June 2021: Earth’s fifth-warmest June on record, warmest over land areas

[watsup]

Because unlike pollution it is beneficial to the biosphere as the current observed recent greening of the planet bears witness

Is greening the only result of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is greening the only result of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

When plants take in CO2, there is also an endothermic reaction that cools the atmosphere.

 

[watsup]

When plants take in CO2, there is also an endothermic reaction that cools the atmosphere.

Can you show me a paper that indicates that it is a significant negative forcing in the present situation of AGW?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Can you show me a paper that indicates that it is a significant negative forcing in the present situation of AGW?

I only came across one some time back that quantified the effect. I wanted more to collaborate its findings, but didn't find any. Little research is done there. The effects according to that paper were a global average right at 1 W/m^2 from the cooling effect of photosynthesis.

It is undeniable that photosynthesis is an endothermic process. The difficulty is in quantifying it.

 

[Glitch]

For the people who think 2021 is exceptionally warm, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis just published the August 2021 global temperature.
So for the average for 2021 is .2C cooler than 2020, 1.051C vs 0.808C, with only 4 months remaining in the year it is unlikely that 2021 will be warming than 2020!
At this point, 2021 is shaping up to be the coolest year since 2014.

That is consistent with the 35-year cooling periods shown since 1880. The current cooling period was suppose to have begun around 2010 and will last until ~2045. This will be followed by another 30-year warming period from 2045 until 2075, and then another cooling period, rinse and repeat.

I'm expecting this coming Winter to be similar, temperature-wise, to the Winters of the mid- to late-1950s, which was the last corresponding cooling period. We already appear to be following that trend. During the Winter of 2011-2012 Anchorage broke the record snowfall at 133", which was established at 128" during the Winter of 1955-1956.

 

[flogger]

Is greening the only result of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere?

No but its is most certainly the primary cause over recent decades

nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

Now how about addressing the questions I put to you in posts #155 and #159 with some actual scientific validation ?

 

[bluesmoke]

Why? They operate on profits, when the profit from making their own feedstock from atmospheric CO2, water and electricity, is less than making it from purchased oil,
that is the path they will take. keep in mind that the difficult part of making artificial liquid hydrocarbon fuels, lies in assembling the atoms
in the correct ratio, what refineries already do after they crack oil.

US navy synthesizes jet fuel solely out of seawater; costs $3-6 gallon

Your reply is non-responsive. Exactly what did I say that you disagree with and what evidence do you have to refute what I say? Or, directly answer my question without a question.

 

[longview]

Your reply is non-responsive. Exactly what did I say that you disagree with and what evidence do you have to refute what I say? Or, directly answer my question without a question.

Your question, what exactly was your question, I see posts # 151,

I don't think it practicable for the oil industry to switch to carbon neutral manmade fuels via "market forces" to an significant degree. Maybe you have evidence of a recognized source you can cite with a link than your theoretical math.

As for a link to the theoretical math (Not mine), There was a good paper from Dr. Heather D. Willauer of the Naval Research Labs from 2010.
Table 2 in the 2010 paper show that it takes 2.5 MW to make 1000 gallons of jet fuel a day.
2.5 MW times 24 hours is 60 MWh, so 60 MWh /1000 gallons is 60 KWh per gallon, or an efficiency of 58%. (Jet Fuel is ~35 Kwh per gallon)
Now that was in 2010, and they have 11 year of improving the process, and while the NRL said in 2014 the efficiency was up to 60%,
Sunfire has recently reported that at scale efficiencies could get to 80%.

 

[watsup]

That is consistent with the 35-year cooling periods shown since 1880. The current cooling period was suppose to have begun around 2010 and will last until ~2045. This will be followed by another 30-year warming period from 2045 until 2075, and then another cooling period, rinse and repeat.

I'm expecting this coming Winter to be similar, temperature-wise, to the Winters of the mid- to late-1950s, which was the last corresponding cooling period. We already appear to be following that trend. During the Winter of 2011-2012 Anchorage broke the record snowfall at 133", which was established at 128" during the Winter of 1955-1956.

Is human-produced CO2 having any effect above and beyond these “cycles”?

 

[watsup]

No but its is most certainly the primary cause over recent decades

nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

Now how about addressing the questions I put to you in posts #155 and #159 with some actual scientific validation ?

So you admit that greening is not the only result of the excess of human-produced CO2. What are some others?
And see replies #157 and #161.

 

[bluesmoke]

Everyone here I don't doubt agrees that legislation against pollution is a very good thing ?

How then does this pertain to CO2 which is a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas ?

There is nothing benign about an increase in ratio of CO2. That's been scientifically established which you, obviously, refuse to accept as the science denier you are. Protein is beneficial, and necessary, to the health of the human body. Too much protein is damaging.

 

[longview]

There is nothing benign about an increase in ratio of CO2. That's been scientifically established which you, obviously, refuse to accept as the science denier you are. Protein is beneficial, and necessary, to the health of the human body. Too much protein is damaging.

What is scientifically established, and how was it established?
Added CO2 will likely cause some warming, but the actual amount of warming per unit increase is by no means scientifically established!

 

[watsup]

What is scientifically established, and how was it established?
Added CO2 will likely cause some warming, but the actual amount of warming per unit increase is by no means scientifically established!

So what?

 

[flogger]

There is nothing benign about an increase in ratio of CO2. That's been scientifically established which you, obviously, refuse to accept as the science denier you are. Protein is beneficial, and necessary, to the health of the human body. Too much protein is damaging.

Prove by citing scientific validation that having an extra 100PPM of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere is in any way harmful ?

 

[flogger]

So you admit that greening is not the only result of the excess of human-produced CO2. What are some others?
And see replies #157 and #161.

So if humans are actually benefitting the biosphere by greening it via the provision of extra CO2 then whats not to like ?

Where is the scientific validation for your replies I asked you for ?

 

[watsup]

Prove by citing scientific validation that having an extra 100PPM of a benign beneficial naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere is in any way harmful ?

See and read IPCC AR6.

 

[watsup]

So if humans are actually benefitting the biosphere by greening it via the provision of extra CO2 then whats not to like ?

Where is the scientific validation for your replies I asked you for ?

What's not to like? You do know that the increased "greening" is not the only result of the excessive human-produced CO2, right?

 

[flogger]

See and read IPCC AR6.

No throwing your bible at me isn't it .Thats just a running and hiding tactic (a la Three Goofs)

Again cite me the peer reviewed study (s) validating your answers ?

I dare you ?

 

[flogger]

What's not to like? You do know that the increased "greening" is not the only result of the excessive human-produced CO2, right?

So far its the only directly measurable one. All the rest is junk science based subjective agenda driven guesswork

 

[watsup]

No throwing your bible at me isn't it .Thats just a running and hiding tactic (a la Three Goofs)

Again cite me the peer reviewed study (s) validating your answers ?

I dare you ?

So you are too lazy to do any research yourself. Okay then, dwell in denier ignorance if that suits you.

 

[watsup]

So far its the only directly measurable one. All the rest is junk science based subjective agenda driven guesswork

Denier talking points.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you are too lazy to do any research yourself. Okay then, dwell in denier ignorance if that suits you.

When have you ever done any research?

 

[watsup]

When have you ever done any research?

I don’t ask others to do my research for me. If I have a question, I delve into it, unlike flogger who spends his time merely demanding “answers” to his simplistic and quite foolish questions.

 

[flogger]

I don’t ask others to do my research for me. If I have a question, I delve into it, unlike flogger who spends his time merely demanding “answers” to his simplistic and quite foolish questions.

Asking for proof of your ignorant and unfounded assertions is never foolish when lives and livelihoods are at stake

You guys are the ones pushing the anti human agenda after all

 

[flogger]

So you are too lazy to do any research yourself. Okay then, dwell in denier ignorance if that suits you.

I'm betting you don't even know what AR6 even is much less have read it, hence your total inability to cite any of it when challenged to do so, which is odd given that it is your bible