Questioning the climate's sensitivity to added CO2

[Steve Case]

Yes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a major cause of global warming
.
Here's why:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas:

• CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, similar to how glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
• This natural process, known as the greenhouse effect, is essential for maintaining a habitable temperature on Earth.

2. Human activities have increased CO2 concentrations:

• The burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), deforestation, and industrial processes release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
• Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now significantly higher than pre-industrial levels.

3. Increased CO2 amplifies the greenhouse effect:

• Higher CO2 concentrations mean more heat is trapped, leading to a rise in global average temperatures.
• This enhanced greenhouse effect is the primary driver of the current global warming trend.

4. Scientific consensus:

• Multiple lines of evidence and a vast body of scientific research confirm the link between increased CO2 and global warming.
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a leading international body for assessing the science related to climate change, concludes that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.

In summary: Increased CO2 from human activities enhances the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, trapping more heat and causing global warming.

• Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
  Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide * Each year, human activities release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural processes can remove, caus...
  
  
  
  Climate.gov Home
  
  
  
• FAQ: Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change
  Carbon dioxide accounts for two-thirds of the global warming currently caused by human activities, with other compounds such as methane, nitrous oxide, halocarb...
  
  
  
  Scripps Institution of Oceanography |
  
  
  
• The greenhouse effect - British Geological Survey
  Greenhouse gases. ... A greenhouse gas is called that because it absorbs infrared radiation from the Sun in the form of heat, which is circulated in the atmosph...
  
  
  
  BGS - British Geological Survey
  

CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, similar to how glass traps heat in a greenhouse.

Some Google "Searches" LINKS and results: [Links removed to meet the 5000 character limit]

"CO2 absorption bands"
Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared (IR) radiation around 15 μm and 4.3 μm, which are key to the greenhouse effect.

"atmospheric window microns"
The atmospheric window is located between approximately 8 and 13 micrometers (μm).

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 4.3 microns?"
Answer 674K (750°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 8 microns"
Answer 362.25K (192°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 15 microns?"
Answer 193.2K (-112°F)

"What is the temperature of dry ice in kelvin?"
Answer 194.7 K (-109°F)

Hmm Google AI says, "15 μm and 4.3 μm, are key to the greenhouse effect."

And Google AI says, "The primary atmospheric window for infrared radiation is located between approximately 8 and 13 μm."

So CO2 Frames the Atmospheric Window between the temperatures of a Pizza Oven and a Brick of Dry Ice. Comment: First time I've seen CO2's 4.3 μm band discussed as part of the greenhouse effect.

One has to wonder how much Pizza Oven & Dry Ice temperatures exist on the surface to radiate upwards.

 

[longview]

Some Google "Searches" LINKS and results: [Links removed to meet the 5000 character limit]

"CO2 absorption bands"
Carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared (IR) radiation around 15 μm and 4.3 μm, which are key to the greenhouse effect.

"atmospheric window microns"
The atmospheric window is located between approximately 8 and 13 micrometers (μm).

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 4.3 microns?"
Answer 674K (750°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 8 microns"
Answer 362.25K (192°F)

"What is the temperature of a black body that radiates at 15 microns?"
Answer 193.2K (-112°F)

"What is the temperature of dry ice in kelvin?"
Answer 194.7 K (-109°F)

Hmm Google AI says, "15 μm and 4.3 μm, are key to the greenhouse effect."

And Google AI says, "The primary atmospheric window for infrared radiation is located between approximately 8 and 13 μm."

So CO2 Frames the Atmospheric Window between the temperatures of a Pizza Oven and a Brick of Dry Ice. Comment: First time I've seen CO2's 4.3 μm band discussed as part of the greenhouse effect.

One has to wonder how much Pizza Oven & Dry Ice temperatures exist on the surface to radiate upwards.

Well 4.3 um would hit a water vapor molecule long before it encountered a CO2 molecule.
If we consider that if someplace has 1% relative humidity that is 10,000 ppm, and most places are a LOT higher than 1% RH.
Also the central band of CO2 at 15um is saturated, and while near the surface pressure can broaden the absorption bands,
they dynamic is very different because the effect declines with air pressure.

 

[Steve Case]

Well 4.3 um would hit a water vapor molecule long before it encountered a CO2 molecule.
If we consider that if someplace has 1% relative humidity that is 10,000 ppm, and most places are a LOT higher than 1% RH.
Also the central band of CO2 at 15um is saturated, and while near the surface pressure can broaden the absorption bands,
they dynamic is very different because the effect declines with air pressure.

Among other things, you wrote:

"...the central band of CO2 at 15um is saturated."

It was pointed out above that a cake of dry ice could represent a black body that radiates at ~15um. You know what? 15um isn't going to warm anything. If the oceans were liquid nitrogen instead of water, then maybe 15um might do some warming. But as we all know energy flows down the temperature gradient. Heat flows from the warm body to the colder body. That means that 15um isn't going to "trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere" or anywhere else.

Uh. What about the stratosphere?

A short Google search on "What's the temperature of the stratosphere" LINK
Answer: AI says: The stratosphere generally experiences increasing temperatures with altitude, ranging from about -60°C (-76°F) at the bottom to 0°C at the top.

So 15um at -109°F isn't going to do any warming or "trapping heat" whatever that means, there either..

 

[longview]

Among other things, you wrote:

It was pointed out above that a cake of dry ice could represent a black body that radiates at ~15um. You know what? 15um isn't going to warm anything. If the oceans were liquid nitrogen instead of water, then maybe 15um might do some warming. But as we all know energy flows down the temperature gradient. Heat flows from the warm body to the colder body. That means that 15um isn't going to "trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere" or anywhere else.

Uh. What about the stratosphere?

A short Google search on "What's the temperature of the stratosphere" LINK
Answer: AI says: The stratosphere generally experiences increasing temperatures with altitude, ranging from about -60°C (-76°F) at the bottom to 0°C at the top.

So 15um at -109°F isn't going to do any warming or "trapping heat" whatever that means, there either..

I was trying to think of an analogy that an average person might understand.
The Central band of incoming sunlight is about 0.5 um, or 2,746.7 meV
15 um is 82.7 meV.
If one could imagine a dam 274 feet high with water pouring over the top striking a 8.2 foot tall slab at the bottom.
The water that rebounds off the slab will not have nearly the energy as the water that fell the 268 feet.

 

[Steve Case]

I was trying to think of an analogy that an average person might understand.
The Central band of incoming sunlight is about 0.5 um, or 2,746.7 meV
15 um is 82.7 meV.
If one could imagine a dam 274 feet high with water pouring over the top striking a 8.2 foot tall slab at the bottom.
The water that rebounds off the slab will not have nearly the energy as the water that fell the 268 feet.

I guess I must be in the average person category as you lose me at meV W/m² & Severdrups etc.

The "Climate Crisis" crowd understands that heat flows from hot to cold but they forget or
ignore that concept when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 interferes with
the cooling effect of the outgoing radiation. The sun keeps on shining and warming the
planet until the equilibrium of radiation energy out equals radiation energy in is restored.

The sun does the warming, not the back radiation from CO2 and the other greenhouse gases.

 

[longview]

I guess I must be in the average person category as you lose me at meV W/m² & Severdrups etc.

The "Climate Crisis" crowd understands that heat flows from hot to cold but they forget or
ignore that concept when it comes to the greenhouse effect. Increasing CO2 interferes with
the cooling effect of the outgoing radiation. The sun keeps on shining and warming the
planet until the equilibrium of radiation energy out equals radiation energy in is restored.

The sun does the warming, not the back radiation from CO2 and the other greenhouse gases.

Sorry I was attempting to describe how much lower the energy levels are for 15 um photons vs what
comes from the sun (Centered about 0.5um).
Still a work in progress.

 

[soylentgreen]

There is nothing wrong with the link to IOP science that I can see.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
So you have not looked at the study, yet claim,

Perhaps the research gate link will work for you.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
The main problem I see is you deny anything that does not agree with what you already believe,
this is not how science is done!
I am guessing you cannot grasp the significance of smaller CO2 pulses having much lower sensitivity and a much shorter lag
time between emission and maximum warming.
The unknown lag before Ricke and Caldeira, and this study, allowed people to claim that the warming from
earlier CO2 emissions had not happened yet, that warming was in the pipeline.
That is no longer a problem.

Because Human style emissions could easily be looked at as annual step increases (Pulses) of about 2.5 ppm,
We have already seen all the potential warming from any CO2 emitted before 2015!
(Of course I do not think the empirical data supports added CO2 causing warming at all, but these studies
used the same models that found high ECS climate sensitivity.)

And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.

 

[soylentgreen]

That link is not paywalled if that is what you mean.

No, I mean i have to accept its cookies which I will not do.

 

[longview]

And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.

No, it does not!
For Human size emission steps of ~2.5ppm per year, it adds up to the maximum warming from
having a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of less than 1.2 C.
We likely will reach the first doubling of the CO2 level at 560 ppm,
but it would be almost impossible for us to reach a second doubling at 1120 ppm.
Only the people advocating Net Zero emissions via lifestyle cuts are saying people should get by with less.
Our future is very bright, and market conditions will drive our transition to sustainable fuels.
The people who dislike the oil companies will not be happy, because it is their technology that
will power the future, but will will get to Net Zero, without any legislation.
By the way, Net Zero will not change whatever the climate is doing, but the most likely cause
(Our clearing air pollution) will run out of potential in a few years.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, it does not!
For Human size emission steps of ~2.5ppm per year, it adds up to the maximum warming from
having a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of less than 1.2 C.
We likely will reach the first doubling of the CO2 level at 560 ppm,
but it would be almost impossible for us to reach a second doubling at 1120 ppm.
Only the people advocating Net Zero emissions via lifestyle cuts are saying people should get by with less.
Our future is very bright, and market conditions will drive our transition to sustainable fuels.
The people who dislike the oil companies will not be happy, because it is their technology that
will power the future, but will will get to Net Zero, without any legislation.
By the way, Net Zero will not change whatever the climate is doing, but the most likely cause
(Our clearing air pollution) will run out of potential in a few years.

Read your own ****ing link.

 

[longview]

Read your own ****ing link.

The link is only about the data, I care nothing about the authors opinions!

 

[Steve Case]

Sorry I was attempting to describe how much lower the energy levels are for 15 um photons vs what
comes from the sun (Centered about 0.5um).
Still a work in progress.

Good golly Miss Molly, I thought I did that by pointing out that
a cake of dry ice radiates at 15 um. There isn't very much energy
in that, only enough to warm liquid nitrogen and not much else.
Not even the minus 60 Fahrenheit of the stratosphere.

 

[longview]

Good golly Miss Molly, I thought I did that by pointing out that
a cake of dry ice radiates at 15 um. There isn't very much energy
in that, only enough to warm liquid nitrogen and not much else.
Not even the minus 60 Fahrenheit of the stratosphere.

You did and I got it, but thought another reference might help. There is so little energy in a 15 um photon, it’s barely above ground state.

 

[soylentgreen]

The link is only about the data, I care nothing about the authors opinions!

Of course you do not because his opinion is based on the research and maths in that link. Where as your opinion is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense.

 

[Bullseye]

Being scientifically skeptical about the idea that added CO2 can cause catastrophic warming, makes me look for inconsistencies.
There was a follow on study about the lab between CO2 emissions and maximum warming that caught my attention.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
The graph shows the time between emission and maximum warming for 3 different pulse sizes 100 GtC, 1000 GtC, and 5000 GtC.
with the simulations run on one of the GCM models and run out to 1000 years.
View attachment 67570823
The starting CO2 level was 389 ppm, with 100 GtC pulse increasing the CO2 level to 436 ppm,
the 1000 GtC pulse increasing the CO2 level to 859 ppm,
and the 5000 GtC pluse increasing the CO2 level to 2736 ppm.
The Y axes scale is K per 1000 GtC, so the 2 for 100 GtC becomes 0.2C of maximum warming , and the ~1.5C for 5000 GtC becomes 7.5C,
The 1000 GtC is the sacle on the graph at ~1.78C
Normalizing the responses to 2XCO2 provides VERY different sensitivities.
The smaller 47 ppm pulse has a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.21 C,
The mid range 470 ppm pulse has a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 1.55C,
while the high 2736 ppm pulse has a 2XCO2 sensitivity of 2.66C
The inconsistency is that the sensitivity should be about the same if the simulation is run out to 1000 years.s
ECS being a 2XCO2 or a 4XCO2 pulse, would produce a higher sensitivity.
Also what dose this mean for actual CO2 step increases which average 2.5 ppm per year?
Based on the trend , The normal increases in the CO2 level of 2.5 ppm per year, would have an even lower
sensitivity than the smallest 47 ppm pulse!

There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic

 

[longview]

Of course you do not because his opinion is based on the research and maths in that link. Where as your opinion is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense.

The findings are numerical data, they found what they found, their opinions of what they found is irrelevant.
Do you understand that this paper was research designed to downplay an earlier study?
They mention the earlier study in the abstract, Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
While it may not look like it, Ricke and Caldeira, is very dangerous to the narrative of added CO2 causing catastrophic warming,
and had to be diminished. When they could not change the earlier findings, they showed that the lag between
the pulse emission and maximum warming changed with the pulse size, increased radically in fact.
The problem is that Human size emission pulses, are smaller than Ricke and Caldeira, not greater!
This is not my opinion but measured fact. Our annual step increases are pulses of added CO2, averaging 2.5 ppm per year,
and each step begins it's own timer of about a decade.
NOAA CCGG trends
The follow on study in an attempt to discredit Ricke and Caldeira, took the simulation out to 1000 years,
and inadvertently reinforced Ricke and Caldeira. They also published their data graphically that could be
worked back to a sensitivity. The smaller the pulse size the smaller the lag between emission and maximum warming,
AND the lower the climate sensitivity.
Think for a second about the name of the second study?

The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission ​

If the time lag increases with the size of emission, it also decreases is the emission size is smaller.
Both Studied used 100 GtC or a pulse of 47 ppm above 389 ppm,
The second study also used 1000 GtC or a pulse of 470 ppm,
and 5000 GtC or a pulse of 2736 ppm.
But the average annual "pulse" step increase, is 2.5 ppm.
The time lag will be less, and the sensitivity will be less!

 

[Volunteer]

.
Only the people advocating Net Zero emissions via lifestyle cuts are saying people should get by with less.

No, conservatives advocate living within means. Liberals not so much.

market conditions will drive our transition to sustainable fuels.

Not anytime soon. Our federal government is artificially low pricing nuclear, oil, and coal, and not allowing the energy market to operate freely.

 

[longview]

There have been some studies that suggest the relationship temperate and CO and temp isn't linear, but logarithmic

And if added CO2 were doing what was theorized that would be correct, but the curve would run in the opposite direction!
What their graphic displays is that the larger the pulse the higher the sensitivity, but
the hypothesis is that each next step is smaller than the one before it.
The IPCC uses this formula to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship.
5.35 X ln( CO2_new/CO2_old) so 5.35 X ln(2) = 3.708 W m-2, the 2 in parathesis representing a doubling.
So if the CO2 level increased from 200 ppm to 400 ppm, 400/200 =2, a doubling, but 800/400 is also a doubling.

 

[longview]

No, conservatives advocate living within means. Liberals not so much.

Not anytime soon. Our federal government is artificially low pricing nuclear, oil, and coal, and not allowing the energy market to operate freely.

Living within your means does not mean reducing your lifestyle, unless your lifestyle already exceeded your means!

Oil companies get business related tax deductions, like any business.
Think about it, A retail store, a hospital, and an oil company, all have very different business expenses,
but those expenses can be justified as a cost of continued business operations.
For Walmart it might be deducting shoplifting losses, a for profit hospital may deduct emergency
services for an indigent person, and the oil company can deduct the cost of drilling a dry well.
BTW, I think price where it will be more profitable for a refinery to make their own feedstock,
is a sustained oil price of about $96 a barrel, but that is based on conservative numbers from the NAVY.

 

[Volunteer]

Oil companies get business related tax deductions, like any business.

Name any industry that receives as much government support as oil. They're not "like any business." Oil gets even more U.S. federal subsidies, tax credits, loans, grants, R&D, federal land use, security, etc. than nuclear energy.

 

[longview]

Name any industry that receives as much government support as oil. They're not "like any business." Oil gets even more U.S. federal subsidies, tax credits, loans, grants, R&D, federal land use, security, etc. than nuclear energy.

Business operations include risks, and the risks are different for different businesses.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And it all adds up to the fact that unless we curb emissions the future generations will be living in a shithole.

If you separate the emissions taking the pollutants out of it, the added CO2 will make for a better earth.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, I mean i have to accept its cookies which I will not do.

Not very many places you can go without encountering the cookie monster. No wonder you have zero knowledge in the field. You only know the propaganda.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Read your own ****ing link.

You are going to cuss and not say why? Perhaps you can quote the part the link that you want him to read.

Or are you going by what someone else told you without verification?

You seem to know that Longview is wrong. Therefor I challenge you to show us how he is wrong. If you cannot do that, maybe you should learn from those of us that understand the material instead from lying activists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The link is only about the data, I care nothing about the authors opinions!

Yep. It is important to separate opinion from factual material.