We Are "Chasing Our Tail" Trying to Save Glaciers, and Earth

[Lord of Planar]

LOL We can just look at our thermometers to see the results of GGF. Temperatures are rising faster than at any time in earth's history. Humans are digging up and burning fossil carbon at rates 100 times of volcanoes when they were at their peak.

Yes, and out population centers are growing faster than any of those historical times as well.

The UHIE influences the immediate area. The immediate area includes the meteorological stations that observe the temperatures used to determine the global temperatures. they had an increasing upward bias over time.

 

[iguanaman]

That does not mean we need to stop burning them. We only need to clean the emissions up. Scrub the pollutants out of the released gasses.

The #1 pollutant of fossil fuel is fossil CO2. If we don't keep that in the ground we risk another mass extinction. The carbon we are digging up and releasing is what caused the last mass extinction. That fact alone should convince any rational person that we need to stop digging.

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, and out population centers are growing faster than any of those historical times as well.

The UHIE influences the immediate area. The immediate area includes the meteorological stations that observe the temperatures used to determine the global temperatures. they had an increasing upward bias over time.

You really are desperate now. Denying there is any warming is so 90's. You are supposed to say warming is a good thing and we can have palm trees in antarctica.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The #1 pollutant of fossil fuel is fossil CO2.

Calling CO2 a pollutant is propaganda.

If we don't keep that in the ground we risk another mass extinction.

Oh Noes... The Sky is Falling....

The carbon we are digging up and releasing is what caused the last mass extinction.

That is completely false. The studies do not show that. there were far worse things happening on our planet when we had such high CO2 levels.

That fact alone should convince any rational person that we need to stop digging.

Your fairy tale is not fact.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You really are desperate now. Denying there is any warming is so 90's. You are supposed to say warming is a good thing and we can have palm trees in antarctica.

Too bad you get my arguments wrong. You are the desperate one to have to alter what I claim.

 

[iguanaman]

Calling CO2 a pollutant is propaganda.

Oh Noes... The Sky is Falling....

That is completely false. The studies do not show that. there were far worse things happening on our planet when we had such high CO2 levels.

Your fairy tale is not fact.

Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future​

Key Points​

• Past mass extinctions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration, but not with long-term temperature nor radiative forcing by CO2
• Present CO2 concentration is associated in the fossil record with a 6.39% genus loss, implying current human destruction of biodiversity
• Future anthropogenic mass extinction can be stopped only by cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now

Plain Language Summary​

The rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere from burning fossil fuels poses a risk to biodiversity from ocean acidification, threatening marine algae that produce ∼50% of planetary oxygen. This risk is estimated here based on the relationship between marine biodiversity loss and atmospheric CO2 concentration in the fossil record. Biodiversity loss varies cyclically with atmospheric CO2 concentration on million-year timescales, but is not correlated with long-term global temperature nor with radiative forcing (RF) of temperature by CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is therefore a plausible cause of past mass extinctions, while long-term temperature change and RF by CO2 are excluded. Biodiversity and atmospheric CO2 cycle at periods similar to each other and to geological and astrophysical cycles, consistent with causal linkages. The concentration of CO2 in today's atmosphere corresponds to a decline in fossil biodiversity of 6.39%, implying that current human-induced emissions of CO2 are killing ocean life now. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that continuation of the global fossil fuel economy could raise atmospheric CO2 to concentrations approaching the average of past mass extinctions by the year 2100. Arresting this first human-induced global mass extinction requires eliminating net human-induced emissions of CO2 starting immediately.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003336

 

[Lord of Planar]

Mass Extinctions and Their Relationship With Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Implications for Earth's Future​

Key Points​

• Past mass extinctions are correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration, but not with long-term temperature nor radiative forcing by CO2
• Present CO2 concentration is associated in the fossil record with a 6.39% genus loss, implying current human destruction of biodiversity
• Future anthropogenic mass extinction can be stopped only by cutting human emissions of CO2 to zero, optimally by 2% per year starting now

Plain Language Summary​

The rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere from burning fossil fuels poses a risk to biodiversity from ocean acidification, threatening marine algae that produce ∼50% of planetary oxygen. This risk is estimated here based on the relationship between marine biodiversity loss and atmospheric CO2 concentration in the fossil record. Biodiversity loss varies cyclically with atmospheric CO2 concentration on million-year timescales, but is not correlated with long-term global temperature nor with radiative forcing (RF) of temperature by CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is therefore a plausible cause of past mass extinctions, while long-term temperature change and RF by CO2 are excluded. Biodiversity and atmospheric CO2 cycle at periods similar to each other and to geological and astrophysical cycles, consistent with causal linkages. The concentration of CO2 in today's atmosphere corresponds to a decline in fossil biodiversity of 6.39%, implying that current human-induced emissions of CO2 are killing ocean life now. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that continuation of the global fossil fuel economy could raise atmospheric CO2 to concentrations approaching the average of past mass extinctions by the year 2100. Arresting this first human-induced global mass extinction requires eliminating net human-induced emissions of CO2 starting immediately.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003336

Yes, the Sky is Falling.

Correlated...

Wow....

The Sky is Falling.

 

[Volunteer]

Yes we need to stop burning fossil fuels since they are the primary source of soot. It appears you are finally getting the picture.

Lord Of Planar is not getting the picture. He said he'd like to see CO2 raised to 600 ppm in the air we breathe. LOL.

 

[longview]

Lord Of Planar is not getting the picture. He said he'd like to see CO2 raised to 600 ppm in the air we breathe. LOL.

So far as we can measure the only effect of CO2 being higher is a much greener planet.
I looked up "What is the best CO2 level for crops" Ignored the AI response, and found this,
CO2 Calculator for Grow Room or Indoor Greenhouse

While normal outdoor CO2 levels (about 400ppm) will achieve normal plant growth, doubling or tripling the CO2 levels can increase the growth rate. However, above 2,000ppm CO2 becomes toxic to plants, and above 5,000ppm CO2 becomes potentially harmful to people. Most experts agree that 1,500 ppm is the maximum CO2 level for maximum plant growth, although any CO2 level between 1,000ppm and 1,500ppm will produce greatly improved results.

As for the added CO2 causing global warming, I took one of the graphics from IPCCAR5 and edited it to
show the hypothetical changes, vs the changes observed withe CERES satellite instruments.
Now I show the numbers for the "thermal down surface" on the observed, but we really do not know where the increase in OLR is coming from.

What is important is that hypothetical increase in longwave forcing required to cause warming is not showing up in the observed data.
We are warming because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface,
and the longwave spectrum is reducing the increase not adding to it!

 

[iguanaman]

So far as we can measure the only effect of CO2 being higher is a much greener planet.
I looked up "What is the best CO2 level for crops" Ignored the AI response, and found this,
CO2 Calculator for Grow Room or Indoor Greenhouse

As for the added CO2 causing global warming, I took one of the graphics from IPCCAR5 and edited it to
show the hypothetical changes, vs the changes observed withe CERES satellite instruments.
Now I show the numbers for the "thermal down surface" on the observed, but we really do not know where the increase in OLR is coming from.
View attachment 67572967
What is important is that hypothetical increase in longwave forcing required to cause warming is not showing up in the observed data.
We are warming because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface,
and the longwave spectrum is reducing the increase not adding to it!

LOL As I have told you over and over. The warmer the earth gets the more OLR we will radiate. This is basic stuff and the "mystery" is solved. What you are seeing is the result of AGW.

 

[longview]

LOL As I have told you over and over. The warmer the earth gets the more OLR we will radiate. This is basic stuff and the "mystery" is solved. What you are seeing is the result of AGW.

Do you understand that the only way for added greenhouse gases to cause warming is to have a positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum?
The idea behind greenhouse gas forcing is that the Positive imbalance added from the greenhouse gases
exceeds the known increase in Planck radiation. This is why the response is a natural log curve, they already accounted for the
increase in Planck radiation.

 

[iguanaman]

Do you understand that the only way for added greenhouse gases to cause warming is to have a positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum?
The idea behind greenhouse gas forcing is that the Positive imbalance added from the greenhouse gases
exceeds the known increase in Planck radiation. This is why the response is a natural log curve, they already accounted for the
increase in Planck radiation.

​

I'm glad you mentioned energy imbalance...Notice how OLR increases in tandem with heat uptake.

Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth’s Energy Imbalance Has Doubled​

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

Earth’s climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun’s radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and at the surface and how much thermal infrared radiation Earth emits to space. A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up. The doubling of the energy imbalance is the topic of a recent study, the results of which were published June 15 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth’s system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-fa...dy-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/

 

[longview]

​

I'm glad you mentioned energy imbalance...

Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth’s Energy Imbalance Has Doubled​

Researchers have found that Earth’s energy imbalance approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019.

Earth’s climate is determined by a delicate balance between how much of the Sun’s radiative energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and at the surface and how much thermal infrared radiation Earth emits to space. A positive energy imbalance means the Earth system is gaining energy, causing the planet to heat up. The doubling of the energy imbalance is the topic of a recent study, the results of which were published June 15 in Geophysical Research Letters.

Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth’s system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up. Since approximately 90 percent of the excess energy from an energy imbalance ends up in the ocean, the overall trends of incoming and outgoing radiation should broadly agree with changes in ocean heat content.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-fa...dy-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled/

Um, did you bother to look at the linked study?
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

3.2 Attribution of EEI Trends​

We consider CERES TOA EEI trends for 09/2002–03/2020 and examine the underlying contributions from different atmospheric and surface variables available over that time period. Trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%–95% confidence intervals.

For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1 that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c).

Also I said "positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum"
We have an overall positive energy imbalance, but the portion of the spectrum that added greenhouse could effect, (Longwave),
has a negative energy imbalance!
We are warming from increased ASR Absorbed Solar radiation.

​

 

[iguanaman]

Um, did you bother to look at the linked study?
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

Also I said "positive energy imbalance in the longwave spectrum"
We have an overall positive energy imbalance, but the portion of the spectrum that added greenhouse could effect, (Longwave),
has a negative energy imbalance!
We are warming from increased ASR Absorbed Solar radiation.

​

Notice how OLR increases in tandem with heat uptake but not enough to overcome the increases in it. We are warming because we are losing less heat than we are taking in and 90% of that heat is being absorbed by the oceans. That is what AGW is. We are a water planet so of course the oceans will absorb most of the heat.

 

[longview]

Notice how OLR increases in tandem with heat uptake but not enough to overcome the increases in it. We are warming because we are losing less heat than we are taking in. That is what AGW is.

Yes that is what AGW is, Human caused Global warming. In this case the Human activity is first adding air pollution over many decades,
and then removing the air pollution, and reveling perhaps centuries of slow natural warming in a few decades.
The greenhouse gas aspect while hypothetical would add Earth's energy imbalance by reducing the OLR.
On monitoring the atmospheric greenhouse effect from space

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lord Of Planar is not getting the picture. He said he'd like to see CO2 raised to 600 ppm in the air we breathe. LOL.

Your point? Are you just finding something else to attack me with?

 

[iguanaman]

Yes that is what AGW is, Human caused Global warming. In this case the Human activity is first adding air pollution over many decades,
and then removing the air pollution, and reveling perhaps centuries of slow natural warming in a few decades.
The greenhouse gas aspect while hypothetical would add Earth's energy imbalance by reducing the OLR.
On monitoring the atmospheric greenhouse effect from space
View attachment 67572983

LOL You know that the data shows that aerosols did nothing but counteract some of the effect of increased CO2 and removing them is at most the cause of 4% of the current warming. Sorry but you failed again. Even a layman can see that the earth was much cooler BEFORE man put aerosols into the air.

Aerosols, like fine particles in the air, have a cooling effect on the planet, partially offsetting the warming caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. While it's true that some aerosol particles reflect sunlight and help cool the Earth, it's also true that removing them from the atmosphere would lead to increased warming. The statement that removing aerosols would account for only 4% of the current warming is accurate, as NASA Science (.gov) estimates that aerosols have caused a cooling effect of about 0.4°C, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.google.com/search?q=aerosols+did+nothing+but+counteract+some+of+the+effect+of+increased+CO2+and+removing+them+is+at+most+the+cause+of+4%+of+the+current+warming.&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL As I have told you over and over. The warmer the earth gets the more OLR we will radiate. This is basic stuff and the "mystery" is solved. What you are seeing is the result of AGW.

Not necessarily. You have to treat the earth system as a two layer system or more. in the two layer system, the layers can be doing different things.

 

[iguanaman]

Your point? Are you just finding something else to attack me with?

So you don't think 600 PPM of CO2 would be OK then? Why is that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you don't think 600 PPM of CO2 would be OK then? Why is that?

The plant life on the planet loves it.

 

[iguanaman]

Not necessarily. You have to treat the earth system as a two layer system or more. in the two layer system, the layers can be doing different things.

How can the Earth subvert basic science? The hotter an object gets the more heat is radiated from it.

 

[longview]

LOL You know that the data shows that aerosols did nothing but counteract some of the effect of increased CO2 and removing them is at most the cause of 4% of the current warming. Sorry but you failed again. Even a layman can see that the earth was much cooler BEFORE man put aerosols into the air.

Aerosols, like fine particles in the air, have a cooling effect on the planet, partially offsetting the warming caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. While it's true that some aerosol particles reflect sunlight and help cool the Earth, it's also true that removing them from the atmosphere would lead to increased warming. The statement that removing aerosols would account for only 4% of the current warming is accurate, as NASA Science (.gov) estimates that aerosols have caused a cooling effect of about 0.4°C, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.google.com/search?q=aerosols+did+nothing+but+counteract+some+of+the+effect+of+increased+CO2+and+removing+them+is+at+most+the+cause+of+4%+of+the+current+warming.&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The IPCC estimates are all based on added greenhouse gas forcing actually happening at the hypothesized levels.
Not only is the forcing not happening at those levels, it is the opposite of what was predicted, the longwave spectrum
is loosing energy as the greenhouse gas levels rose.
Also they is peer reviewed documentation of the dimming and brightening.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

 

[iguanaman]

The IPCC estimates are all based on added greenhouse gas forcing actually happening at the hypothesized levels.
Not only is the forcing not happening at those levels, it is the opposite of what was predicted, the longwave spectrum
is loosing energy as the greenhouse gas levels rose.
Also they is peer reviewed documentation of the dimming and brightening.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface

Yes just keep throwing up shit until we are so confused we throw up our hands and submit to mass extinction. That is all you can do. I would hope the human race will not fall for that. One thing for sure is that we will all be dead before the worst happens and you cling to that.

 

[longview]

Yes just keep throwing up shit until we are so confused we throw up our hands and submit to mass extinction. That is all you can do. I would hope the human race will not fall for that.

The rules of physics do not change just because you do not like them!
Reducing the Outgoing Longwave radiation, cannot increase the amount of incoming shortwave radiation,
especially when the predicted reduction in OLR did not happen in the observed data.
You talk about mass extinction, and the fall of the Human race, like it is something that is published in peer review
as opposed to media hyperbole.
Just because I have not found any peer reviewed studies saying that CO2 driven climate change has the capability to
cause the fall of the Human race, does not mean such a study does not exists, so if you can cite and quote from
a study that makes these claims, I will read it over, and tell you what I think.

 

[Lord of Planar]

How can the Earth subvert basic science? The hotter an object gets the more heat is radiated from it.

Yes, the hotter the surface is, the more longwave it radiates. The more clouds there are, the more it keeps it from leaving the TOA. There are several situations that can occur. The earth system if very far from simple.