|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2023 20:21:30 GMT
As well as what caused them. Does it matter. If it is not CO2 then there is little we can do about it. It may be technically interesting but the globe warmed a bit then went back a bit and that seems to be something that has been happening off and on for various reasons for .. well... ever. It only matters in the sense of those trying to use them to disprove AGW They were not caused by Co2, the current warming is. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 7, 2023 8:24:02 GMT
Does it matter. If it is not CO2 then there is little we can do about it. It may be technically interesting but the globe warmed a bit then went back a bit and that seems to be something that has been happening off and on for various reasons for .. well... ever. It only matters in the sense of those trying to use them to disprove AGW They were not caused by Co2, the current warming is. That's simply an assertion. There are several interesting things about the ETCW. It seems to be an almost carbon copy of the current warming period with the exception that it occurred without any significant rise in CO2 concentrations. And the scientists haven't got any definitive explanation of why it happened. The other thing is that the ETCW has basically disappeared from IPCC graphs because they've been "Kalman filtered" out because there was no commensurate rise in CO2 (and that's despite the fact that the ETCW was verified by independent readings from many bodies). Who's to say that the current warming isn't also a meaningless blip that will disappear in 30 years time? We don't know. What's clear is that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes as CO2 increases (because of the logarithmic relationship that SP pointed out). But the cooling effect of CO2 (photosynthesis etc) does not diminish in the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 7, 2023 8:29:31 GMT
Yes that's all fine. The basic effect of CO2 in trapping radiative energy is not linear in that a doubling of CO2 concentration from 1ppm to 2ppm causes the same temperature rise as doubling the concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm. So it's very much a diminishing factor in warming. But the point I was trying to make is that it's OK for the Climate change bodies to try to filter out high urban temperatures in order to make modern temperature readings comparable to historic ones (when there was less urbanisation). However, that misses the fact that urban areas ARE much warmer than rural ones. And as urban areas expand over large areas of the planet they are the source of significant planet warming. And it's warming that is causing the climate change (if any). So a large part of that warming is caused by urban areas. Yet this is being dismissed by bodies like the IPCC because the albedo of urban areas is roughly the same as rural areas. And urban areas are simply storing this heat and radiating it - while rural areas are storing it and causing cooling. As I understand it global warming has little to do with what heat is created it is how much is allowed to escape. So Urban Heat Islands will have little or no effect on the warming as most of it is dissipated to space. The UHI is important in terms of the readings as there is little doubt that they retain and radiate heat locally for a short period of time and as such can skew the readings showing a warming trend where there may not be. But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 8:58:43 GMT
As I understand it global warming has little to do with what heat is created it is how much is allowed to escape. So Urban Heat Islands will have little or no effect on the warming as most of it is dissipated to space. The UHI is important in terms of the readings as there is little doubt that they retain and radiate heat locally for a short period of time and as such can skew the readings showing a warming trend where there may not be. But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? Yes, just as heat trapped by duvets leaks into the bedroom, but stick 2 duvets on and more heat is trapped. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 9:03:37 GMT
It only matters in the sense of those trying to use them to disprove AGW They were not caused by Co2, the current warming is. That's simply an assertion. There are several interesting things about the ETCW. It seems to be an almost carbon copy of the current warming period with the exception that it occurred without any significant rise in CO2 concentrations. And the scientists haven't got any definitive explanation of why it happened. The other thing is that the ETCW has basically disappeared from IPCC graphs because they've been "Kalman filtered" out because there was no commensurate rise in CO2 (and that's despite the fact that the ETCW was verified by independent readings from many bodies). Who's to say that the current warming isn't also a meaningless blip that will disappear in 30 years time? We don't know. What's clear is that the warming effect of CO2 diminishes as CO2 increases (because of the logarithmic relationship that SP pointed out). But the cooling effect of CO2 (photosynthesis etc) does not diminish in the same way. You answer your own point. Both events involve warming the difference as you state is the cause. ETCW was not caused by increased Co2 current warming is. Your entire argument is based around the idea that we don't know what's causing the current warming, but we do. Your reason why we don't know is that we can't be 100% sure what caused the last warming. I note you do not dispute either the increase in Co2, nor the effect increased Co2 has on the retention of heat. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 7, 2023 9:22:04 GMT
But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? Yes, just as heat trapped by duvets leaks into the bedroom, but stick 2 duvets on and more heat is trapped. But not double. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2023 11:24:20 GMT
Does it matter. If it is not CO2 then there is little we can do about it. It may be technically interesting but the globe warmed a bit then went back a bit and that seems to be something that has been happening off and on for various reasons for .. well... ever. It only matters in the sense of those trying to use them to disprove AGW They were not caused by Co2, the current warming is. The current warming is believed by some to be due to CO2. There is a proven laboratory effect which has yet to be shown to be relevant to the earth's system. The whole point is that when statements are made that AGM is the cause they are easily shown to be on shaky ground as regards cause and effect. The 'proof' from models is at best suspect and the predictions made from such models are time and again shown to be inaccurate as the 'tipping points' are passed with no runaway heat occurring. The 0.134C increase per decade actually measured since the 70s does not tally with any of the dire warnings issued in the IPCC reports. The two pauses are a spoke in the theoretical wheel and to mix metaphors the whole edifice is in danger of coming of the rails. Hence the desperation to take us cult like into the future through what appears to be direct and intentional lies. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 11:40:15 GMT
Yes, just as heat trapped by duvets leaks into the bedroom, but stick 2 duvets on and more heat is trapped. But not double. No, but then no one ever claimed double. No one is claiming global temperatures will double to an average 40c I understand that a 12th duvet wont make much difference to the 11th, but no one has said there is no upper end to global warming either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 11:51:27 GMT
No, but then no one ever claimed double. No one is claiming global temperatures will double to an average 40c... Interesting, double from around 15C to 30C? Or double from 60F to 120F? Or double from 288K to 576K? Your use of double in this context is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 11:57:04 GMT
It only matters in the sense of those trying to use them to disprove AGW They were not caused by Co2, the current warming is. The current warming is believed by some to be due to CO2. There is a proven laboratory effect which has yet to be shown to be relevant to the earth's system. The whole point is that when statements are made that AGM is the cause they are easily shown to be on shaky ground as regards cause and effect. The 'proof' from models is at best suspect and the predictions made from such models are time and again shown to be inaccurate as the 'tipping points' are passed with no runaway heat occurring. The 0.134C increase per decade actually measured since the 70s does not tally with any of the dire warnings issued in the IPCC reports. The two pauses are a spoke in the theoretical wheel and to mix metaphors the whole edifice is in danger of coming of the rails. Hence the desperation to take us cult like into the future through what appears to be direct and intentional lies. There is no reason to doubt the laboratory results would not repeat on a global scale. There is no evidence of some other cause for global warming so the reasonable conclusion is that its a danger. I am not aware of any claims that tipping points were as low as 1 degree C. For the moment we are trying to stop global warming because the effects of even a degree of warming are more expensive to deal with than preventing it. I don't like the deniers to have it as easy as they are used to, historically all they have to do is say 'you can't prove it' (Is co2) (Will continue) (Will be bad) I say offer an alternative reason for the warming we are seeing, I say show the effects wont be bad. At the moment we still just get, "Its not grown by the amount you thought" "The weather didn't behave exactly as you predicted" "The ocean adsorbed more heat than you thought" But those preparing for the future cannot wait and see if its as bad as the scientist think, they can't wait to see if theory is proven. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 12:02:31 GMT
No, but then no one ever claimed double. No one is claiming global temperatures will double to an average 40c... Interesting, double from around 15C to 30C? Or double from 60F to 120F? Or double from 288K to 576K? Your use of double in this context is meaningless. I've no idea what you are saying. Average global temperature is 14c. No one has ever claimed that average will double to 28c The argument being put here is that increasing Co2 will have an upper limit on temperature increase. This is obvious for the higher the temperature the more escapes the insulation. I am saying no scientist has ever claimed there is no upper limit, but that the limit attainable is far higher than would be conducive to human society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2023 12:06:27 GMT
Interesting, double from around 15C to 30C? Or double from 60F to 120F? Or double from 288K to 576K? Your use of double in this context is meaningless. I've no idea what you are saying. Average global temperature is 14c. No one has ever claimed that average will double to 28c The argument being put here is that increasing Co2 will have an upper limit on temperature increase. This is obvious for the higher the temperature the more escapes the insulation. I am saying no scientist has ever claimed there is no upper limit, but that the limit attainable is far higher than would be conducive to human society. You are doing it again. You can't see your error which I've tried to point out to you. It is not doubling anything except an arbitrary number based on the boiling point of water. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 12:07:56 GMT
As I understand it global warming has little to do with what heat is created it is how much is allowed to escape. So Urban Heat Islands will have little or no effect on the warming as most of it is dissipated to space. The UHI is important in terms of the readings as there is little doubt that they retain and radiate heat locally for a short period of time and as such can skew the readings showing a warming trend where there may not be. But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? The maths is the amount generated compared to the amount leaking away. To calculate this you need the primary generator and the primary insulator. The primary generator by a millions percent is the sun. The primary insulator is water vapour. Everything else by comparison (UHI for instance) is so small as to be academic. Like saying the dust on a cannon ball contributes to its sinking in the sea. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2023 12:10:52 GMT
I've no idea what you are saying. Average global temperature is 14c. No one has ever claimed that average will double to 28c The argument being put here is that increasing Co2 will have an upper limit on temperature increase. This is obvious for the higher the temperature the more escapes the insulation. I am saying no scientist has ever claimed there is no upper limit, but that the limit attainable is far higher than would be conducive to human society. You are doing it again. You can't see your error which I've tried to point out to you. It is not doubling anything except an arbitrary number based on the boiling point of water. I'm doing it again because I have no idea what you are talking about. So either explain what you are saying better or I will just ignore you. I was answering someone else' s use of the word double. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2023 12:51:13 GMT
As I understand it global warming has little to do with what heat is created it is how much is allowed to escape. So Urban Heat Islands will have little or no effect on the warming as most of it is dissipated to space. The UHI is important in terms of the readings as there is little doubt that they retain and radiate heat locally for a short period of time and as such can skew the readings showing a warming trend where there may not be. But the heat trapped by CO2 also leaks into space. All energy tends to leak out eventually. Why should UHI heat leak out more quickly? It is not the energy built up it is the energy trapped. The energy reaching the earth is broadly the same, the energy dissipated depends on many things one being, apparently, CO2 levels. UDI contributes to localised heat but not to global heat as there is no extra energy there just a different way to radiate it. |
|
