplus wholesale electricity from wind and solar for $40 per MWh, and with a storage efficiency of 70%
create olefins from Atmospheric CO2 and water for a price equal to $80 a barrel oil.
At that point I know which path they will choose.

The Navy has been doing research of how to make jet fuel from sea water, and the process works.
This low-cost catalyst helps turn seawater into fuel at scale
but the concept has the potential of providing Humanity a path to sustainable energy.
The answer is not reduce our standards to fit into the limits of current batteries, but to change the
definition of what a battery is, a device that carries energy.

 

[Volunteer]

The solution is to make the fuel carbon neutral

At that point I know which path they will choose.

My rooftop solar array saves me $450/mo in electricity costs. You are correct that economics are changing many people's choices whereas many people are not motivated by clean, versus dirty, air.

 

[Steve Case]

You say the OLR would be higher without the greenhouse gases, which is likely true, but
does not answer the question if added CO2 causes warming.
Warming from the longwave spectrum would only happen if the decrease in OLR exceeded the increase in Planck radiation,
and it has not.


The IPCC's is based on the same flawed assumptions that added greenhouse gases always cause warming,
but what happens if the log curve is not continuous, and above a certain concentration added greenhouse gases
no longer cause warming? That is where we look like we are.


It is a question of scale and energy storage.
It is one things to say this country or that gets 80% of their electricity from alternative energy sources,
but that's not the whole story. With the exception of hydro, wind and solar are not dispatchable sources,
and not all the energy countries use is in the form of electricity. There is a large gap between what we produce with wind and solar
and what our current demands are. Yes we can reduce that gap, but not as fast as required.
View attachment 67581674


There are solutions that will get Earth to net zero CO2 emissions, but the people driving the agenda do not like them.
Battery electric cars in their current state, will not solve the problem. (if a problem exists).
The real problem is not cars, but Jets, Ships and Heavy trucks, all the applications that require portable
high density energy storage.
Anti EV sentiment, is not what you think and not anti EV, people have real concerns that Battery electric vehicles
cannot fill the need of how they used their vehicles currently, paying more for something that does not do all the jobs.
I admit the the battery technology is very close, and if they can get to 500 Wh/kg, that would do for 99% or cars, but
still would not solve the other problems.
The solution is to make the fuel carbon neutral, this would allow the surpluses from wind and solar to be stored
for years, and used on demand. All it needs is a higher price for oil, and that is happening on it's own.

Imagine for a second that in 2030 the price of oil reaches $100 a barrel, the refineries can purchase
surplus wholesale electricity from wind and solar for $40 per MWh, and with a storage efficiency of 70%
create olefins from Atmospheric CO2 and water for a price equal to $80 a barrel oil.
At that point I know which path they will choose.

The Navy has been doing research of how to make jet fuel from sea water, and the process works.
This low-cost catalyst helps turn seawater into fuel at scale
but the concept has the potential of providing Humanity a path to sustainable energy.
The answer is not reduce our standards to fit into the limits of current batteries, but to change the
definition of what a battery is, a device that carries energy.

"The Navy has been doing research of how to make jet fuel from sea water, and the process works."

G R O A N !